Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WQMP Roripaugh Ranch
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) For: Roripaugh Ranch Project Tract 29353-2 & 29353-3 Prepared for: Ashby USA, LLC 39252 Winchester Road # 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563-3509 Telephone: (951) 699 0207 Contact: Pete Olah Preparation Date: May, 2006 Revision Date: October, 2006 Prepared by: VA Consulting, Inc. 17801 Cartwright Road Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 474 1400 Preparer: Roger Chung Title: Sr. Project Engineer Telephone: (949) 474 1401 ext. 271 VACO Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) For: Roripaugh Ranch Project Tract 29353-2 & 29353-3 Prepared for: Ashby USA, LLC 39252 Winchester Road f# 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563-3509 Telephone: (951) 699 0207 Contact: Pete Olah Preparation Date: May, 2006 Revision Date: October, 2006 Prepared by: V COMA LUNG VA Consulting, Inc. 17801 Cartwright Road Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 474 1400 Preparer: Roger Chung Title: Sr. Project Engineer Telephone: (949) 474 1401 ext. 271 • OWNER'S CERTIFICATION This project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Ashby USA, LLC, of Corona, California, for Tract Map No. 29353-2 and 29353-3 of the project known as Roripaugh Ranch of Temecula, California. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Water permit for the portion of Riverside County within the San Diego Region, Order No. R9-2004-001 (NPDES Permit No. CAS0108766), Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems draining the County of Riverside, the City of Murrieta, the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District within the San Diego Region. 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 City of Temecula Municipal Code (8.28) and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Water permit. 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 e ed and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest." l� �o-z5-ob Own is Signature Date Owner's Printed Name Owner's Title/Position Ashby USA, LLC 39252 Winchester Road # 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563-3509 Telephone: (951) 898 1692 0 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California Q ss. County of /1 t ✓ Ole J tri C J/ % e// /, /� / On Oc7 Z5 ZDD6 before me, /7v1�CYY `/1��✓�%rQ uOTYty &b`r� Date Harm¢ artd Title of Officer (e.g., —/ ( l/ilJ,//'6 g. "Jane Doe, Notary Public n personally appeared jus r Names) al signers) HUBERT MAYRHOFER _CommissiOn M 1522484 41MvComm.ExpNw0c12$ Notary Publi ; - CaliforniaRlverside County.2008 I9personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above Signature IfNotary 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 Document Title or Type of Document: low4Q%J Document Date: to 2-5- 4 6 Number of Pages: / Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: 02004 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., PD, Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 Item No, 5907 Reorder. Call Toll -Free 1-800-876-6827 Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ 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: 02004 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., PD, Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 Item No, 5907 Reorder. Call Toll -Free 1-800-876-6827 0 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION This project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Ashby USA, LLC, of Corona, California, for Tract Map No. 29353-2 and 29353-3 of the project known as Roripaugh Ranch of Temecula, California. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Water permit for the portion of Riverside County within the San Diego Region, Order No. R9-2004-001 (NPDES Permit No. CAS0108766), Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the Municipal Separate Stonn Sewer Systems draining the County of Riverside, the City of Murrieta, the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District within the San Diego Region. 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 City of Temecula Municipal Code (8.28) and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Water permit. 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 e ed and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest." A to z vG (4own Signature Date Ownei s Printed Name Owner's Title/Position Ashby USA, LLC 39252 Winchester Road #107-393 Marrieta, CA 92563-3509 Telephone: (951) 898 1692 0 CALII1FORMIJA ALL-PURPOSE SE ACKNOWLEMMENT State of California County of / J / On DcT ZJr ZODG, before me, �ivl��'6'i �/�R/11 t- 'VkP l� Dale _ I tie or Owner (a.q..'Jane Doe, Norary Pub r.'I personally appeared HUBERT MAYRHOFER Commi lon F 1622484 }z ,.�, Nolory Public • California Rlversloe County bryComm. Fxplra Oct 28, 2008 Place Nolarr Seal Abaw swe'al *personally known to me U proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS/my hand and official seal. '62�Signa� re r�ar% ud' k '.. - 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 Document q Title or Type of Document: / i%vy�t e/'J _ CP(/ It- lI ea/,r 0 y _ __ Document Date: �� - L 7 �o _ —Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Cl Individual C. Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner —U Limited ❑ General CI Attorney in Fact rPP of thumb here ❑ Trustee Q Guardian or Conservator U Other: Signer Is Representing: _ • D n0a ualwnal Polar, Assaoa an • 7350 Do Salo Are., PO. Box 2402 • Ceafs wr l Signer's Name:_— ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑Limited nGeneral ❑ Attorney in Fact TOP of numb bere ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator U Other: Signer Is Representing: . CA 91313 2,f02 hem No 5907 Fletlee Call Tib Free 18C0 876 6827 • ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION I certify under a penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Signature Roger T. Chung Name 10/30/soo(o Date 0 Contents SECTION Page I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 II SITE CHARACTERIZATION 8 III POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 12 IV HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN 21 V BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 24 23 V.1 Site Design BMPs 24 25 V.2 Source Control BMPs 40 31 V.3 Treatment Control BMPs 46 40 VA Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives 55 V.5 Regionally -Based Treatment Control BMPs 55 VI OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS 56 VII FUNDING 63 TABLES 1.1 COMPONENT TRACTS AND PLANNING AREAS OF RR 2 1.2 ADDITIONAL PERMITS/APPROVALS REQUIRED 6 2.1 RECEIVING WATERS FOR URBAN RUNOFF 8 3.1 POLLUTANT OF CONCERN SUMMARY TABLE 12 3.2 PROJECT POLLUTANTS IMPAIRING RECEIVING WATERS 13 3.3 SUMMARY OF PRE- AND POST -PROJECT FLOWS 23 5.1 SITE DESIGN BMPS 25 5.2 STREET BUFFER AND LANDSCAPE MEDIAN WIDTHS 31 5.3 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS 40 • Page Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 5.4 PRINCIPAL TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS 47 5.5 TREATMENT BURDEN AND CAPACITY SUMMARY CHART 48 5.6 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN AND TREATMENT BMPS 52 6.1 BMP INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY & FREQUENCY MATRIX 57 FIGURES B.1 VICINITY MAP B.2 WQMP SITE PLAN B.3 RECEIVING WATERS EXHIBIT F1 SWALE 1 DESIGN F.2 S WALE 2 DESIGN APPENDICES A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL B. VICINITY MAP AND SITE PLAN C. SUPPORTING DETAIL RELATED TO HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN (IF APPLICABLE) D. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS E. SOILS REPORT AND RESULTS OF PERCOLATION TESTS F. TREATMENT CONTROL BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS AND DESIGN DETAILS • Page hi Water:Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October; 2006 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 I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT- SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS I. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST J. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN • 0 Page Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 293532 & 29353-3 October, 2006 I. Project Description Narrative Project Description: The Roripaugh Ranch Project is located on an 804.7 -acre site in Temecula, Riverside County, California. When completed, the project will include 2,015 dwelling units located within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 -acre elementary school site and a 20 -acre middle school site, two public park sites including a 19.7 acre sports park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses. The project will also include three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site and 202.7 acres of natural open space that will be preserved as permanent habitat. Component tracts of the Roripaugh Ranch development will include low and medium density residential areas, a neighborhood commercial site, open space, and areas designated as public institutional (which include public schools). This WQMP provides the project -wide plan to manage water quality for all areas of Tract 29353-2 and 29353-3. This includes the tentative tracts and planning areas listed in Table I. I. LI • Page 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project; Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 1.1: Component Tracts and Planning Areas and Intended Uses of Rnrinanah Ranrh • 0 TentaliveTracts' ': Pro 6sid General Land'Use Des""' a6on 29366 Medium Density Residential Intended Uses: single familydwellingunits and parkingspaces 29367 Low Density Residential Intended Uses: single familydwellingunits and parkingspaces 29368 Low Medium Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces 30766 Low Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces 30767 Low Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces 30768 Medium Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces 32354 Neighborhood Commercial Intended Uses: commercial facilities, open saces 32355 Medium Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces 32356 Medium Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces 32357 Medium Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces 32358 Medium Density Residential Intended Uses: single family dwelling units and parking spaces Additional Areas Planning Area 27 Open Space/Park/Flood Control (Community Sports Park) Intended Uses: community sports park Planning Area 28 Public Institutional (Public Middle School) Intended Uses: School, recreational facilities Planning Area 29 Public Institutional (Public Elementary School) Intended Uses: School, recreational facilities Planning Area 30 Open Space/Park/Flood Control (Recreation Center) Intended Uses: Public park, swimming pools, tennis courts, indoor recreation center 0 Page 3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 — Project Owner: Ashby USA, LLC 39252 Winchester Road # 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563-3509 Telephone: (951) 699 0207 Owner: Richard Ashby Contact: Pete Olah WQMP Preparer: Project Site Address: Planning Area/Community Name: APN Number(s): VA Consulting, Inc. 17801 Cartwright Road Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 474 1400 Preparer: Tom Mullen, P.E., Design Supervisor Telephone: (949) 474 1401 ext. 231 No Street Address. Tracts No. 29353-2 and 29353-3 are located partly in City of Temecula, partly in Riverside County, California. They are subdivisions of Section 21 and a portion of the north '/� of Section 20, T.7.S, R.2.W. Roripaugh Ranch — Tract Nos. 29353-2 and 29353-3 964 460 004, 007, 008, 009 964 180 013, 014 Thomas Bros. Map: Riverside County Maps (2005) Numbers 929 (grid E7) & 959 (grid E) Project Watershed: Santa Margarita River (Hydrologic Unit Number 902) Sub -watershed: Santa Gertrudis Creek / Long Valley Wash (Hydrologic Unit Number 2.42) Project Site Size: 804.7 acres is page 4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: SIC 1521 - Single Family Residential SIC -1522 -Multi Family Residential SIC -5900 - General Retail SIC -8290 - Schools SIC -5812 - Restaurants Formation Home Owners' Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA): Yes — HOA and POA to be formed Types of Facilities on Site: Types of Wastes Generated by Project Activities: Low Medium Density Residential units, Neighborhood Commercial, Open Space, Public Institutional (public elementary and middle schools) Domestic waste: Domestic waste includes biodegradable waste (food and kitchen waste, green waste, paper), recyclable waste (paper, glass, bottles, cans, metals, plastics), and inert waste (dirt, rocks, debris). Waste from parks: Waste produced in parks includes green waste that is biodegradable, such as grass, flower cuttings, hedge trimmings. These can originate from activities that include gardening, landscaping, driving, loading and unloading materials. They also include activities related to the maintenance of fields used for sports and the maintenance of a community sports park. Commercial waste: Commercial waste includes wastes generated by premises that are used wholly or mainly for the purposes of trade or business, or the purposes of sport, recreation, education or entertainment. These include wastes, refuse, chemicals associated with school related activities, as well as activities associated with the operation of a sports complex. All of these wastes are to be handled according to appropriate city, county, state, and federal requirements. Domestic and commercial wastes will be collected and disposed of on a regularly scheduled basis both during and. after project construction. Page 5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Materials Storage and Delivery Areas: Designated sites will be allocated for materials storage and delivery. Chemicals for pool operation, lawn maintenance and other required activities will be stored within appropriately designed structures according to city, county, state and federal requirements. Materials will be covered in advance of rain events and delivery areas will be kept clean and free of trash, debris and sediment. Materials and storage delivery areas will be maintained in a manner to reduce or eliminate the pollution of stormwater. Wastes will be placed in appropriately designed containers at protected and covered sites throughout the project site. The types of containers that will be used are listed below. Domestic waste: Domestic wastes will be placed in curbside garbage containers. These containers will not, however, be used for paints, oils, cleaning products, pesticides or household hazardous wastes, which must be delivered to a recycling center or taken at a scheduled time to a specified Household Hazardous Waste Collection site in Temecula (pickup • schedule is available from the Riverside County Waste Management Department). The local City of Temecula CR&R Waste Recycling Services can provide residences with 60 gallon automated containers and 3 yard temporary bins for clean up projects. Waste from parks: Green wastes generated from park related activities will be placed in containers and collected on a regularly scheduled basis. The containers may include 1.5 to 10 cubic yard rear load dumpsters. Commercial waste: Commercial wastes can be placed into large trash dumpsters (such as 10, 20, 30 or 40 cubic yard roll off dumpsters) that will he emptied on a regularly scheduled basis by a service operating locally. is Page 6 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 W..6161 ?- Additional PPrmitc/Annrnvals Renuired for the Proiect AGENCY PERMIT REQUIRED (YES OR NO) State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Yes (permit obtained as part of larger Alteration Agreement Roripaugh Ranch project) SAA 6-2001-205 State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Yes (permit obtained as part of larger Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification Roripaugh Ranch project) File No. 01C-091; WDID No. 9 00001C091 US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA Section 404 Yes (permit obtained as part of larger permit Roripaugh Ranch project) Section 404 Permit No. 97-2010800- RRS US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act section Yes (obtained as part of larger Roripaugh 7 Biological Opinion Ranch project) NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Yes associated with Construction Activity (General Permit) Water Quality Order 99 -08 -DW City of Temecula Grading Permit Yes City of Temecula Building Permit Yes Page 7 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Vicinity Map and Site Plan: Appendix B of this project -specific WQMP shall include: 1. A Vicinity Map identifying the project site and surrounding planning areas in sufficient detail to allow the project site to be plotted on Co -Permittee base mapping; and 2. A Site Plan for the project. The Site Plan included as part of Appendix B depicts the following project features: ■ Location and identification of all structural BMPs, including Treatment Control BMPs; ■ Landscaped areas; ■ Paved areas and intended uses (i.e., parking, outdoor work area, outdoor material storage area, sidewalks, patios, tennis courts, etc.); ■ Number and type of structures and intended uses (i.e., buildings, tenant spaces, dwelling units, community facilities such as pools, recreation facilities, tot lots, etc.); ■ Infrastructure (i.e., streets, storm drains, etc.) that will revert to public agency ownership and operation; ■ Location of existing and proposed public and private storm drainage facilities (i.e., storm drains, channels, basins, etc.), including catch basins and other inlets/outlet structures. Existing and proposed drainage facilities should be clearly differentiated; ■ Location(s) of Receiving Waters to which the project directly or indirectly discharges; ■ Location of points where onsite (or tributary offsite) flows exit the property/project site; ■ Proposed drainage areas boundaries, including tributary offsite areas, for each location where flows exits the property/project site. Each tributary area should be clearly denoted; ■ Pre- and post -project topography. Page 8 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 II. Site Characterization Land Use Designation or Zoning: L - Low Density Residential Designated LM - Low Medium Density Residential Beneficial Uses* M - Medium Density Residential PI - Public Institutional NC - Neighborhood Commercial Santa Gertrudis Creek OS - Open Space/Park/Flood Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Control Current Property Use: Undeveloped Proposed Property Use: Residential, Commercial, Institutional, Open (I' receiving water) Space Availability of Soils Report: Yes (on file at City of Temecula) Phase 1 Site Assessment: Yes (on file at City of Temecula) T�61e 2 1- Reeeivino Waters for l Jrhan Runoff from Site Receiving Water CWA 303(d) Designated Proximity to List Impairments Beneficial Uses* RARE Beneficial Use Santa Gertrudis Creek Not on 303(d) list Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Channel Rec 1, Rec2, Warm, (I' receiving water) Wild N/A Hydrologic Unit Basin (Potential: Gwr) Number 2.42 Reach l: Butterfield Stage Road to Fiesta Ranch Road Santa Gertrudis Creek Not on 303(d) list Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Channel Reel, Rec2, Warm, N/A (1' receiving water) Wild Hydrologic Unit Basin (Potential: Gwr) Number 2.42 Reach 2: Fiesta Ranch Road to Joesph Road Santa Gertrudis Creek Not on 303(d) list Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Channel Rec1, Rec2, Warm, N/A (I' receiving water) Wild Hydrologic Unit Basin (Potential: Gwr) Number 2.42 Reach 3: Joseph Road to Murrieta Creek Page 9 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tnhte 2.1 front-): Receivino Waters for Urban Runoff from Site Receiving Water CWA 303(d) Designated Proximity to List Impairments Beneficial Uses* RARE Beneficial Use Long Valley Wash Not on 303(d) list Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, (also V receiving water) Rec1, Rec2, Warm, Hydrologic Unit Basin Wild N/A Number 2.42 (Potential: Gwr) Murrieta Creek Phosphorous Man, Agr, Ind, Proc, N/A (2od receiving water) Rec2, Warm, Wild Hydrologic Unit (Potential: Reel) Basin Number 2.32 Santa Margarita River Phosphorous Mun, Agr, Ind, Reel, Santa Margarita (3`d receiving water) Rec2, Warm, Cold, River includes Hydrologic Unit Basin Wild, Rare RARE beneficial Number 2.22 use; distance to project from confluence with Murrieta Creek = 8.8 miles; total distance from project site to Pacific Ocean = 39.9 miles Santa Margarita River Phosphorous Mun, Agr, Ind, Reel, Santa Margarita (3`d receiving water) Rec2, Warm, Cold, River includes Hydrologic Unit Basin Wild, Rare RARE beneficial Number 2.21 use; distance to project from upriver portion of this reach = 15.8 miles; total distance from project site to Pacific Ocean = 39.9 miles J Page 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP): Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tnhle 2.7 front_)! Rereivino Waters for Urban Runoff from Site Santa Margarita River Not on 303(d) list Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Santa Margarita (continuation of 3'd for lower portion of Rec 1, Rec2, Warm, River includes receiving water) river (more than 18 Cold, Wild, Rare RARE beneficial Hydrologic Unit miles from use; distance to Basin Number 2.13 headwaters) project from upriver portion of this reach = 23.3 miles; total distance from project site to Pacific Ocean = 39.9 miles Santa Margarita River Not on 303(d) list Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Santa Margarita (continuation of 3d for lower portion of Rec 1, Rec2, Warm, River includes receiving water) river (more than 18 Cold, Wild, Rare RARE beneficial Hydrologic Unit Basin miles from use; distance to Number 2.12 headwaters) project from upriver portion of this reach = 28.3 miles; total distance from project site to Pacific Ocean = 39.9 miles Santa Margarita River Not on 303(d) list Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Santa Margarita (continuation of 3rd for lower portion of Rec I, Rec2, Warm, River includes receiving water) river (more than 18 Cold, Wild, Rare RARE beneficial Hydrologic Unit Basin miles from use; distance to Number 2.11 headwaters) project from upriver portion of this reach = 33 miles; total distance from project site to Pacific Ocean = 39.9 miles 0 Page 11 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 2 1 cont.: Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from Site Receiving Water CWA 303(d) List Impairments Designated Beneficial Uses' Proximity to RARE Beneficial Use Santa Margarita Lagoon Eutrophic Mun, Agr, Ind, Proc, Santa Margarita (continuation of 3`d Recl, Rec2, Warm, River includes receiving water) Cold, Wild, Rare RARE beneficial Hydrologic Unit Basin use; distance to Number 2.11 project from upriver portion of this lagoon = 39.2 miles; total distance from project site to Pacific Ocean = 39.9 miles Pacific Ocean at Camp Not Applicable Ind, Nav, Rec 1, Pacific Ocean Pendleton Rec2, Comm, Biol, includes RARE (41° and final receiving Wild, Rare, Mar, beneficial use; water) Aqua, Migr, Spwn, distance to project Shell = 39.9 miles f (Designated Beneficial Uses defined in Section 2 of the San Diego Regional water tluauty t.ontroi Board Basin Plan) r1 U Page 12 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 III. Pollutants of Concern Table 3.1 lists pollutants of concern for the project, according to the table on Page B-2 of the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff (Santa Ana and Santa Margarita River regions - September 17, 2004). Table 3.2 lists project pollutants impairing receiving waters (the list of receiving waters is extracted from the 1995 Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan, published by the Santa Ana Region RWQCB). Table 3.1 Pollutant of Concern Summary Table PoIlutauts �'.Potentialso ,,;303 Liiting, ; Ez acted Potential;; . Sediment Landscaping No Nutrients Landscaping -Yes (phosphorous)_ Organic Com unds Vehicles No Trash and Debris Human Activities No Oxygen Demanding Substances Landscaping No Bacteri i/Viruses Animal Waste No Oil/Grease Vehicles No Pesticides Landscaping No Metals Vehicles No 0 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tol.ln '2 �• Prninrt Pnllntanta imnairina Rereivina Waters Proximate Receiving Waters For all Project Discharge Points Listed on Clean Water Act Section 303(d)? Pollutants for which Proximate Receiving Waters are Impaired re: CWA Section 303(d) Pollutants of Concern for Project and Comparison with Pollutants for which Proximate Receiving Waters are Impaired re VWA Section 303(d)* Comments _ Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel No Not on 303(d) N/A N/A (1" receiving list water) Hydrologic Unit Basin Number 2.42 Reach l: Butterfield Stage Road to Fiesta Ranch Road Santa GenTudis Creek Channel No Not on 303(d) N/A N/A (1" receiving list water) Hydrologic Unit Basin Number 2.42 Reach 2: Fiesta Ranch Road to Joes h Road page 14 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 3.2 (cont.): Proiect Pollutants Imaairine Receivine Waters Proximate Listed on Pollutants for Pollutants of Concern for Project and Receiving Waters Clean which Comparison with Pollutants for which Comments For all Project Water Act Proximate Proximate Receiving Waters are Discharge Points Section Receiving Impaired re V WA Section 303(d)" 303(d)? Waters are Impaired re: CWA Section 303(d) Santa Gerlrudis Creek Channel No Not on 303(d) N/A N/A (1" receiving list - water) Hydrologic Unit Basin Number 2.42 Reach 3: Joseph Road to Murrieta Creek Long Valley Wash (also 1" receiving Not on 303(d) water) No list N/A N/A Hydrologic Unit Basin Number 2.42 Page 15 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tahle 3.7 (ennt_1- Prniprt Pnllutnnts intnnirinn Receivinv Waters Proximate Listed on Pollutants for Pollutants of Concern for Project and Receiving Waters Clean which Comparison with Pollutants for which Comments For all Project Water Act Proximate Proximate Receiving Waters are Discharge Points Section Receiving Impaired re VWA Section 303(d)' -, 303(d)? Waters are Impaired re: CWA Section 303(d) Murrieta Creek Typical Pollutants of Concern: Phosphorous is a nutrient and oxygen demanding (2" d receiving • Sediment/turbidity substance typically present in the urban runoff from water) Yes Phosphorous • Oxygen demanding substances residential and commercial developments. Common Hydrologic Unit sources are fertilizers and eroded soils. It is.unlikely Basin Number 2.32 • Nutrients that levels of phosphorous in urban runoff from this • Bacteria and viruses tract will differ from levels contained within runoff • Pesticides from typical urban/residential development tracts • Organic compounds within this region of Riverside County. Phosphorous will be treated to acceptable levels by the BMPs • Trash and Debris proposed in this WQMP. • Metals • Oil and Grease Page 16 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 3.2 (cont.): Proiect Pallutants lmnairino Receivinu Water. - Proximate Listed on Pollutants for . Pollutants of Concern for Project and Receiving Waters Clean which Comparison with Pollutants for which Comments For all Project Water Act Proximate Proximate Receiving Waters are Discharge Points Section Receiving Impaired re VWA Section 303(d)" 303(d)? Waters are Impaired re: CWA Section 303(d) Pollutants of Concern: Phosphorous is a nutrient and oxygen demanding Santa Margarita • Sediment/turbidity substance typically present in the urban runoff from River Yes Phosphorous • Oxygen demanding substances residential and commercial developments. Common (3rd receiving (upper sources are e fertilizers and eroded soils. Itis unlikely water) portion) • Nutrients that levels of phosphorous in urban runoff from this Hydrologic Unit • Bacteria and viruses tract will differ from levels contained within runoff Basin Number 2.22 • Pesticides from typical urbanlresidential development tracts • Organic Compounds within this region of Riverside County. Phosphorous will be treated to acceptable levels by the BMPs • Trash and Debris proposed in this WQMP. • Metals • Oil and Grease • _0 Page 17 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 3.2 (cont.): Proiect Pollutants ImaairinQ Receiving Waters Proximate Receiving Waters For all Project Discharge Points Listed on Clean Water Act Section 303(d)? Pollutants for which Proximate Receiving Waters are Impaired re: CWA Section 303(d) Pollutants of Concern for Project and Comparison with Pollutants for which Proximate Receiving Waters are Impaired re VWA Section 303(d)* Comments Santa Margarita Yes Phosphorous Pollutants of Concern: Phosphorous is a nutrient and oxygen demanding River (upper • Sedimentfturbidity substance typically present in the urban runoff from (3`d receiving portion) • Oxygen demanding substances residential and commercial developments. Common water) sources are fertilizers and eroded soils. It is unlikely Hydrologic Unit • Nutrients that levels of phosphorous in urban runoff from this Basin Number 2.21 • Bacteria and viruses tract will differ from levels contained within runoff • Pesticides from typical urban/residential development tracts • Organic Compounds within this region of Riverside County. Phosphorous will be treated to acceptable levels by the BMPs • Trash and Debris proposed in this WQMP. • Metals • Oil and Grease No Not on 303(d) N/A Santa Margarita list for lower River portion of river (continuation of 3`d (more than 18 receiving water) miles from Hydrologic Unit headwaters) Basin Number 1.13 page 18 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 3.2 (cont.): Proiect Pollutants Imnairing Receiving Waters Proximate Listed on Pollutants for Pollutants of Concern for Project and Receiving Waters Clean which Comparison with Pollutants for which Comments For all Project Water Act Proximate. Proximate Receiving Waters are Discharge Points Section Receiving Impaired re VWA Section 303(d)" 303(d)? Waters are Impaired re: CWA Section 303(d) Santa Margarita No Not on 303(d) N/A River (continuation list for lower of 3`d receiving portion of river water) (more than 18 Hydrologic Unit miles from Basin Number 2.12 headwaters) Santa Margarita No Not on 303(d) N/A River (continuation list for lower of Y receiving portion of river water) (more than 18 Hydrologic Unit miles from Basin Number 2.11 headwaters) Page 19 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 3.2 (cont.): Proiect Pollutants Imoairine Receivine Waters Proximate Listed on Pollutants for Pollutants of Concern for Project and Receiving Waters . Clean which Comparison with Pollutants for which Comments For all Project Water Act Proximate Proximate Receiving Waters are Discharge Points Section Receiving Impaired re V WA Section 303(d)* 303(d)? Waters are Impaired re: CWA Section 303(d) Santa Margarita Yes Eutrophic Pollutants of Concern: Eutrophication is caused by excessive plant nutrients. Lagoon • Sediment/turbidity Nutrients generated by this project will be treated to (continuation of 3�acceptable levels by the proposed BMPs within this receiving water) • Oxygen demanding substances project to avoid exacerbating current levels of Hydrologic Unit • Nutrients eutrophication-related stress within the lagoon. Basin Number 2.11 • Bacteria and viruses • Pesticides • Organic Compounds • Trash and Debris • Metals • Oil and Grease Pacific Ocean at ' Camp Pendleton No N/A N/A N/A LI Page 20 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Discussion of Legacy Pollutants Historical activities that have taken place at the Roripaugh Ranch project site that have the potential to impact water quality include farming activities. The BMPs that will be included within the project are designed to remove sediment and chemical constituents of urban runoff after construction, including potential legacy pesticides and nutrients from historical agricultural activities. Discussion of Pollutant of Concern The runoff from this project is anticipated to discharge into Murrieta Creek. This watercourse is listed on the 2002 303(d) list as impaired for phosphorous, a nutrient. As such, the POC for this site is phosphorous. • Page 21 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 IV. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern As required by Section 4.4 of the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, a project -specific WQMP must address the issue of Hydrologic Conditions of Concern unless one of the following conditions is met: Condition A: Runoff from the project is discharged directly to a publicly -owned, operated and maintained MS4 facility. The runofffrom this project is not discharged directly into a MS4 facility. Condition B: The project disturbs less than 1 acre of land. This project disturbs greater than one acre of land. Condition C: The project's runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post - development condition do not exceed those of the pre -development condition for the 2 -year, 24-hour and 10 -year, 24-hour rainfall events. A HEC -1 analysis of runoff from the site shows that the project's runoff flow rate and volume exceed those of the pre -development condition for the 2 -year, 24-hour and 10 year, 24-hour rainfall events. Therefore, in accordance with Section 4.4 of the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, the Applicant is including an evaluation of potential of the project to cause a significant increase in downstream erosion compared to the pre -development condition and/or cause significant adverse impacts to stream habitat. Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash flow through engineered channels within the Roripaugh Ranch project. Downstream of the project Long Valley Wash confluences with Santa Gertrudis Creek Santa Gertrudis Creek then continues downstream to its confluence with Murrieta Creek Downstream of the Roripaugh Ranch Project, Santa Gertrudis Creek can be divided into three reaches. The first reach runs from Butterfield Stage Road to Fiesta Ranch Road. The second reach runs from Fiesta Ranch Road to Joseph Road. The third reach runs from Joseph Road to the confluence with Murrieta Creek The first and third reaches will eventually consist of engineered channels. Paye 22 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative. Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 The second reach of Santa Gertrudis Creek is a natural channel between Fiesta Ranch Road and Joseph Road This 40 to 80 foot wide reach has an earthen bottom and side slopes. In portions of this natural reach the unconfined creek becomes a series of braided channels and the banks appear unstable. A small portion, but not all, of this natural reach will be improved as part of Roripaugh Ranch development. The remaining portion of this reach to Joseph Road, will remain natural. The attached drainage analysis shows the increase in post project stormwater flows from Roripaugh Ranch into Santa Gertrudis Creek These post project flows actually diminish with respect to current flows. However, potential exists for these flows to impact the unstable slopes of the natural reach. Such adverse hydrologic impacts would not be fully mitigated by the implementation of Site Design BMP concepts because the approved tract map does not provide for sufficient on-site infiltration to reduce peak flows sufficiently and because the reconfigured topography • within the project site will not allow runoff to mimic existing conditions. Therefore, in accordance with Section 4.4 of the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff (September, 2004), the project applicant will adopt 'Methodology A' to address the potential impacts to Santa Gertrudis Creek 'Methodology A' involves designing a detention basin capable of all of the following: 1. Releasing the post -development 2 -year and 10 year, 24-hour volume at flow rates less than or equal to the pre -development 2 -year and 10 - year, 24-hour peak flow rates, respectively. 2. Passing the 100 year storm event without damage to the facility. 3. Controlling outlet velocities such that downstream erosion and habitat loss is minimized. A summary of hydrologic flow rates from the pre- and post -development conditions is included in Appendix C, Table C-1: "Summary of Flow Rates Calculated from HEC -1 Hydraulic Model. " • Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 A summary table of pre- and post -project flows for the project is included below. 3.3: e of:` of Pre- and Post - T. Page 23 San Q (cfs) 136 136 515 509 3329 3322 Gertrudis V ft/sec 3.01 3.01 5.02 5.00 15.87 11.04 Creek Vol.(ac-ft) 102 104 216 1216 540 525 Duration (hours/ minutes 24 hours (1440 mins) 24 hours (1440 mins) 24 hours (1440 mins) 24 hours (1440 mins) 3 hours (180 mins) 3 hours (180 mins) Long Q (cfs) 182 173 334 333 4272 4186 Valley V ft/sec 2.19 5.35 2.75 6.27 5.64 10.01 Wash Vol.(ac-ft) 137 141 221 222 628 604 Duration (minutes) 24 hours 1440 mins 24 hours 1440 mins 24 hours 1440 mins 24 hours 1440 mins 3 hours 180 mins 3 hours 180 mins Ll Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 293513 October, 2006 V. Best Management Practices V.1 SITE DESIGN BMPS Site Design BMP concepts that are integral to this specific project achieve the following: 1) Minimize Urban Runoff 2) Minimize Impervious Footprint 3) Conserve Natural Areas 4) Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) Tables on the following pages show the BMPs that are, and are not, to be implemented within the scope of this project. A narrative description of applicable BMPs follows each table 24 Page Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 293513 October, 2006 V. Best Management Practices V.1 SITE DESIGN BMPS Site Design BMP concepts that are integral to this specific project achieve the following: 1) Minimize Urban Runoff 2) Minimize Impervious Footprint 3) Conserve Natural Areas 4) Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) Tables on the following pages show the BMPs that are, and are not, to be implemented within the scope of this project. A narrative description of applicable BMPs follows each table Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 5.1 - Site Desiun RMP. - Design Technique Specific BMP Yes No Concept I. I.A. Site Design Minimize Urban Concepti Runoff LA.a. Maximize the permeable area (See Section 4.5.1 of the WQMP). • I.A.b. Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets. • I.A.c. Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and planting additional native or drought • tolerant trees and large shrubs. I.A.d. Use natural drainage systems. • I.A.e. Where soil conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe or gravel filtration pits • for low flow filtration. I.A.f. Construct onsite ponding areas or retention facilities to increase • opportunities for infiltration consistent - with vector control objectives. Page 26 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tahle A-1 fcnntli: Site Desitin RMPs Design Technique Specific BMP Yes No Concept I. I.A. I.A.g. Site Design Minimize Urban Other comparable and equally effective Concept I Runoff site design concepts as approved by the Co -Permittee –f. —B. 1. Minimize Site Design Impervious Concepti Footprint I.B.a Maximize the permeable area (See Section 4.5.1 of the WQMP). • I.B.b. Construct walkways, trails, patios, overflow parking lots, alleys, driveways, low -traffic streets with other low -traffic areas with open jointed • paving materials or permeable surfaces, such as pervious concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and granular materials. I.B.c. Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to the minimum • widths necessary, provided that public safety and a walkable environment for pedestrians are not compromised. I.B.d. Reduce widths of street where off-street parking is available. • I.B.e. Minimize the use of impervious surfaces, such as decorative concrete, in • the landscape design. Page 27 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 T..l.lo S 1 !rant l• C%to nPeian RMPQ Design Technique Specific BMP Yes No Concept 1, I.C. I.BI Site Design Concept 1 Conserve Natural Areas Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the • Co -Permittee. I.C.a. Conserve natural areas (See WQMP Section 4.5.1). • I.C.b. Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by preserving • existing native trees and shrubs, and planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. I.C.C. Use natural drainage systems. • I.C.d. Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the • Co -Permittee. Page 28 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Takia Q 1 (rant_)- Site fleaian RMPa Design Technique Specific BMP Yes No Concept II. II.A. ❑.A.a Site Design Minimize Directly Residential and commercial sites must Concept Connected Impervious Areas be designed to contain and infiltrate roof runoff, or direct roof runoff to • (DCIAs) vegetative swales or buffer areas, where feasible. II.A.b. Where landscaping is proposed, drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, • and patios into adjacent landscaping. II.A.c. Increase the use of vegetated drainage swales in lieu of underground piping or • imperviously lined swales. II.A.d. Rural swale systems: street sheet flows to vegetated swale or gravel shoulder, • curbs at street comers, culverts under driveways and street crossings. II.A.e. Urban curb/swale system: street slopes to curb; periodic swale inlets drain to • vegetated swale/biofilter. II.A.f. Dual drainage system: first flush captured in street catch basins and • discharged to adjacent vegetated swale or gravel shoulder, high flows connect directly to MS4s. • Page 29 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tahle 5_t tennt.le Site Design BMPs • J Design Technique Specific BMP Yes No Concept Site Design Minimize Directly II.A.g. Concept 2 Connected Design driveways with shared access, Impervious Areas flared (single lane at street) or wheel • (DCIAs) strips (paving only under tires); or drain landscaping prior to discharging to the MS4. II.A.f. Uncovered temporary or guest parking on private residential lots may be paved • with a permeable surface, or designed to drain into landscaping prior to discharging to the MS4. II.A.i. Where landscaping is proposed in parking areas, incorporate landscape 0 areas into the drainage design. ILA.j. Overflow parking (parking stalls provided in excess of the Co- Permittee's minimum parking requirements) may be constructed with permeable paving. II.A.k. Other comparable and equally effective design concepts as approved by the Co - Permittee. . : Page 30 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 L Site Design Concept 1 LA. Minimize Urban runoff LA.a. Maximize the permeable area Description: The permeable area will be maximized by incorporating vegetated areas within the project. As described in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, the landscaping design shall include trees, shrubs and ground cover. Vegetation shall include native and / or drought -tolerant species (see I.C..b of this section for a list of candidate species) to increase overall site permeability. Portions of Long Valley Channel will be widened with a soft bottom and lined with armorflex along the banks. The armorjlex will be hydroseeded, as requested by the RWQCB. I.A.b. Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets Description: The project design includes landscaped buffer areas between • sidewalks and streets where allowed by the City of Temecula. Table 5.2 highlights landscaped buffer and median widths. Page 31 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 5.2: Street Buffer and Landsca ed Median Widths Type of Road Specific Road in Tract/ Overall Total Buffer Width Buffer Width Project Planning Width Available On Available on Area (feet) Road Sides (feet) Landscaped Median feet Augmented Butterfield Stage Adjacent 122 14 14 Arterial Highway Road from to PA 11, Murrieta Hot 12, 13, 14 Springs Road to Nicolas Road Modified Arterial Murrieta Hot Adjacent 110 12 14 Highway Springs Road to PA 6, (MWD to 9A, 9B, Butterfield Stage 10,11 Road Arterial Highway Portions of Pas: 22, 110 None (bike path 14 Butterfield Stage 26, 27, instead) Road 32,33A Arterial Highway Butterfield Stage Adjacent 110 12 14 Road from to PA 9B Murrieta Hot and 13 Springs to northern project boundary Modified Arterial Murrieta Hot Adjacent 110 14.5 (includes 1.5 of 14 Highway Springs Road to PA 4A, landscape easement) 4B,8 Modified Nicolas Road Adjacent 110 16 N/A Secondary (from Butterfield to Pas 12, Highway Stage Road to the 33A, 33B west project boundary Modified North and South Adjacent 76 20 12 Principal Loop Roads to Pas: Collector Road 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30,31 Modified Street A Adjacent 66 12 N/A (10 foot Collector Road to Pas 6, median is 11 ainted Modified Street A Adjacent 66 12 N/A (10 foot Collector Road to Pas 11, median is 12 ainted 4D Page 32 --- Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)- Roripaugh. Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 5.2: Street Buffer and Landscaped Median Widths Type of Road Speck Road in Tract / Overall Total Buffer Width Buffer Width Project Planning Width Available On Available on Area (feet) Road Sides (feet) Landscaped Ipainted) Median feet Modified Street B Adjacent 66 12 N/A (10 foot Collector Road to PA 12 median is Local Road All planning areas All PAs 60 8 N/A Modified Local All planning areas All PAs 44/56 9 N/A Road Private Streets Within single Within 36/47 9 N/A family planning single areas zoned L, family LM, M1, M2 planning areas zoned L, LM, M 1, M2 Private Streets Private streets Pas: 12, 32/43 9 N/A within Single 14, 15, Family and 22, 23, Clustered 24,31 Planning Areas within M2 zoning designation Private Streets Streets where no 24/35 9 N/A on street parking allowed Private Street PA 10 56 9 12 Card key gated entry Private Street Murrieta Hot PA 3,4A 108 18 Varies Staffed Gated Springs Road and Primary Entry Pourroy Road Private Street PA IA, 2, 70 21 15 Card Key Gated 4A, 413, Entry 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 33A Private Street South Loop Road PA 21, 22 110 20 N/A Staffed Gated North Loop Road PA 30 Primary En page 33 - Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 _ October, 2006 I.A.c. Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. Description: Because the site will largely be graded and because the existing vegetation cover is sparse, only a small quantity of existing trees willbe preserved However the development includes planting new trees and shrubs that are native and/or drought tolerant, thereby increasing canopy interception (I. C. b. of this section includes a list of candidate species that can be planted). Table 5.2 identifies the dimensions of street buffers and landscaped median widths that will be incorporated to maximize canopy interception and water conservation. The overallproject will also include 202 acres of natural open space. I.A.d. Use natural drainage systems. Description: The proposed grading of the project will generally maintain the existing historic drainage patterns onsite. The project wal collect • and convey runoffthrough developed areas via a combination of curbs, gutters and storm drains that eventually connect to the natural drainage channels of Long Valley Wash and Santa Gertrudis Creek I.A.e. Where soil conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe or gravel filtration pits for low flow infiltration. Description: Perforated pipes will not be incorporated into the project design to provide low flow infdtration for excess stormwater runoff. Alternatively, two dual -use vegetated Swale / infiltration systems within the project site willprovide low flow infdtration. Runoff from tentative tracts 30766, 32354, 31355, 32356, and a portion of tract 29368 within the western portion of this project will enter Swale 1. Runoffjrom tentative tract 29367 and portions of tentative tract 29366 and 29368 in the easternportion ofthis project will enter Swale 2. Both of these serve as vegetated swales/mfdtration BMPs. Section V.3 provides general information on the quantity of infdtration within these swales and Appendix F provides specific calculations regarding the sizing of swales to provide infiltration. Table 5.4 identifies which structural BMPs will be included for different tracts within this entire project 0, • Page 34 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 I.A.L Construct onsite ponding areas or retention facilities to increase opportunities for infiltration consistent with vector control objectives. Description: Two vegetated swales (Swale 1 & Swale 2) will be constructed within the project site. Infiltration will occur within these swales (Appendix Fprovides information on the quantity ofinfihration). I.A.g. Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the Co -Permittee. Description: Site design concepts that will serve this project include incorporating vegetated buffers and channeling stormwaterJlow through one of two vegetated swales in portions of the project I.B. Minimize Impervious Footprint I.B.a. Maximize the permeable area (See Section 4.5.1 of the WQMP). Description: Permeable areas will be maximized by incorporating vegetated areas within the project site. As described in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, the landscaping design shall include trees, shrubs and ground cover. Vegetation shallinclude native and / or drought -tolerant species (see LC.b. of this section for a list of candidate species) to increase overall site permeability. Portions of Long Valley Channel will be widened with a soft bottom and lined with armorfkx along the banks. The armorjlex will be hydroseeded, as requested by the RWQCB. I.B.b. Construct walkways, trails, patios, overflow parking lots, alleys, driveways, low - traffic streets and other low -traffic areas with open -jointed paving materials or permeable surfaces, such as porous concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and granular materials. Description: The project design will not incorporate open jointed paving material and permeable surfaces such as porous concrete or asphalt This project will allernadvely include vegetated buffers adjacent to streets and two vegetated swales. Inji tration will occur within these swales (Appendix Fprovides information on the quantity of infiltration and the sizing of vegetated swales). I.B.c. Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary, provide that public safety and a walkable environment for pedestrians are not compromised. Description: The widths ofstreets, sidewalks and parking lots have been limited 10 Page 35 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 to minimum widths specified by the City of Temecula to reduce areas of impermeable surfaces. Table 5.2, Figure 5. 1, and Figure B.2 highlight landscaped buffer and median widths. I.B.d. Reduce widths of street where off-street parking is available. Description: On streets where off-street parking is available, street widths have been designed to the minimum widths required by the City of Temecula to reduce areas of impermeable surface. LB.e. Minimize the use of impervious surfaces, such as decorative concrete, in the landscape design. Description: No decorative surfaces have yet been designed or planned for incorporation into the project The project design instead includes pervious areas, such as landscaping along road medians and sidewalks (see Table 5.2, Figure 5. 1, and Figure B.2). I.B.f. Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the Co -Permittee. Description: The two vegetated swales will allow particles and pollutants to settle out and infiltration to occur (see Appendix Ffor discussion of infiltration). I.C. Conserve Natural Areas I.C.a. Conserve natural areas (see WQMP Section 4.5.1) Description: The proposed grading of the project will also generally maintain the existing historic drainage patterns onsite. Because the site will largely be graded and because the existing vegetation cover is sparse, only a small quantity of existing trees may be preserved However the development includes planting new trees and shrubs that are native and/or drought tolerant, thereby increasing canopy interception (I.Ch. of this section includes a list of candidate species that can be planted). Table 5.2 identifies the dimensions of street buffers and landscaped median widths that will be incorporated to maximize canopy interception and water conservation. The project wig also include 202 acres of natural open space. I.C.b. Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. Description: - Landscape slope protection will be incorporated on all excavated slopes. The project development includes planting new trees and • Page Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 shrubs throughout the suet, thereby increasing canopy interception. These include drought tolerant andlornative trees/shrubs. Candidate species include: Trees and tree -like shrubs: Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) Laurel sumac (Malosma Laurin) Bush mallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatus) Flannelbush (Fremomodendron californicum) Coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) Blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus) Toyon (Heteromeles arbudfolfa) Lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) Huckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus) Squaw bush (Rhus trilobata) Smaller shrubs for landscapine: Brittlebush (Encelfa farinosa) • Matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri) Black sage (Salvia mellifera) White sage (Salvia apiana) LC.c. Use natural drainage systems. VM Description: The proposed grading of the project willgenerally maintain the existing historic drainage patterns onsite, including that of Long Valley Channel (shown on Exhibit B.1: WQMP Site Plan). The project will collect and convey runoffthrough developed areas via a combination of curbs, gutters and storm drains that eventually channel water to the natural drainage channels of Long Valley Channel and Santa Gertrudis Creek. I.C.d. Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the Co -permittee Description: The primary design concepts that will serve this project include vegetated buffers, inclusion of open space and vegetated swales. Other opportunities for increasing infiltration will be considered if they arise during more detailed project design. H. Site Design Concept 2 II.A. Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) II.A.a. Residential and commercial sites must be designed to contain and infiltrate roof runoff, or direct roof runoff to vegetation swales or buffer • areas, where feasible. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 - October, 2006 Page 37 Description: . Roof runoffjrom residential and commercial sties fust flows into areas adjacent to buildings before it drains to roads In some cases these areas include lawns that allow infdtration to occur. Runofffrom tentative tracts 29367, 30766, 32354, 32355, 32356, and from portions of tentative tracts 29366 and 29368 is directed into Swale I or Swale 2. II.A.b. Where landscaping is proposed, drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios into adjacent landscaping. Description: Landscaping is provided between sidewalks and street curbs to the extent allowed by the Riverside County and City of Temecula Road Improvement Standards (see Table 5.2, Figure 5.1, and Figure B.2). This allows runofffrom impervious sidewalks and driveways to flow into vegetated areas and lawns adjacent to these areas, although the runoff is not channeled directly into them. Instead, storm water runoff is directed via a storm drain system to one oftwo vegetated swales Both swales allow infiltration to occur (see Appendix Ffor data on infiltration). II.A.c. Increase the use of vegetated drainage swales in lieu of underground piping or imperviously lines swales. Description: The project incorporates two vegetated swales. Runoff from tentative tracts 30766, 32354, 32355, 32356, and a portion of tract 29368 within the western portion of this project will enter Swale 1. Runofffrom tentative tract 29367 and portions of tentative tracts 29366 and 19368 within the eastern portion ofthis project will enter Swale 2. II.A.d. Rural swale system: street sheet flows to vegetated Swale or gravel shoulder, curbs at street corners, culverts under driveways and street crossing. Description: Rural swale systems are not apart of this project The project will alternatively incorporate vegetated swales. These swales serve tentative tracts 30766, 32354, 32355, 32356, 29367, 29368, and a portion of tentative tract 29366. II.A.e. Urban curb/swale system: street slope to curb; periodic Swale inlets drain to vegetated swale/biofilter. Paye 38 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 293533 October, 2006 Description: Urban curblswale systems are not a part of this project The project will alternatively incorporate two vegetated swales. II.A.L Dual drainage system. First flush captured in street catch basins and discharged to adjacent vegetated swale or gravel shoulder, high flows connect directly to MS4s. Description: High flows within the project do not connect directly to MS4s. Alternatively, flows emanating from tentative tracts 29367, 29368, 30766, 32354, 32355, 32356, 29368, and from portions of tentative tract 29366 are captured within a storm drain system and channeled to one oftwo vegetated swales. Flows from other tracts are directed to vertical filtration units that treat pollutants of concern. II.A.g. Design driveways with shared access, flared (single lane at street) or wheel strips (paving only under tires); or drain landscaping prior to discharging to the MS4. • Description: Driveways with shared access or wheel strips are not included in the project design. Alternatively, landscaping is provided between sidewalks and street curbs to the Went allowed by Riverside County and the City of Temecula Road Improvement Standards (see Table 5.2, Figure1l, and Figure B.2). This allows runofffrom impervious sidewalks and driveways to flow (although it is not specifwally channeled) into lawns adjacent to sidewalks. II.A.h. Uncovered temporary or guest parking on private residential lots may be paved with a permeable surface, or designed to drain into landscaping prior to discharging to the MS4. Description: Permeable parking surfaces are not included as part of this project Alternatively, the project will incorporate landscaping in buffered areas adjacent to sidewalks, as well as two vegetated swales. II.A.i. Where landscaping is proposed in parking areas, incorporate landscape areas into the drainage design. Description: Landscaping in parking areas is not hydraulically incorporated directly into the drainage design. The project will alternatively incorporate landscaping in buffered areas adjacent to sidewalks and street curbs to provide • _ - partial infdtration. Page 39 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 II.A.j. Overflow parking (parking stalls provided in excess of the Co- Permittee's minimum parking requirements) may be constructed with permeable paving. Description: Overflow parking with permeable paving will not be incorporated into the project design. Alternatively, landscaping is provided between sidewalks and street curbs adjacent to parking areas to the extent allowed by the Riverside County and City of Temecula Road Improvement Standards (see Table 5.2, Figure 5.1, or Figure B.2). This allows runofffrom impervious sidewalks and driveways to flow (although it is not specifwally channeled) into lawns adjacent to the sidewalks. H.A.k. Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the Co -permittee. Description: The project design allowsfor infdtradon into soils within two vegetated swales (see Appendix F for information on quantity of inf titration). Other opportunities for conserving natural areas and for increasing landscaping will be considered if they arise during further detailed project design. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 r October, 2006 0 Page 40 V.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS Source Control BMPs are listed in Table 5.2 below. The frequency of maintenance and parties responsible for maintenance are listed in Table 6.1. T..61.. C 1. Cnnrna ('nntrnl RIVWQ BMP Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable Non -Structural Source Control BMPs Education for Property Owners, Operators, Occupants, or Employees Activity Restrictions Irrigation Systems and Landscape Maintenance Common Area Litter Control Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance Page 41 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tahle 53: Source Control BMPs _Check One . BMP Name If not applicable, Included Not Applicable state brief reason Structural Source Control BMPs MS4 Stenciling and Signage • Landscape and Irrigation System Design • Protect Slopes and Channels • Provide Community Car Wash Racks • Properly Design: Fueling Areas • Tract does not include fueling areas Ai Water Supply Area Drainage • Tract does not include air/water supply areas Trash Storage Areas • Loading Docks • Maintenance Bays • Tract does not include maintenance bays Vehicle and Equipment Wash Areas • Tract does not include vehicle and equipment wash areas Outdoor Material Storage Areas • Outdoor Work Areas or Processing Areas • Site does not include outdoor work or processing areas Provide Wash Water Controls for Food Prep. Areas. • - Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Non -Structural Source Control BMPs Education for Property Owners, Operators, Occupants, or Employees page 42 Description: Riverside County BMP educational pamphlets will be distributed to homeowners after project completion and annually thereafter. The project developer will be responsible for the distribution until the HOA /POA take control of the operation and maintenance activities. Information on parties responsible for maintenance and on the frequency of required inspections are shown in Table 6.1. Activity Restrictions Description: Activities that will not be permitted at the project site include the installation of community car wash racks, fueling areas, air/water supply area drainages, maintenance bays, vehicle and equipment wash areas, and outdoor work areas or processing areas. The project developer will be responsible for prohibiting these activities, as well as such activities as the blowing, sweeping, or hosing of debris into streets, storm drain inlets, and other conveyances. When the HOA/ POA are established they will take control of the responsibility for these activity restrictions. The frequency of maintenance and the parties responsible for maintenance are identified in text in Table 6.1. Irrigation Systems and Landscape Maintenance Description: The project developer will initially be responsible for activities that include replacing dead vegetation, repairing erosion rills and ensuring that green wastes are properly disposed of within the project site. They will also be responsible for testing and observing that the irrigation system junctions adequately. To reduceleliminate the use of herbicides mechanical methods will be utilized to remove vegetation. Native vegetation will be planted because such plants generally reduce the required maintenance by use offertilizer. Pesticides will only be used when there is an actual pest problem, rather than on a regular, preventative schedule Pesticides will not be applied if rain is expected Fertilizers will be worked into the soil rather than being dumped or broadcast onto the surface Federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding the use, storage and disposal offertilizers and pesticides willbe followed When the HOA /POA are established, they will take control of responsibilityfor these activities. The frequency of maintenance and parties responsible for maintenance are identified in text in Table 6.L - Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 _ October, 2006 .. 0 Page 43 Common Area Litter Control Description: The project developer will initially be responsible for ensuring that litter is removed from the common areas on the site and will ensure that inspection for litter takes place on a regularly scheduled basis. When the HOA/POA are established they will take control of the responsibilityfor these activities. The frequency of maintenance and responsible parties are identified in text in Table 6.1. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Description: The project developer will initially be responsible for ensuring that private streets and parking lots are swept and kept clean. Streetsand parking lots should be kept free of trash, litter, and debris. Homeowners will be informed when necessary to enforce this requirement When the HOA/POA are established they will take control of responsibility for these activities. The frequency of maintenance and the parties responsible for maintenance are identified in text in Table 6.1. Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance Description: The project developer will initially be responsible for routinely inspecting drainage areas to ensure that they are kept free of debris and litter and that they function as designed Routine inspection and maintenance of drainage facilities shall take place in early fall prior to the start ofthe rainy season or October 1'. When the HOA/POA are established they will take control of responsibility for these activities. The frequency for maintenance of privately owned drainage facilities that include catch basins, open channels and storm drain inlets and the parties responsible for maintenance are identified in text in Table 6.1. Structural Source Control BMPs MS4 Stenciling and Signage Description: MS4 Stenciling and signage will take place prior to occupancy at any portion ofproject The stenciling will be reviewed/ replaced annually, or more frequently if necessary. The project developer will be responsible for these activities until the HOA /POA are established and take control of this responsibility. The frequency of maintenance and the parties responsible for maintenance are identified in text in Table 6.1. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Landscape and Irrigation System Design Description: The landscape plan will be reviewed for its appropriateness and the condition of the irrigation systems will be routinely inspected Defective components of the irrigation system will be repaired or replaced The project developer will be responsible for these activities until the HOA/POA are established and take control of this responsibility. The frequency of maintenance and the parties responsible for maintenance are identified in text in Table 6.1. Protect Slopes and Channels Description: Slopes and channels will be protected from erosion by landscaping design. Maintenance activities include checking the condition of vegetated areas and replanting them, checking that increases in runoff velocity and frequency caused by the project do not erode channels excessively, and replacing defective stabilization BMPs in all channel crossings. The project developer will initially be responsible for these activities until the HOA/POA are established and take control of this responsibility. The frequency of maintenance and the parties responsible for maintenance are identified in text in Table 6.1. Provide Community Car Wash Racks Description: The project does not include community car wash racks. Drainage from residential driveways win be treated either in one of two vegetated swales or within a vertical filtration unit on site. Properly Design: Fueling Areas, Air/Water Supply Area Drainage, Trash Storage Areas, Loading Docks, Maintenance Bays, Vehicle and Equipment Wash Areas, Outdoor Material Storage Areas, Outdoor Work Areas or Processing Areas Description: The project site does not include fueling areas, air/water supply drainage areas, maintenance bays, vehicle and equipment wash areas, outdoor material storage areas, outdoor work areas or processing areas. Trash storage areas will be designed so that they are covered and impermeable to rain and secured within an enclosed space to prevent off-site transport of trash. They will be designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements around the area. Dumpsters shall be leak proff and have attached covers or lids. The local City of Temecula CR&R Waste Recycling Services can provide residences with 60 gallon automated containers and 3 yard temporary bins for clean up projects. Green wastes generated from park related • activities will be placed in containers and collected on a regularly scheduled basis. The containers may include 1.5 to 10 cubic yard rear • Page 45 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) - Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 - - - October, 2006 load dumpsters. Commercial wastes can be placed into large trash dumpsters (such as 10, 20, 30 or 40 cubic yard roll off dumpsters) that will be emptied on a regularly scheduled basis by a service operating locally. Loading docks will be covered or include a drainage system designed to preclude run-on and runoff. Loading docks shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition through a regular program of sweeping and litter. control. Loading docks will be designed for ease of routine dry swept and will include adequately sized catch basins at their lowest points to eliminate water ponding. Provide Wash Water Controls for Food Prep. Areas. Description: Wash water controls will be provided at food preparation areas within the commercial area. Food outlet owners will be required to ensure that water used in the cleaning and processing offood on their premises does not the storm drain system and that their premises are kept free of liter, debris and food particles on a regular basis. 0, 0 • Page 46 Water QuaGtyManagement Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 - - October, 2006 V.3 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS 0, There are two primary Treatment Control BMPs that will be used to treat stormwater flowing from within Tract Map Nos. 29353-2 and 29353-3. The first primary BMP is a vegetated swale (two will be located on site) and the second primary BMP is a proprietary vertical filtration unit (the number and locations of these individual units are identified in Exhibit B.1: WQMP Site Plan). Table 5.4 identifies the number of principal Treatment Control BMPs that will treat each project tract. Table 5.5, the Treatment Burden and Treatment Capacity Summary Chart, identifies more specific information regarding types of treatment control BMPs that will be used to address each tract within the project. When runoff from one tract is treated by more than one BMP, the table identifies the separate acreages treated by each BMP, as well as the associated BMP volumes and flow rates. Figure B.2 and Figure C.2 provide a graphical illustration for Table 5.5. Figure B.2 (WQMP Site Plan) identifies the separate project tracts and shows the locations of both vegetated swales and all filters that will be used as BMPs. Figure C.2 (Proposed Hydrology Map) illustrates the sub drainage basins and their acreages. These tables illustrate how stormwater from each project tract will be treated, independent of the Master Development. Phasing of Treatment Control BMPs Proposed treatment control BMPs will be constructed / installed and will be operational before portions of the project they serve are occupied. Both Swale 1 and Swale 2 (and accompanying basins in which they are located) and each filter BMP will be constructed and capable of treating their requisite QBw before residents and businesses move into project homes and commercial facilities within the project site. Construction schedules that address this phasing requirement will be followed throughout project inception. Page , 47 - - -Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 5 4• Princj al Treatment Control BMPs LJ Tentative Tract and density of land use Number of StormFilter® System units or equivalent located within tracts that serve tracts (units) Total Number of Vegetated Swales servin specific tentative tract (units) 29366 (MDR) 1 1 29367 (IDR) 0 1 29368 (LMDR) 0 2 30766 (IDR and OS) 0 1 30767 (LDR) 1 0 30768 (MDR) 2 0 32354 (Comm) 0 1 32355 (MDR) 0 1 32356 (MDR) 0 1 32357 (MDR) 1 0 0 PA 30 32358 (MDR) 1 0 PA 27 (Spoils Park) 1 0 PA 28 (School) PA 29 (School) 2 0 0 TOTAL 9 NA Page 48 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 5.5: Treatment Burden and Treatment Capacity Summary Chart Designation and Drainage Area Land Use Area (ac) Impervious Percentage (i) Coefficient of Runoff CBMP VoIBMP QBW (efs) Treatment BM Ps and QBMP, Q to Swale 1 Q to Swale 2 Filter No. I Filter No. 2 Filter No. 3 Filter No. 4 Filter No. 5 Filter No. 6 Filter No. 7 Filter No. 8 Filter No. 9 29366 I J MDR MDR 29.0 26.2 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.52 45266.1 40895.6 3.0 1 2.7 3.0 2.7 29367 H LDR 28.5 0.40 0.45 35174.7 2.6 2.6 29368 E F G H LMDR LMDR LMDR LMDR 22.5 20.1 44.8 23.1 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 37570.5 33563.0 74807.0 38572.4 2.5 2.2 5.0 2.6 2.5 1 2.2 5.0 2.6 30766 R LDR 24.3 0.40 0.45 29991.1 2.2 2.2 30767 T LDR 16.4 0.40 0.45 20240.9 1.5 1.5 30768 L MDR 17.0 0.50 0.52 26535.3 1.8 0.6 1.8 MDR 5.3 0.50 0.52 8272.8 0.6 32354 C COMM 15.1 0.90 0.82 48783.6 2.5 2.5 32355 C MDR 25.2 0.50 0.52 1 39334.7 2.6 2.6 32356 D E MDR MDR 3.1 24.7 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.52 4838.79 38554.2 0.3 2.6 2.6 0.3 32357 M MDR 24.7 0.50 0.52 38554.2 2.6 2.6 32358 K MDR 22.5 0.50 0.52 35120.3 2.3 2.3 PA 27 P OS 13.4 0.20 0.30 20916.1 0.8 1 0.8 PA 28 O SCHOOL 12.6 0.90 0.82 19667.3 12.1 2.1 SCHOOL 10.7 0.90 0.82 16701.6 1.8 1.8 PA 29 N SCHOOL 12.3 0.90 0.82 12501.7 2.0 2.0 PA 30 N OSIREC 3.9 0.50 052 6087.5 0.4 0.5 TOTALS 425.4 46.7 112.4 15.7 1.5 0.8 2.1 2.3 3.8 3.1 0.6 1.8 2.7 •)Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Page 49 Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Vegetated Swales / Infiltration BMPs — General Information: Two vegetated swales are included in the project. Because both vegetated swales are underlain with gravel packs that will serve to facilitate infiltration to the underlying soil, these swales also serve as infiltration BMPs. These Swale \ infiltration systems were .selected because of their effectiveness in reducing specific pollutants identified as potentially able to impair receiving waters to which this project discharges urban runoff. Each swale/infiltration BMP is located within a detention basin (note that these detention basins are used for flood control purposes and are not BMPs designed for water quality purposes'. As such, there is no need for them to include a controlled outlet channel). Vegetated Swale Number 1 is located within flood control Basin 1, located at the north- east comer of the intersection of North Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. Stormwater enters the southern end of the swale through a storm drain system. During low flows this water moves northward across the vegetated swale (forming the invert,. or flow line, of flood control Basin 1) before discharging and flowing south and west through a storm drain system to enter Long Valley Channel. From this point the flow exits the project site (the swale does not require a water quality outlet). • Vegetated Swale Number 2 is located within flood control Basin 2, located at the south- east corner of the intersection of the Loop Branch Road and Long Valley Channel. Stormwater enters the western end of the swale within Basin 2 through a storm drain system that connects to a `splitter box' (a low flow / high flow separator). This flow then moves eastward across the vegetated swale (forming the invert, or flow line, of Basin 2) before it enters a wet well. The treated water is then pumped northward to Long Valley Channel. A gravel pack underlying swale facilitates infiltration (data provided in Appendix F). Supporting engineering calculations for QBM? are included in Appendix C. Treatment Control BMP design details are included in Appendix F. Inspection and maintenance of both vegetated swales / infiltration systems will take place after storm events, as well as on a routinely scheduled basis of every two weeks. As suggested by the Riverside County WQMP, maintenance activities will focus on vegetation management and vector control. Depending on conditions at the swales, debris accumulations will periodically be removed. ' The detention basins have been designed according to calculated differences in flows between the developed and undeveloped site conditions for the 2 -year, 24-hour, the 10 -year, 24-hour, and the 100 -year, 3 -hour storm events. HEC -1 modeling calculations for these storm conditions are provided in Appendix C. 0 0 Page 50 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 _ Vegetated Swales / Infiltration BMPs — Technical Information: Both vegetated swales are designed according to criteria established by the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD). Design calculations for both swales are included in Appendix F. Both vegetated swales will be underlain by a I' deep subsurface gravel bed wrapped in a filter cloth that will facilitate the capture and treatment of first flush pollutants. The nutrient phosphorous is a CWA Section 303(d) pollutant of concern for the project. Levels of phosphorous that will be generated by project development are not expected to exceed levels generated by similar types and sizes of mixed-use development projects within Riverside County. Because of the inclusion of a sub -grade gravel pack, the vegetated swale / infiltration BMPs within the project are designed to act as infiltration BMPs and to remove phosphorous generated by the project. The vegetated swales will also treat bacteria and viruses generated by the project. During a meeting in March, 2006,2 RCFCD announced that they are planning to make landscape BMPs (including vegetated swales) as their preferred future choice of primary treatment for stormwater flows from residential tracts. RCFCD also announced that they will consider vegetated swales designed according to their specifications to treat bacteria and viruses to a medium to high level (this will be reflected in their forthcoming revised design manual). Infiltration: The vegetated swales that comprise the bases of both Basin 1 and Basin 2 allow infiltration to occur. Because both Swale bottoms consist of graded land containing Type B soil (according to the Riverside County Flood Control Manual of Hydrology). Appendix F includes data on the quantity of infiltration into the vegetated swales during low flows. • ] March 27, 2006. Building Industry Association Meeting at Riverside Country Flood Control District, "Discussion of Implementation Strategy for new NPDES WQMP Requirements." 0 40, Page 51 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) - Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Filtration Units: The vertical filtration devices sized to treat first flush runoff from Tract 29353-2 and 29353-3 will be StonnFilter® System treatment units or equivalent. Unlike catch basin inserts or hydrodynamic separators, these filtration system units contain a chamber that detains flow for long enough to allows effective treatment of bacteria and pathogens. These units include rechargeable media -filled filter cartridges (using perlite/zeolite media). This type of filtration unit was approved for removing pollutants of concern (including bacteria and viruses) to an acceptable level by the City of Temecula in another recent development project. Sizing details and technical information about these filters is provided in Appendix F. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tnhle 5.6c Palhutants of w nneorn and Treatment HMPs i Page 52 Treatment Control BMP Categories Pollutant of Concern Biofilters Detention Infiltration BMPs Wet Filtration Water Hydrodynamic Manufactured (2) Basins (3) (4) Ponds or Systems Quality Separator or Wetlands (6) Inlets Systems (7) Proprietary 5 Devices 8 Sediment/Turbidity H/M M H/M H/M WM L H/M U Yes/No? Y • • • Nutrients L M FUM H/M L/M L L U Yes/No? • • Y • Organic Compounds U U U U H/M L L U Yes/No? Y • • • Trash & Debris L M U U R/M M FUM U Yes/No? • • Y • Oxygen Demanding L M H/M H/M WM L L U Substances Yes/No? • • Y • 0 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tahle 5.6 (cont.): Pollutants of Concern and Treatment BMPs Abbreviations: L: Low removal efficiency H/M: High or medium removal efficiency U: Unknown removal efficiency See discussion under VA Treatment Control BMP Categories Pollutant of Concern Biorilters Detention Infiltration BMPs Wet Filtration Water Hydrodynamic Manufactured (2) Basins (3) (4) Ponds or Systems Quality Separator or Wetlands (6) Inlets Systems (7) Proprietary 5 Devices S Bacteria& Viruses U" U H/M U HIM L L U Yes/No? • • Y • Oils & Grease H/M M U U H/M M UM U Yes/No? • • Y • Pesticides (non -soil U U U U U L L - U bound) Yes/No? • • Y • Metals H/M M H H H L L U Yes/No? • • Y • Abbreviations: L: Low removal efficiency H/M: High or medium removal efficiency U: Unknown removal efficiency See discussion under VA • Page 54 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Notes for Table 5.6: (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 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. E Page 55 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 VA EQUIVALENT TREATMENT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES These are not applicable to this project. V.5 REGIONALLY -BASED TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS No specific regionally -based treatment control BMPs have been adopted for use within this project. LJ 40 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Page 56 Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 V1. Operation and Maintenance Responsibility For Source and Treatment Control BMPs inspection and maintenance of Source Control BMPs, Site Design BMPs and Treatment Control BMPs will primarily be the responsibility of the developer initially, and will later become the responsibility of the site Home Owners Association (HOA) and the site Property Owners Association (POA) when these entities are formed. The time of the transfer of responsibility will be mutually decided on by the developer and home builders during project implementation. The HOA and POA to be formed will operate from bases located within the project site. Flood control channels will be maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District under contract with the HOA / POA. Once the HOA / POA are formed, routine inspections of each BMP, analysis of its functional adequacy and maintenance of each BMP will be the responsibility of the HOA / POA and in some specific cases the City of Temecula or Riverside County, when on contract with either of these entities. Inspections of all BMPs will be performed on a regularly scheduled basis, and in many cases will also take place before and after each storm or precipitation event (inspections before precipitation events take place when the regional meteorological forecast includes a 40% or greater chance of precipitation at the project site). Additional inspections of BMPs will take place when required by any unusual conditions or events that warrant inspection. The BMP Inspection / Maintenance Responsibility and Frequency Matrix provided on the following pages identifies what primary organization is responsible for each BMP inspection / maintenance activity. The matrix recommends a frequency of inspection and maintenance activities. Although specific startup dates for each specific BMP have not yet been determined because of possible modifications to the project construction schedule, each BMP shall become operational when construction is completed on the tracts they serve. Maintenance activities will begin simultaneously. Copies of CC&Rs, Covenant and Agreements, and/or other mechanisms used to ensure the ongoing operation, maintenance, funding, transfer and implementation of the project - specific WQMP requirements are in the process of being formulated and finalized. Draft CC&Rs are inserted into this WQMP as an appendix. Note that ongoing monitoring of water quality via sampling is not an activity required for this project. • 0 , 0 Page 57 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 6.1: AMP Insnection /Maintenance Responsibility & Freauencv Matrix Beat - Party Respon®tble for,' Frequency of inspection / Maintenance Requirements Management Inspection /,1Vlaintenance' Maintenance;(orRe1evant Achvity) Practice"'= or Rele`vsn'ActiVi '4 t►nd"Crit°er3a " "' Non -Structural Source Control BMPs Education for Initially Developer, followed by - Upon occupancy and annually thereafter - Provide environmental awareness education Property Owners, HOA / POA material to all members annually Operators, - Criteria: delivery of educational material to all - Provide BMP training and education programs Occupants, or residents, facility operators, employers, to all new employees involved in activities that Employees employees may impact urban runoff within 6 months of hire date and annually thereafter Activity Restrictions Initially Developer, followed by - Prior to, during, and after each - Prohibit the blowing, sweeping, or hosing of HOA / POA storm/precipitation/high wind event debris into streets, storm drain inlets and other - Weekly conveyances - Ensure CC&Rs are followed (no car wash - Criteria: streets, storm drain inlets and other racks on site, no fueling areas, no air/water conveyances are kept free of debris; activity supply area drainage, no maintenance bays, no restrictions as outlined in CC&Rs are followed vehicle and equipment wash areas, no outdoor work areas or processing areas withinproject) Irrigation Systems Initially Developer, followed by - Prior to, during and after each - Replace dead vegetation and repair erosion and Landscape HOA / POA stonn/precipitation event rills Maintenance - Every month - Ensure green wastes properly disposed of - Criteria: irrigation systems functions as - Test and observe irrigation system to detect designed and landscaped is maintained as overspray, broken sprinkler heads and other. designed; pesticides and fertilizers are applied system failures according to a plan, prepared in accordance with - Pesticides and fertilizers applied according to a acce ted state uidelines.3 formulated plan (see footnote below 3 Such as those in California Pest Management Plan far Water Quality (February, 1997, California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation and State Water Resources Control Board), and according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Enforcement and Compliance guidelines. • . 1 • Page 58 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 6.1 (cont.): BMP Inspection / Maintenance Resaonsibility & Freauencv Matrix Best Party Reapopatble for Frequency of Inspection / a Maintenance Regwrementa Management Inaeection / MamtenanceMaintenance (or Relevant'Activtty)' Practice orrRelevant.AcHvl " Non -Structural Source Control BMPs Common Area Litter Initially Developer, followed by Prior to, during and after each - Empty trash receptacles Control HOA / POA storm/precipitation event - Review frequency of emptying trash - Monthly receptacles - Patrol common areas and perimeter fences or - Criteria: common areas are kept free of litter walls to collect litter and note trash disposal and debris violations - Report trash violations to HOA/POA for investigation - Wastes shall be disposed of in a manner in conformance with City and County requirements Street Sweeping Initially Developer, followed by - Quarterly, includingjust prior to start of - Sweep parking lots and streets and maintain Private Streets and HOA / POA raining season on October I free from leaves/debris Parking Lots - Criteria: streets and parking lots are swept and kept free of debris, leaves, and trash on a regular basis Drainage Facility Initially Developer, followed by - Prior to, during and after each - Clean drainagefacilitiesof accumulated' Inspection and HOA / POA storm/precipitation event sediment/debris if this fills more than 25% of Maintenance - Every month sediment/debris storage capacity - Ensure clear flow lines; repair eroded surfaces; - Criteria: drainage facilities are maintained so adjust or repair drainage structures; cultivate or they function as designed and are kept clean and aerate soil; replace dead plants free of litter • 0 , 0 Page 59 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tahle 6.1 (ennt_)- RMP Tngneetinn / Maintenance Regnnncihility & Freauenev Matrix Best P,a>rty Responsible for, Frequency of lnspiection / Maintenance Requirements ' Management" Inspection'/ Mamtenance Maintenance"'"(or Relevant Activity) Practice ` 's or Relevant Activi -` Structural Source Control BMPs MS4 Stenciling Initially Developer, followed Annually Stencils are repainted annually to keep them and Signage by HOA / POA clearly visible -Criteria: signage is readily legible to pedestrians and motorists Landscape and Initially Developer, followed by - Quarterly - Check that irrigation system functions Irrigation System HOA / POA adequately without excessive leakage Design - Criteria: landscape drains as initially designed; - Confirm slandscaping maintenance activities irrigation system functions adequately take place as scheduled Protect Slopes and Initially Developer, followed by - Quarterly, including just prior to start of - Inspect slopes for erosion and inform HOA / Channels HOA / POA raining season on October I POA if there is a problem with slope erosion - Check that storm drains function as designed - Criteria: Slopes remain intact without visible erosion; channels function as designed or in their natural condition; vegetated slopes are weeded and kept free of litter and debris Trash Storage Initially Developer, followed by - Monthly - Inspect each trash storage area and Areas HOA / POA surroundings - Criteria: refuse remains within the storage area - Clean area surrounding trash storage facilities and trash containers; there is no evidence of - Ensure that wastes are disposed of in a manner seepage of polluted stonnwater in vicinity of consistent with City and County requirements area; vermin are absent; containers remain water tight; outer area kept clean and free of litter and debris Page gp Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 & v req uency fvtatrtx /. Maintenance Requirements Practice = I',,,:(or RelevantAttiVi Structural Source Control BMPs Loading Docks Initially Developer, followed by - Prior to, during and after each - Check docks for presence of litter or debris HOA / POA and owners of stonn/precipitation event - Ensure that dock drains function adequately commercial outlets - Every month - Dry sweep on a regular basis - Criteria: area kept clear of litter and debris; site is kept well drained and dry swept; absence of any sign of oil or liquid spillage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Table 6.1 (cont.l: BMP Insnection / Maintenance Responsibility & Freauencv Matrix Best Managemenf Practice -%' Party Responsible for:; Inspection /;Maintenance diRelevant:Activi Frequency of Tn$pectton / - '• Maintenance Requirements Maintenance(or t'l6vithfActivity)" , Treatment Control BMPs Biofilters Initially Developer, followed by - Prior to, during and after each - Manage vegetation so that flow is distributed (vegetated HOA / POA storm/precipitation event evenly across swale swales) - Semi-annually - Water swale during drought - Reseed bare areas - Criteria: swale maintains a thick, vegetated - Clear debris and blockages cover; flow path maintains designed width; litter - Remove cuttings from channel _ and debris removed from Swale; inlet and outlet - Remove accumulated sediment to Swale kept free of obstruction; swale - Repair damaged areas to avoid ruts and holes maintaians hydraulic efficiency - Inspect twice annually for erosion, damage to vegetation, sediment and debris accumulation - Remove sediment from channels when it builds up to 3". in any spot, or covers vegetation - Inspect for pools of standing water - Gravel pack remains intact and kept below surface of Swale - Patrol common areas and perimeter fences or walls to collect litter and note trash disposal violations - Report trash violations to HOA/POA for. investigation Page 62 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 Tahie 6-1 (cont-): RMP Insnection / Maintenance Resnonsibilitv & Freauencv Matrix Best "+ -Patty Respoiisible for:; : n Frequency of Inspection / Maintenance Requirements Management; Inspection / Maintenance ; Mintenance(or Relevant Activity) Practice . or. RelevantActivi Treatment Control BMPs Infiltration BMPs Initially Developer, followed by - Prior to, during and after each - Maintain landscaping as designed HOA / POA storm/precipitation event - Check that no permanent ponding occurs - Every month - Landscaped medians and buffers kept free of litter and debris - Criteria: landscaped areas kept free of - Report trash violations to HOA/POA for excessive weed growth; debris and litter investigation removed; ermanent pooling of water prevented Manufactured or Initially Developer, followed by - Prior to, during and after each - Inspect semi annually for standing water, Proprietary Devices HOA / POA storm/precipitation event sediment, trash & debris, and to identify (Stormfilter or - Semi annually or as recommended by potential problems Equivalent) manufacturer, whichever interval is more - Remove accumulated trash and debris from frequent filter Check that device functions as designed - Criteria: chambers are kept unobstructed by - Replace media cartridges after design life has trash and debris; media filters operate effectively expired or more frequently, depending on their or are replaced; filters operate as designed operatve condition during both low and high flows - Clean sites surrounding filter chambers by removing litter and debris - Ensure that stormflows do not bypass filters.. but enter as desi ned • Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 VIL Funding Funding and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs used within this project will be the responsibility of the Developer (Ashby USA, LLC) from the moment of project inception. Both the funding and responsibility will eventually be passed over to the Home Owners Association (HOA) and Property Owners Association (POA) at a time mutually agreed upon by the developer and these agencies. s Signature t�� A,My Developer's Printed Nam Ashby USA, LLC • 39252 Winchester Road # 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563-3509 Telephone: (951) 699 0207 10 -2j - lib Date Page 63 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353.3 October, 2006 VII. Funding Pundins and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs used within this project will be the responsibility of the Developer (Ashby USA, LLC) from the moment of project inception. Both the funding and responsibility will eventually be passed over to the Home Owners Association (HOA) and Properly Owners Association (POA) at a time mutually agreed upon by the developer and these agencies. (o -Z)-dL eveloper's Signature 11-77—Date ,:S,yt4 t= &�y Developer's Printed Nam Ashby USA, LLC • 39252 Winchester Road # 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563-3509 . Telephone: (951) 699 0207 0 • Page -'64<' Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Roripaugh Ranch Project, Tentative Tract No. 29353-2 & 29353-3 October, 2006 • 0 Structural Quantity Capital Annual Start -Up O&M Responsible BMPs Costs O&M Dates Frequency Funding ($) Costs (weekly/ Party for ($) monthly/ installation uarterl) and O&M StormFilter 9 $1.43 mil $106,590 Prior to. Annually Installation Occupancy by developer, O&M by HOA Vegetated 2 $10,000 $10,000 Prior to Annually Installation Swale Occupancy by developer, O&M by HOA Catch Assumed $2,500 $2,500 Prior to Annually Installation Basin 100 Occupancy by Stencil developer, O&M by HOA /l�vi� �IIII�l�AV® Vil p"Irls i i=W rRE •' STORMWATER �---.� Roftauah Ranch- Stormwater Treatment System Maintenance Cost Estimate Redland, CA The following maintenance estimate is for the stormwater treatment systems recommended by CONTECH Stormwater Solutions for the Roripaugh Ranch project. Typically, we recommend annual maintenance services for the stormwater treatment systems. However, depending on rainfall conditions and mass loading volumes, the treatment systems may only need maintenance once every two to three years in California. Stormwater pollutant source control practices can also greatly affect the pollutant loading on the system and maintenance frequency. StormFilter CONTECH Stormwater Solutions offers complete maintenance of the StormFilter system which is defined as removing and disposing of the accumulated trash and debris, sediments and other target pollutants from the StormFilter and replacing spent media cartridges for new cartridges. If contracted with CONTECH Stormwater Solutions the estimated maintenance cost for these systems is $190, per cartridge, per •' _cycle. CONTECH Stormwater Solutions also offers a cartridge exchange program. Recharged cartridges may be purchased from Stormwater Management for installation by the Owner. This method of maintenance could reduce cost if the Owner has a crew available to provide the labor and equipment. The cartridge exchange price is $115, per cartridge, per cycle, shipping not included. con techstoemwater.corn 12021-R NE Airport Way. Portland OR. 97220 Toll free: 800.548.4667 Fax 503.240.9553 'fes Appendix A 0 0. - • Appendix A Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Resolution PA06-0053 Dated May 22, 2006 0 0 May 22, 2006 Cit of Temecula j�F�gGg3�i��1 Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula — California - 92589-9033 (951) 694-6400 - FAX (951) 694-6477 Mr. Matthew Fagan 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Approval and Final Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA06-0053, Roripaugh Ranch Tentative Tract Map No. 29353, 29661, and 32004 Major Modification to Conditions of Approval Dear Mr. Fagan: On May 17, 2006, the City of Temecula Planning Commission approved the above referenced project subject to the enclosed Conditions of Approval. Please review the Final Conditions of Approval for the project and return a wet signed copy within three working days of the receipt of this letter. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision or the Conditions of Approval may appeal it within fifteen 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 May 17, 2008, 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 Plan Review Process. Please be advised that you will be contacted by, Susie Rossini, from the Building and Safety Department who will be happy to assist you in obtaining all the necessary building permits for the above referenced project. If you have any questions regarding this subject or approval, please contact me or Matt Peters, job share partner, at (951) 694-6400. Sincerely, Cheryl Kitze w Associate Planner • CK/ks Ci Manning\20WPA06-0053 Rodp:mgh SP frac! Maps - Major Mml\Planning\API'It OVAL UYRAd Enclosures cc: Susie Rossini, Building and Safety Diane Ball, Building and Safety Mark Harold, Building and Safety Cathy McCarthy, TCSD Steve Faris, Fire Prevention Chris White, Public Works Greg Butler, Public Works Mr. Peter Olah Ashby USA, LLC 39252 Winchester Road Suite 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563 Mr. Tim Lokkesmoe Project Manager KB Home Coastal, Inc. 26201 Ynez Road, Suite 104 Temecula, CA 92591 Mr. Lindsay Quackenbush DR Horton • 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Mr. Keith Wyer Davidson Roripaugh Ranch 122 LLC 1302 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Mr. Ray Park Tanamera Roripaugh, LLC 9227 Haven Avenue, #300 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 Mr. Peter Thorson Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grande Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 C:VN nn ngUOWPA06-0053 Roripmrgh Sp'rract Maps - Major W&Plrnming\APPROVAL LlRAoc 0 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS (Additional text is shown in bold, deleted text is shown in strikeout-) "A" MAP - Tract Map 29353 Condition of Approval No. 15. Modify the condition as shown below. 1115. With exception of lot 22 (fire station site) no residential building permits shall be issued for the lots created by this tentative map." "B" MAP -Tract Mao 29661 Condition of Approval No. 19. Modify the condition as shown below. "19 209te the pe-pians4er4io-parkways medians; and slope aRj fUP1 Fnodifi�aIJGR are s directly aOiaGeni tG roadways shall be hied awd_appreved-. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in each planning area, related landscape plans for HOA maintained parkways, medians, slopes, and fuel modification areas directly adjacent to roadways shall be submitted and approved." Condition of Approval No. 27. Delete the condition and create a new item "a" under Condition of Approval No. 34 to retain the requirement in a more appropriate location as shown below. eF+e-yea,; ,,,--�o,��...............- - sh all be- 9d with the Community Developmerit Depagment Plan Rlanning shau-be-reed= "a. Performance securities, In amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of r8IMtherperfer-mance ser,16de hall be released." 1 curvuri IONAi..i.Y APPy��pp ;f Mme. RC.". C.". ' ,.,. ». by The City of _Temecula ❑ Admrn. d,, ov l EJ ECEgV, IE Fri contained By • Case NoDate 9_ QR.'.00�J r���o�o� _ . Revised 04/D5/2006 •j of "B" MAP — Tract Map 32004 Condition of Approval No. 24. Delete the condition and create a new item "a" under Condition of . Approval No. 30 to retain the requirement in a more appropriate location as shown below. to eRe yea •with the Apprvpe-I. of PWRA;Rg4b�� main ' released=" "a. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the landscaping. 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." Proposed Modifications 2 Revised 04/05/2006 • EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA REVISED FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 (REVISED PER PA06-0053, MAJOR MODIFICATION) Project Description: The subdivision of 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 street lots which conform to the Planning Areas of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, and 958-260-001 and 002. Approval Date: November 26, 2002 (REVISED MAY 17, 2006) Expiration Date: November 26, 2004 (REVISED MAY 17, 2008) PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements • 1. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an 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 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional 'deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the • applicant. G:U9anning\2006\PA06.0053 Ru,ipaugh SP had Mups - 6lsjur M�Mlnnnin�Wap 29353 Rcv Rua] COAs 5.06 duc • 3.- This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 11, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. 4. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof. 5. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the tentative map shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. It shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council. (Amended by the Planning Commission on 10-30-02) 6. The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution. 7. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. 8. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement (PA99-0299). 9. AC pavement shall be provided at intersections and approaches at all existing roads. (Added by the Planning Commission on 10-30-02) • Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 10. A copy of the grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 11. 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. 12. Prior to the City approval of the grading plans or any other plans requiring MWD clearance that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD's clearance for the said plans. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. • GAI'huvung\2006WA06-0053 Roripaogh SI'ltad Maps -M Ajor MUtKP1a min AN1ap 29353 Rev Mimi COAs 5 06.doc 2 • ii. The Roripaugh Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. • iii. Lots 31, 32, and 33 shall be designated as permanent open space. C. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. iv. All future property owners shall agree to be a part of the proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) or any other similar financing mechanism. 14. Prior to the City approval of the grading plans, improvement plans, the final map, or any other plans requiring MWD clearance that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD's clearance for the said plans. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 15. With the exception of lot 22 (fire station site) no residential building permits shall be issued for the lots created by this tentative map. (Amended with PA06-0053, approved May 17, 2006) (i:V'lannine\2006\YA06-0053 Roripaugh SPT -act Maps -Majnr Mm1XP1anning\Map 29353 Ncv Final COAs 5.06-duc 3 • - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unlessotherwisenoted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Conditions 16. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the Tentative Map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, paseos, pedestrian trails, improvement constraints, detention basins, and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 17. A Grading Permit for mass, rough, and/or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City -maintained road 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. An Encroachment Permit may be issued for all roads designated as private streets. 19. The Developer shall participate in a Cooperative Agreement with the County allowing the City to act on their behalf, if at the time prior to issuance of a grading permit in the County area the annexation process has not been completed. 20. The Developer shall submit a Maintenance Agreement to maintain flood control facilities • for the portions of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash located within the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Director of Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). The Maintenance Agreement shall contain a funding mechanism whereby all residential dwelling units in the proposed project will be equally assessed for the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash maintenance. The Maintenance Agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit. 21. The Developer shall agree to the formation of a Community Facilities District for the construction of, but not limited to, road, bridge, drainage, traffic signal intersection, landscape, and fire station improvements in accordance with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The form of the Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney and shall be executed prior to final map recordation. 22. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 23. The Developer shall obtain letters giving permission to grade or easements for any off- site work performed on adjoining properties. The fetters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 24. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of • the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements (iil'Ianningk2006111A06-0053 Ruripaugh Sl' rracl Maps -Major Fl(xNlanningNlap 29353 Rev Final COAs 5A) doe 4 rpursuant.to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site ,property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 25. A development phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be.approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent application. 26. 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. 27. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Circulation 28. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Vehicular access • . easements shall be secured across undeveloped areas to provide secondary access. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of future individual tentative tract maps and/or development applications. Additional right-of-way at entries may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. 29. Access along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Nicolas Road, and the Loop Roads as shown on this master tentative tract map shall be restricted except at street intersections and driveways to be identified in individual tentative tract maps and approved by the Department of Public Works. 30. All street sections shall correspond with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Figures 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, 2-5A, and 2-5A-1 and by reference made a part of these conditions of approval, typical roadway cross sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, and City ordinances and standards. 31. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners along Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. 32. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, the developer shall demonstrate that adequate sight distance at intersections and approved driveways meet City and Caltrans • standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. G:U'Innning\2006TA06-0053 Runpeugh SP Trail Maps - Major M WXPlanningNAap 29353 Rev Final COAs 5.06Aw 5 • 33. Bridge structure type shall be approved by. the City Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Proposed bridges shall provide acceptable crossing over waterways to accommodate .all necessary vehicular, pedestrian, equestrian, dry and wet utilities, future utilities including but not limited to conduit for fiber optic cable or traffic signal interconnect if not placed within street pavement. The bridge design shall include, but not be limited to the following studies: foundation analysis, scour analysis, and protection measures. 34. The Developer shall submit to the City Public Works Department for review and approval street improvement plans, signing and striping plans, traffic signal plans, and traffic control plans for all improvements in the phasing section of these conditions. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 35, The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program proposes that a traffic study be approved prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each additional phase of development. The timing of the improvements. The traffic study would: 1) document ambient traffic volumes conditions; 2) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and 3) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways, which would serve the new development phase and those critical off-site intersections and roadways that will provide prima •, access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion (at the time the traffic study is to be performed). The traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. 36. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Drainage 37. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow and/or velocity. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements, as necessary. 38. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 -year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 39. Prior to issuance of a grading permit affecting the creek areas, the Developer shall • submit a Drainage Management Plan covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long G3P1anning12006\PA06-0053 Roripaugh SP Tract Maps - Major MwWmnin,\Niap 29353 Rcv Final COAs S. WAm • Valley Wash to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. The Drainage Management Plan will address how the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts. 40. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Developer shall provide a flood control Maintenance Agreement for the portions of Santa GertrudisCreekand Long Valley Wash within the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Department of Public Works, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the homeowners association. This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintalning the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins. 41. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and interim detention basins and/or flow by basins as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall identify and design, as necessary, interim channel improvements including, but not limited to, grading and construction of detention basins before permanent channel improvements are constructed. 43. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site •, development within that phase. 44. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. The Developer, in procuring the protection of downstream properties, has elected to construct two detention basins in the "Plateau Area', a detention basin in Santa Gertrudis Creek and a flow by basin in Long Valley Wash. These detention and flowby basins shall be adequately sized so as not to increase the flow and velocities exiting the project boundary. 45. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to allow a bridge crossing at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. 46. The Developer shall provide maintenance roads to all proposed detention basins to provide access for maintenance. Road specifications such as width and type shall be per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. 47. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact Metropolitan Water District (MWD) facilities to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. 48. The City reserves the right to require the developer to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows and to adequately disperse them by the use of rip -rap or equivalent improvements, GA0a.0 ug12006TA06-0053 Raripaugh SPTract Maps - hljjw hluchPlanning\Map 29759 Rev Final COAs 5 Wdce 7 as approved by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This condition shall be in force during the entire development process for the project. 49. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities. b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. G. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway or floodplain. d. The location of existing and post development 100 -year floodplain and floodway. 50. Prior to issuance of a grading permit in the floodplain, the Developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or equivalent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) application and comply with that process. 51. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits in those lots adjacent to either Santa Genrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash, the Developer shall submit appropriate documentation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and obtain approval of Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). 40 52. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Water and Sewer 53. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), and Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 54. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall comply with the Water Master Plan to EMWD and RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from EMWD and RCWD. 55. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall comply with the Sewer Master Plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 56. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall provide the City with adequate documentation from the local water purveyors (EMWD and RCWD) that they have G:U'bnning\2000V'AO6-0057 Roripaugh SP'rracl Maps - hlaiur Mud\PfanuingVdap 29353 Rev (anal COAs 5.06Ad 9 • adequate water supplies to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy according to the requirements of Senate Sills 221 and 610. 57. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines on the major road network to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if prejest—bedndaFy—reclaimed water is to be available to the site prior tot e construction of these roads or it Is anticipated to be available in the near term. (Amended by the City Council on 11-26-2002) Grading 58. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 59. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval. 60. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, • and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documents. 61. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 62. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NO[) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 63. The Developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol to notify residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will occur at least two days prior to scheduled blasting. Any blasting activities will be limited to the hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. Prior to blasting, the Developer shall obtain permission from the City Engineer to post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. 64. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to SCAQMD that is consistent with Rule 403 guidelines for approval. The Developer shall submit written proof to the City that SCAQMD has reviewed and approved the DCP. The DCP shall be applicable for all onsite as well as offsite work and includes but is not limited to the following activities: twice daily soil watering, street • sweeping, covering of trucks hauling soil away, chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding C; V'IamiingR(ft16\PA06-0053 Rwpaugh SP Tract Maps - Major M,.APlanningVJap 29353 Rcv Ivnal COAs 5.06 do 9 • exposed soil surfaces, and adding chemical binders or surfactants to water used for watering. Also, the Developer shall provide the City with documentation that appropriate construction equipment that is anticipated to be used for more than 30 days has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure low NOX emissions. In addition, all diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only low sulfur fuels: 65. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the individual contractors shall submit a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to the Public Works Department that includes but is not limited to: scheduling receipt of construction materials to off-peak travel periods routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity, limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods, and staging areas away from existing residential uses. 66. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the Public Works Department. The NCP will be generally consistent with the mitigation monitoring program and the City's construction noise ordinance. 67. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed -free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydroseed, and temporary irrigation within ninety days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 68. Paleontologists and Archeologists shall be present during grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measure. 69. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 70. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to 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 preliminary pavement sections. 71. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction and landsides. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 72. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. 73. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading GdPlanning\2006\PA06-0053 Noripaugh SP Tract Maps - Major FhOPl: nnin.Wap 27353 Rev Final COAs 5AI'Aoe I I) • operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. Specific Plan Phasing 74. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Conceptual Phasing Plan Figure 2-10 and Phasing of Road Improvements Section 2.2.6. 75. In the event that the City is unable to construct the street and slopes, acquire the additional right of way and complete any related proceedings associated with that process, for the segment on Butterfield Stage Road from Chemin Clinet to Rancho California Road, by the 510'" building permit, the Developer shall be responsible for completing this work by the 51 e building permit. 76. Prior to the issuance of the designated number of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified below. The City may require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in • the EIR. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 1 a. ONSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prior to issuance of the 34ih building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Secondary Access — Provide secondary access from Lots 1, 3-4, 6-7 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108'h building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ii. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from existing improvements east of Pourroy Road to the MWD Easement (Specific Plan Arterial Highway — 110' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median. All proposed improvements shall be coordinated with existing improvements including raised landscaped median and lane width transitions as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the MWD Easement to Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway — 110' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements including a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median • and a 14 -foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, 1 curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, Ci9Plam,ing\200fi1PADG 053 Rmpaugh SP Traci Maps - Major MoMianningWap 29353 Rev Pinel COAs S.Wdoc viii. Improve South Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the end of the fire station site frontage (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road — 76' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of the southerly half -width plus 6 feet of street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Prior to issuance of the 400'h building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ix. Improve "F" Street along Lot 8 frontage (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road — 66' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). X. Improve North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the east side of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road — 76' RNV) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements including a full -width bridge over Santa • Gertrudis Creek, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage (i:\Planning\2000\I'AO6-OU53 Ruripaugh SI' Tract Maps . Major MndWJ2n)1mg\Map 29353 Rev Final COAs 5.00.dw 12 signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Driveways shall be constructed to provide access to the MWD ., property and easement. iv. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway — 122' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements plus a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median and a 12 -foot travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). V. Dedicate full -width right-of-way on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway — 110' R/W). vi. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway —110' RNV) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements including a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14 -foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, full -width bridge structures over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vii. Improve Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project • boundary (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway — 110' RNV) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of the northerly half -width plus 10 feet of street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). viii. Improve South Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the end of the fire station site frontage (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road — 76' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of the southerly half -width plus 6 feet of street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Prior to issuance of the 400'h building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ix. Improve "F" Street along Lot 8 frontage (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road — 66' R/W) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). X. Improve North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the east side of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road — 76' RNV) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of full -width street improvements including a full -width bridge over Santa • Gertrudis Creek, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage (i:\Planning\2000\I'AO6-OU53 Ruripaugh SI' Tract Maps . Major MndWJ2n)1mg\Map 29353 Rev Final COAs 5.00.dw 12 • facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prior to issuance of the 108'h building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: L Improve Nicolas Road from the western project boundary to 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road - 110' RMI, Section K) to include installation of 40 -foot width on center improvements, paving, asphalt concrete berm including signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 6 -foot wide curb separated asphalt concrete path on the north side. i. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access onto Nicolas Road through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. iii. Provide secondary access by constructing improvements for one of the following options: a. If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the • following improvements shall be completed: i. Construct 40 foot on center improvements (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road — 110'R/W, Section K) from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road including paving, asphalt concrete berm, including signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and the full - width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicofas Road including right-of-way acquisition. iii. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to allow a bridge crossing at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol along Santa Gertrudis Creek Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. b. If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos to Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: Cc\Plam ngA21xMNA06-0053 Roripangh SPTnet Maps - Major Mu(hPlanningN-1ap 29353 Rev Final COAs 5D6doe 13 0 is • i. Construct 38 -foot width on center improvements (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road — 66' R/W, Section L) from Butterfield Stage Road to the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection including paving and signing and striping. ii. Provide horizontal realignment and right-of-way acquisition, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer, from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. C. If Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway — 110' RAN) is designated as secondary access, construct half -width improvements from the southern project boundary to Chimen Clinet including dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, including a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14 -foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), excluding any existing improvements. C. TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. The improvements listed below are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement but not replace existing turning movements. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. Prior to issuance of the I" building permit in Lots 1-7, 8, and 22 i. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: southbound left -turn lane, southbound free right -turn lane, westbound free right -turn lane, and eastbound free right -tum lane. ii. 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: southbound left -turn lane, southbound right -turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right -turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right -turn lane. iii. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound right -turn overlap. iv. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: eastbound through lane. V. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road: traffic signal. vi. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: traffic signal vii. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta: lane improvements as yet undetermined. The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. G \I'lanning\2006NA06-0051 Rodpaugh S1 "rraa Maps - Major Ivlodll'lanning\Map 29351 Rcv Final CGA, 5.06.dno 14 viii. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Pourroy Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements as warranted. d. TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The developer must bond and construct or make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. The improvements listed below are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement but not replace existing turning movements. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. Prior to issuance of the 15t building permit in Lots 1-7, 8, and 22 i. 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: southbound left -turn lane, southbound right -turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right -turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right -turn lane. ii. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road: traffic signal. iii. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: traffic signal. iv. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta: lane improvements as yet undetermined. The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. V. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Pourroy Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements as warranted. e. WATER IMPROVEMENTS i. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. ii. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if throughout the course of development and until such time the project is complete, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. f, SEWER IMPROVEMENTS L Install sewer main in Murrieta Hot Springs Road west of Pourroy Road. ii. Install sewer main in Nicolas Road per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. g. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS L Construct detention basin west of Lot 1 and detention basin south of Lot 5 along southern "Plateau" area. ii. Construct storm drains and related outlet facilities as required by the hydrology/hydraulics studies. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 2 Prior to issuance of the 5101h building permit or any building permit in Phase 2, the • following improvements must be completed: G:Nl:uaning\2006WA06-0057 Rmipmigh SN Trap Maps -Major ModV11arrningV,4ap 29751 Rev Rnul COAs 5.06.doe 15 • a. ONSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS i. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the MWD Easement to Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway — 110' R/W) to include installation of remaining half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14-foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. ii. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta. Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway — 122' R/W) to include installation of remaining half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14-foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway — 110' R/W) to include installation of remaining half-width improvements including installation of paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14- foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. iv. Construct or bond for grading and full-width improvements on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway — 110' R/W) to include • installation of full-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). V. Improve North Loop Road and South Loop Road (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road — 76' RAN) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of . full-width street improvements, construction of a full-width bridge over Long Valley Wash, raised landscaped median, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vi. Improve Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway — 110' R/W, Section D) to include remaining southerly half-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vii. Improve "P' Street from the southern boundary of Lot 8 to Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road — 66' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). viii. Improve "E" Street from "F" Street to Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified • Collector Road — 66' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of- G:\Planning\2006\PAWD053 Ronpangh SP T,..,ct Maps - Major NlotMLmninp Map 29353 Rev Bnal COAs 5.06.doc 16 • installation of full -width street improvements including paving, curb way, and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS is Improve Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road excluding existing improvements (Specific Plan Arterial Highway — 110' WW) to include installation of full -width improvements except sidewalk on the County side, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 -foot wide raised landscaped median. ii. Improve Nicolas Road from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road — 110' R/W, Section K) to include dedication of full -width street right-of-way, installation of 40 -foot width improvements including full -width bridge improvements at Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, asphalt concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a curb separated asphalt concrete path along the northerly side. iii. Improve Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W, Section L) to include installation of 38 -foot on center improvements to include paving, asphalt • concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). iv. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. C. TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. Prior to issuance of the 1s1 building permit in Phase 2 as defined in the Specific Plan L Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road/North Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. ii. Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos/South Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. iii. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. iv. La Serena Way and Meadows Parkway: construct traffic signal and • related intersection improvements, as warranted. G:\I'la.mi„2\2006\PA06-0053 Rwpaugh SPTract Maps - Major MmMianning\Map 29353 Rey Final COAs 5 06.Joc 17 • V. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Winchester Road: southbound left - turn lane, southbound right -turn lane, westbound through lane, westbound free right -turn lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right -turn lane. vi. 1-15 Freeway (Northbound Ramps) at Winchester Road: northbound left - turn lane, northbound free right -turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right -turn lane. vii. 1-15 Freeway (Northbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: northbound left -turn and right -turn lanes. viii. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound left -turn lane, southbound right -turn overlap, and eastbound left -turn lane. ix. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: westbound left -turn lane, westbound right -turn lane, eastbound through lane, southbound through lane, southbound free right -turn lane, and eastbound free right -turn lane. X. Margarita Road at Winchester Road: eastbound left -turn lane, southbound right -turn lane, westbound right -turn lane, and southbound right -turn overlap. xi. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road: northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right -turn lane, eastbound left -turn lane, eastbound right -turn overlap, westbound left -turn lane, northbound right - turn lane, and westbound right -turn overlap. • xii. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound shared left - through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane. xiii. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road: northbound left -turn lane, northbound free right -turn lane, westbound left -turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left -turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right - turn overlap. xiv. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane. xv. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: northbound left -turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left -turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left -turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left -tum lane, and westbound through lane. xvi. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road: eastbound left -turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turri lane, and westbound through lane. d. TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • The developer must bond and construct or make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. The improvements listed below are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement but not replace existing turning movements. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. GAP1am1ing\2006V'A06-0053 Roripangh SP Tract Maps -Maim ModNlanniag\Map 29353 Rcv Final COAs 5,06A c 18 • Prior to issuance of the 151 building. permit in Phase 2 as defined in the Specific Plan L Butterfield 'Stage Road and Nicolas Road/North Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. ii. Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos/South Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. iii. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. iv. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound shared left - through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane. V. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road: northbound left -turn lane, northbound free right -tum lane, westbound left -turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left -turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right - turn overlap. vi. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane. vii. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: northbound left -turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left -turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left -turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left -turn lane, and westbound through lane. • e. ONSITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS i. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Santa Gertrudis Creek crosses North Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100 -year storm flows. ii. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Long Valley Wash crosses South Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100 -year storm flows. iii. Construct Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel through Lots 33, 37 and 38. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100 -year storm flow and have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. iv. Construct the detention basin on Lot 38. The detention basin should be designed to regulate outflow rate such that the peak flow in Santa Gertrudis Creek west of Butterfield Stage Road is equal to or less than the undeveloped condition. V. Construct the flow -by basin on Lot 34. The flow -by basin should be designed to regulate outflow rate such that the peak flow in Long Valley Wash west of Butterfield Stage Road is equal to or less than the undeveloped condition. • Ci:\Ylnnning\2W6\PA06 OU53 Roripnugh SPTrad Maps - Maju Mm ManningAMap 29353 Rcv Pinaf COAs 5. WO.dx 19 • vi. ConstructLongValley Wash through Lots 34 and 35. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100 -year storm flow and have - adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. f. OFFSITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS I. Construct Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel from the box culvert or equivalent drainage facility crossing Butterfield Stage Road westerly to the confluence with the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100 -year storm flow, have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. The channel shall be extended a sufficient distance and designed in a manner that flows will return to the existing conditions at the outlet point. Access roads shall be constructed as necessary to provide adequate channel maintenance. The channel, access roads and confluence structures shall be contained within drainage easements obtained by the developer. g- WATER IMPROVEMENTS i. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements and per Rancho California Water District requirements, as necessary. ii. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if throughout the course of development and until • such time the project road infrastructure is complete by phase, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. h. SEWER IMPROVEMENTS i. Install a sewer main in Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Leifer Road and then to Joseph Road where it will connect to an existing 21 -inch sewer line. ii. Install sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements and City Standard No. 609. Trench shall be per City Standard No. 407, which will require the overlay of half of Nicolas Road between Leifer Road and Joseph Road COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 77. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 78. All perimeter slope/landscape areas designated as Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintenance areas, shall be identified and offered for dedication to the TCSD as a maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowner's Association. All other landscape areas, open space, trails, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, pedestrian bridge, fences, walls and private gated areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA), private •, maintenance association or property owner. (', 0ronin-,\2006\PA06-0051 Roripaugh SP Traa Maps - Major Moi\Plaonime Map 29753 Rev Final COAs 5.06A,e 20 • 79. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) for this development is 28.71 acres, based on 2015 single -family units. This requirement shall be satisfied with the 19.7 acre ' community sports park (Lot 30), the 5.1 acre. neighborhood park (Lot 8) and the HOA_ owned and maintained recreational areas identified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan including the private recreation centers (Lots 5 and 27) and the private mini park (Lot 2). 80. The design of the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30) and the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs- and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 81. All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration for TCSD maintenance shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 82. The design of the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30) and the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall provide for pedestrian circulation and shall be in compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 83. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park and recreation component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to a Development Agreement or a •, DIF Credit Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. 84. Construction of the 19.7 acre community sports park, the 5.1 acre neighborhood park, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. 85. The Home Owner's Association (HOA) portion of Lot 8 shall be developed concurrently with the public park portion of Lot B. The City will not accept the conveyance of the public park until all improvements have been completed within Lot 8. 86. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites, slopes landscape areas and landscaped medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 87. The public parks shall be improved and conveyed to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance for the value of the land and the cost of the improvements and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 88. The design of the private mini-park (Lot 2) and the private recreation centers (Lots 5 and 27) shall be consistent with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan. (i:T1amiing\2006\PA06-0053 Roripaugh SV Tnc(Maps - Major Mod\1'1anwag\Map 29353 Rev Emil COAs 5.06.doc 21 • Specific Plan, be identified on 89. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the Roripaugh shall the street improvements plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street improvements. 90. A multi -use trail will be constructed along both sides of Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) and along the north side of Lot 34. If the maintenance roads for the Long Valley Channel are proposed for this purpose, written authorization from RCFCWCD must be provided to the City allowing public access for trail purposes prior to approval of any tentative map for the Valley portion. If RCFCWCD determines that that the "River Walk" cannot be located within the channel right-of-way, then the trail area shall be located outside the flood control area. These trails shall be designed and shown on the respective tentative map for this area. 91. The developer shall dedicate on the final map a fifteen (15) foot easement for public access within the 30 foot fuel modification zone and construct an mufti -use trail along the westerly edge of Lot 22, the southerly edge of Lots 20, 21, and 22 and the easterly edge of Lots 19 and 34. 92. All residential street lighting will be maintained by the Home Owner's Association (HOA). 93. The developer shall contact the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of the construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 94. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within any trash enclosure in the commercial area (Lot 10). • Map Prior to Approval of the Final 95. All slope/landscape areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on each final map by numbered lots with the square footage of said lot numbers indexed as proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 96. Construction drawings for all parks, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to the approval of the respective final map. 97. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the public parks, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas prior to the approval of the respective final map. 98. An equestrian crossing shall be approved by the Water Quality Control Board (WQCB) for the multi-purpose trail connection between Lots 19 and 20 across the easterly edge of Lot 34 prior to the approval of the respective final map. 99. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Temecula Community Services District to initiate election proceedings for acceptance perimeter slope/landscape into the TCSD maintenance program. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. • G:U'Ianwng12006WA06-0053 Roltriugh SP'k a Maps - Major Mod%P1an,.mgVSlap 29353 Rcv Yinal COM 5A6.dw 22 105. The Paseo connecting Lot 7 and Lot 8 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance or the 40Uh residential building permit • in Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 100. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler- for disposal of 107. construction debris. 101. The private mini -park (Lot 2) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 100'" residential building permit. 102. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 5) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 250 'h residential building permit in Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 103. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 5) shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of completed the 350" residential building permit Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 104. The 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall be improved, including the completion of the 90 -day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 400'" residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh 111. Development. 105. The Paseo connecting Lot 7 and Lot 8 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance or the 40Uh residential building permit • in Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 106. The Nature Walk and adjacent landscape areas (Lot 36) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 400'" residential building permit in Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 107. The 19.7 acre sports park (Lot 30) shall be improved including the completion of the 90 - day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 7001" residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 108. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 27) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 800'" residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 109. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 27) shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of completed the 1150th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 110. The "River Walk" and the landscaping adjacent to the maintenance roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) and along the north side of Lot 34 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 7001" overall residential building permit in the project. 111. If the maintenance road along the north side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used for a multi -use trail, a separate trail with landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 50'h building permit in Lot 26. (}:\Planning\2006\PA06-0053 K,Apaugh SP Tncl Maps - Major ModUlanninQ\Mep N353 Rey Final COAs 5 06.doc 23 • 112. If the maintenance roadalongthe south side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used for a _ multi -use trail, a separate trail with landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of - — the Community Services Director prior to theissuanceof the 751h building permit in, Lots. 23, 24 and 25. - 113. A pedestrian bridge will be constructed across Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) connecting Lots 24 and 26 to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 75'" building permit in Lots 23, 24 and 25. 114. The developer shall construct a 15 foot soft surface trail within the 30 foot fuel modification zone to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director along the westerly edge of Lot 22, the southerly edge of Lots 20, 21, and 22 and the easterly edge of Lots 19 and 34 prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Lots, 19, 20 and 21. 115. Prior to the installation of arterial street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall file an application, submit approved Southern California Edison street light plans and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 116. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. • 117. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. FIRE DEPARTMENT 118. Any previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 119. 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. 120. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A -III -A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure with a 2 -hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III -A) 121. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix 111.8, Table A -III -B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be • spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet G-\i'1anning\2000\I1HNLIx153 Noripaugh Sid Trncl Maps - Major pial\I'lanning\Map 29353 Rev Final COAs 5.U&do 24 • from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s)' in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III -B) 122. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix III -A, Table A -III -A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III -A) 123, The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III -B, Table A -III -B-1. Super fire hydrants (6' x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 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 a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III -B) 124. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for • commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) 125. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 126. 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) This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. 127. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 128. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 129. 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) G:\Planning\2006TA06-0057 Runpaugh SPTract Maps - Major ModWianning\Map 29353 Rev Final COAs 5.06Am 25 • IX Prior to building construction, dead end roadways 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) - 131. Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 132. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 133. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 134. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 135. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II -A) 136. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II -A) 137. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. OTHER AGENCIES 138. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 21, 2002, a copy of which is attached. The tee 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. G;W1anning\2006V'A06-0053 Roripaugh SI' Tra l Maps - Major Mod\IZGnningWap 29353 Rcv Final COAs 5.06.doc • By placing my signature below, I confirm that -I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes l may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. • • Applicant Signature G \planning\2006\PA(A-0053 Roripaugh SP Tract Map.,. Majur ModOanning6Map 29353 Rcv Final COAs 5 Wdoc 27 0 Appendix B Vicinity Map, WQMP Site Plan, Receiving Waters Exhibit HOT SPRINGS ROAD CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE --- CHAPOS C E CONnWo O Q W a`� Q N O O J 0 _W u w i N VICINITY MAP N.T.S. THOMAS BROTHERS MAP REFERENCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2001 EDITION PAGE 929, E-7 CITY OF TEMECULA HE VA Consulting, Inc. �T,� RORIPAUGH RANCH om' �""""` TRACT 29353-2 AND 29353-3 UOQ W sx4 W, VICINITY MAP V•\ Drnlen+�\ pFf1 1 d2\ CAI!`_\ !'Allo\ oWC\ FYLIIRITC\ F1lH(13—W(]LAF�\Illi—nw i nl In wt�nar � n: n� u -'�+-L..�� P Appendix C 0 Appendix C Supporting Detail Related to Hydraulic Conditions of Concern The summary of hydrological flows into the project site for the pre- and post -project conditions is shown in as Table C.1. The project hydrology report, including HELI model run data and supporting details relating to Hydraulic Conditions of Concern is on file in a separate volume (`Appendix C') with the City of Temecula. 0 Appendix D n u Appendix D Educational Materials Educational materials, including pamphlets and information regarding stormwater pollution management and Best Management Practices, will be made available to residents after the project is completed. Copies of available and relevant educational materials that conform to Riverside County stormwater management practices are displayed on the website: www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/stormwater. 0 Stornrwarer runoff occta5 when prpcipilal.iori Iron rain of snowmen flows over the IIIoimd. aupclvi,oussudacut: like cGivcways,sidcwalks, . mrd streets prevent stcirmwater hour nalmally Soaking into IIIc (;round. st..ormwatvr call pick up debris, chemicals, dirt, and other polltaallts and flow 1110 ;I storm sewer system or dlrcclly to ;1 Eike, stream, river, wafland, or coastal water, Anydiill(; 1.11,11 enters it swan sewer gswm is discharged untrett(cd info the wntcrbodins wit use for swimmint!, fL;IlinR, and providing drhdcinl; water. JISIA Jct Polluted sLonnwalcr runoff cin have rntinv adverse effects on plants, fish, animals, and people. Sediment. can cloud the water and make it difhcullor impossible for aquatic plants to grow. Sediment also can cicstroy aquatic habitats. f'.xccss nul.ricnts um cansc algae hlooms. When ofga,: dic, fhcy sink to the bottom and t,lccouiposc in ;i process that. removes oxygen born ,he water. Fish and Who aqualic 01{{aniSlnS Can'l CxIsI, in watclwith low dissolved oxygen levels. ♦ Badcria and other pathogeny can wash into swimming areas and creuL(, hc;rll-h hazards, often making beach cloxulc•s accessoy. .r Dcbrls—plastic birj!s, six-pack iinfs, I,)ol Ucs, and cigarc[Le butt, --washed into watcrbodies can choke, sulloccu,e, or disable aquatic life like ducks, fish. ImUcs, m1d bird s. • I louschold her<n'clous w.'istcs like insecticides, pesticides, pail., solvents, used molor oil, and other auto fluids can poison aquatic life. IRmd animals and people ca become sick or dic hom eating diseased fish and shellfish or inf;csling polluled wale) • Polluted storniwalcr often of fccl.s drinkinf; wnt cr sources. in (un), cam affccl' human health and increase drhd<inq; w:.a.ar trcHnnenC costs. Is %vecgr,Ps Mc �rvo�ien�/ dlL�,ode ni�orUrlo�l �na)duC/4 7/11'1, eoatlitirc l CuuP/r-lij, Aur/t, mi iaUedAP elm, 1jp*rA4GCi, paild, enhurfirk lied ailed to dot ad awl !iii arilaflyarA. Am, ,l potau float only Me, ll'roaall ml, rddof(O/w d uam. Lawn care I xcc a la rUlricts .!;e y � I( -)fill pe';i le Idl.S , ,Ipplicd to I Iwlc; and garden wash oft Jild p ollute Fr b hl un;, In ) J d Fr Iddlhon, v.)rd a hppinf s and lr uuostonn dlnns and contribute nnu'it'l W; Illd oft!alae Inatle? to .I I'C. 11119. • WWI. ove fwafcl' your Imwn. C unsdcr wmig n oAcr hom, urvtc Id of it prfnkloi ♦ list, Ix Ci ulc;and Ic )toiler p'nifigly. w1wil 1r;c ri lucci!;my, Irw dlc:cd nuc nit. in Ihc.Icconlmcntled nllolllll' Usc Ulf! tllli: nfillch of Jmf(9 pc:;l. conitcol 11willoris whenever . pos;iblc. . Conlpo.til of mulch yard wd L9tc Don'I Icavc it hi Ihc:aOrc,t oI sweep it into storm ch;lins oreftcauls. 4 Cover pile.~ of dirt or mulch heinit anal in kmdr;c;Ipilll� plujccC;. Aldo care Washingyourcill and degreasing auto pmrtr; al- Ilona• cnn send dcletgents and udwt contanlimmilfa Burnell tllc slorm scwcrsyslcm, Dumpilig automotive holds Into storm chains has the sonic rcslfit os Clllntping the Inalt'linls dirccliy into a wotcrbody. • II. r a r_olmnrlr.i;d Cat w tab that Itc iils or n cYcics its w IsImille I of wash your Caron yoln' yard so the wolcl infillralcs into the f;toond. • Rep;dh Icmks mid di:;pme of uved nolo fluids ;mil billies ;;II dcsf;;nolcd dlolroll of rcuyr Ila;; locmtioue. septic �v �.,,.. Systems leaking and (� poorly r faoml-Diacid .cpl.It., ystcfn'. Ic Ic 1m, nulricnts and plthotle (ba.leria'nld virll;(s) fll 11 call be ))I( l:('d Ila) by ;lotnlwmlcf;lud elisdwlj;cd ado ucolhy Watcl )(,dins. Illlo;,cn call emu: c public lIcolfll ploblem' and c11vifoluncliml conccnc;. • InspccC your syo;tcnl evctY yciw; and primp your tmnk a nc cceSmty (rvoty''I Illi ycarsl. • Don't dispose of household bnzardow; waste in :sink:; or toilcto. Dill, oil, 111111 debris thor eollukI in parkinf; loe; and paved mteu,s can be wn:dwd into the doral scwer:;ystum and cv('11111ally cnicr Iocel watcrhodim;. S;W op 111) litter and rlebris from dcw'dk ,, drivcw ly cmd putklof; lots, espcca Illy around 9orm dmin . 1 Cowl f're. I c:;for l;;c grid dI n npstars rad ktc p fhcm clean ler ;fvoid k aks. • Lc pot! my c hcnlic d -pill to III(, Iocnl II iz;m1ou wm tc c Ir jImp )(,am. hwy'II know Ili(! lI I. way to kc cp pill:; hum harnnin Ihc environnlcnl. i rwiLrtRlrnlc 7d rednrdlJai'(o rinJtvpry penpIr"f Gila✓ioa,. ii �iiirre 1111114 amal'rve nra2 Ali✓aro Jnnirte avanac ardidrrcle !bill, 11141ilarda rrrleir4ai 161, rG>aind !vii/,' Ga mauled e aAraled Qdn (1. 6&-v'rwil,hbndy. Pet lvaste Pct V/ 1 Lill c roll h( •'C a mafof somcc ul ; laden) ,Incl CHIN- nullicntr; in lm:d Water;, •Whoa walhin;; -_, r'- your pct, rcmc)nbcr R1 pick lit) Nu: ww I1 ;]fill chspo r of it pfopc fly lu ;half pct war l< I,; Ille best di po.ti.Il method. L.eoviu;, Flet w Istt• III the (;Iound Inc rc. ).cs public hcoltll risk:; by allowint', ILII-Ililll hoetcml mid mll-ricnr:;town:;l) nfo [Iw:;Icnnl drain mud eventually into local will clbodics. kNii &Wlu'�bwq flermcablu Pawament--'lladllionof conclow and asphalt don') ulluw water io soil; Intl, the f;roun(l. Int;tcnd )hese "lilfaecs loly on siornl ranine; to diver Inlwanicd water fbnncs)bfe pavewteol systciws allow rain and onownlvll i1) soak daough, do crc Isinl; Rollnw61cr11111141. R rill Lary-ef You can r ollrct rainw 11 cr from t'oliop; ul wos luito_ Ino ul c ntjinr 1 11L. wrt r con foeaolI d.cr oil lawn ('r (:iIfd n arca,. Rain C 3rdcu and t ? � Grassy Swalc 9pcdally s dl dllnslarc, pl:)nicd g, will, IIt)IfVL I)I )IIl9 ❑111 im vi IC nairmll pl ICAs lot , k a:St" a:A' Ito Hunter to rd olle I1111 : nrrk into the pc stidflc•, can poison mquatic.mimilk and )cad to do Clnt:tlVc alf; u: hloom I Ivcs;Imk in +a t'rv'1 1 tfp�b Icoilopmc1 orpim"d y I mr •• , ))Las Call 111 chVI'1ICd 1 . r into thucc area!, nldn3 thanin(onlorm drms- vegelatcd FII):.! ~tripe=—Pillc)sLl'iu aw muas of w fl ivc grana or pfonrs ercaled nfong rorldwa,ys of sill Calan. 'I'hcy trill) lite pOHLItIlts stonnwalcr pi k•; ui' ns If How; mcfosS driveways and Uccls. tYut�tjx , ,a .I 13y.�Fy YaJK,.ti7✓} 3r '[.It,rI # Plan jod dc:;tvi skid flails, Y;11(1 aw;u:, mid wick ;jcct,!;f; loild!; IL) WRI Ililyf}, { w J hIIwVvIcd lue.IInn, su)I Io11'plow l i pIIIr; to be wa:dwlI itito ;tulip d) mi- C:orx w nlinII to ln: 1q);l of call Icmk 116, oil, and other Ic)nnful )Mill;; Thal ctal be pdcd lip by r;iottriwalet.. Clam 1141 pills i11111c ih llcly and propcily depose of 11cmnnp li tic fI )ll;. It I n)vItIc c overr over lac hal; SLubony and dc. ;i;;n of Ick fold lac 1111 a , lot ;;pill e olmliflili III. • I'lopwtly Iwlisil in ill c I vc Indc= to pn'vclrl all {' c;, 'Int( other dt c h ul cs Irons. rons ficin}', wil:Awd nlfo local w)Ic fh odic:;. • Ins;1,111 incl nni11lain od/w lel ; pruat;)rs;. ? � I Ick of vegetation (ill -C2( atnbdlik'r(:at) lead Ito cl'o5m1)Ove )r 1w.(XI p I,tlif( e Ill alta t>yF g, c ollifilndc cXccs:;iVc ilmomils of sedinlcnl to local w ICC rbvchc.o- f.xcc.., IcILllixc r ; mud 3 pc stidflc•, can poison mquatic.mimilk and )cad to do Clnt:tlVc alf; u: hloom I Ivcs;Imk in +a t'rv'1 1 tfp�b y I •• , 1 . r `c a by'� vr'%kt tYut�tjx , ,a .I 13y.�Fy YaJK,.ti7✓} 3r '[.It,rI # Plan jod dc:;tvi skid flails, Y;11(1 aw;u:, mid wick ;jcct,!;f; loild!; IL) WRI Ililyf}, { w J hIIwVvIcd lue.IInn, su)I Io11'plow l i pIIIr; to be wa:dwlI itito ;tulip d) mi- C:orx w nlinII to ln: 1q);l of call Icmk 116, oil, and other Ic)nnful )Mill;; Thal ctal be pdcd lip by r;iottriwalet.. Clam 1141 pills i11111c ih llcly and propcily depose of 11cmnnp li tic fI )ll;. It I n)vItIc c overr over lac hal; SLubony and dc. ;i;;n of Ick fold lac 1111 a , lot ;;pill e olmliflili III. • I'lopwtly Iwlisil in ill c I vc Indc= to pn'vclrl all {' c;, 'Int( other dt c h ul cs Irons. rons ficin}', wil:Awd nlfo local w)Ic fh odic:;. • Ins;1,111 incl nni11lain od/w lel ; pruat;)rs;. ? � I Ick of vegetation (ill -C2( atnbdlik'r(:at) lead Ito cl'o5m1)Ove )r 1w.(XI p I,tlif( e Ill alta t>yF c ollifilndc cXccs:;iVc ilmomils of sedinlcnl to local w ICC rbvchc.o- f.xcc.., IcILllixc r ; mud pc stidflc•, can poison mquatic.mimilk and )cad to do Clnt:tlVc alf; u: hloom I Ivcs;Imk in . ,)reams cul confaminatc watt rw ays.will] b u Ic n 1, ❑ llul Ig I.hcnl onsmh: Iol huniml contmcl:. 4 eel) live olock ;.IW ly hom stte alllhank; mild piovick, OwIll a W IWI '.omcc;Tway holn will c•rbodfe:;. .t {g; �`'� � 1 <e'� 4 =i1'owmid ripply iwom w)V 110111 Wiil(I'h Odll:3 elle) 111 .w.+ ..{ll,, .•. � JCculd IIIcc will) I Ilutricllt III Illmf;Cl11( Ilf plim. �'-� a '.,� ^,. , -' -"�'' • WlIci llc I'Ipalian mcilsolollgwiltclwilys. �, via +;:4Y.. , Rotate Illilll,ll gl zinj' to mwIll :;oil e fo';)oil III licid!; J F Apply .h Iluv.cfs Ind hc�;urldc t, a:c'.ul�lmg to I,lhel f} al Y, ; t 11 lshu2 tion I srlvc Itot wy;uul [fill lit pollt11iou. tYut�tjx , ,a .I 13y.�Fy YaJK,.ti7✓} 3r '[.It,rI # Plan jod dc:;tvi skid flails, Y;11(1 aw;u:, mid wick ;jcct,!;f; loild!; IL) WRI Ililyf}, { w J hIIwVvIcd lue.IInn, su)I Io11'plow l i pIIIr; to be wa:dwlI itito ;tulip d) mi- C:orx w nlinII to ln: 1q);l of call Icmk 116, oil, and other Ic)nnful )Mill;; Thal ctal be pdcd lip by r;iottriwalet.. Clam 1141 pills i11111c ih llcly and propcily depose of 11cmnnp li tic fI )ll;. It I n)vItIc c overr over lac hal; SLubony and dc. ;i;;n of Ick fold lac 1111 a , lot ;;pill e olmliflili III. • I'lopwtly Iwlisil in ill c I vc Indc= to pn'vclrl all {' c;, 'Int( other dt c h ul cs Irons. rons ficin}', wil:Awd nlfo local w)Ic fh odic:;. • Ins;1,111 incl nni11lain od/w lel ; pruat;)rs;. LOCAL SEWERING AGENCIES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY: City of Beaumont (909) 769-8520 $ rpn�W=¢*rp���'p*t,'r}�}p7'1iry, Belau Homeowners Association City of Banning (909) 277-3414 (909) 922-3130 tL�y,P OUTDOOR �ootl9 City of Blythe (760) 922-6161 El6LSWIY�IVW City of Coachella (760) 391-5008 Coachella Valley Water District (760) 398-2657 2651 �� ���&� City of Corona (909) 736-2259 d C] Desert Center, CSA #51 Eastern 1,Aunicipal Water District (760) 227-3203 (909) 928-3777 NON-ST06MWATER DISCHARGES Elsinore Valley tJIVJD (909) 674-3146 �- Fame Mutual Water Company (909) 244-4198 i e�• ?'' Idyilwild Water District (909) 659-2143 Jurupa Community Services Dist (909) 685-7434 I •� Lake Hemet IAI✓D r909) 655-3247 � _ ' Lee Lake Water District (909) 277-1414 March Air Force Base (909) 656-7000 Ctof Springs Water District City y of Palm Springs (760) 329-6448 (760) 323-6242 . •� Rancho Caballero (909) 780-9272 Rancho California Water Dist (909) 6754101 _ Ripley, CSA #62 (760)922-4909 S f, Rubidoux Community Services Dist. (909) 684-7580 , City of Riverside (909) 782-5341 Silent Valley Club, Inc (909) 849-4501 Valley Sanitary District (760) 347-2356 Western lAunicipal Water District (909) 7804170 SPILL RESPONSE AGENCY: HAz-MAT: (909)358-5055 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL: (909)358-5055 TO REPORT ILLEGAL DUMPING OR A CLOGGED STORM DRAIN: 1-800-506-2555 a.. arsav m�� say-• . PROTECTION PROGRAM j Rnerside Co: ,,=ty praletui!v ackao�;ledges the 6av Area SlCnriwalLr Ifan.,agemenit Agencies Associaton and the Qramng Eq,pme7,i Trod& AcsOcaOun for IIfo,na0vi prowdeC I^ this trtr'�'nr� Non-stornwater discharges such as washwater generated from outdoor cleaning projects often transport harmful pollutants into storm drains and our local waterways. Polluted runoff contaminates local waterways and poses a threat to groundwater resources. 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... its 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 ourwatenways. Ui-rike sanitar, sewers, stone dra ns are ria - onnected to a treatment plant-I.e,5c .:',i-ect'y ..i ou• bcalstreams. •roars and takes Soaps, degreasers, automotive fluids, litter, and a host of other materials washed off buildings, sidewalks, plazas, parking areas, vehicles, and equipment can all pollute our waterways. Since preventing po,lution is much easier, and less costly than cleaning up 'after the fart,' the Cities and County of Riverside StomriNaic r Cte.-nWater Protection Program informs residents and businesses of pollution preaenlion aci vites such as :r' ,sa described in this pamphlet The Cities and County of Riverside have adopted ordua ,nces for stormwater management and discharge control In accordance vinh state and federal a.v, these local stormwater ordinances prohibit the discharge of wastes into tine storm drain sj,sv r or local surface vraters This includes non-stormvvater discharges wniaining oil, grease, e'ater;ents, degreastirs, trash, or outer waste -1 materials PLEASE NOTE: The discharge of pollutants into the street, gutters, storm drain system, or waterways - without a Regional Vater Quality Control Board permit or waiver - is strictly prohibited try local ordinances and state and federal law. 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 a storm drain. DO NOT. . . Discharge large amounts of these types cf v.ach:va!er onto landscaped areas or soil A,here Ovate, m^ v run to a street or storm drain. Wastewater from aY,',enor clean.ng may be pu^gped to a sewer line ,vdh speuf�c permission from the tical sewenng agency DO . . . Check with your local sewenng 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 flyer for phone numbers of the sewennngagencies in your area. DO NOT . . . Four hazardous wastes or tcy�c -„atenals into the storm drain or sewer s}stem properly disrose of it mstead :'then m doubt contact the local seweri.ng agency' The agency will tell you what types of rgu,d 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 stone 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 chemicaI spills with rags or other absorbent materials before using water). 2) Washing is done withwateronly- nosoaporothercleaningmaterials. 3) You have not used the water to remove paint from surfaces during cleaning. DO NOT ... D'spesecfv.atercuntai ng soap or any other type of cleaning age ntintoastorm dramorwzk,oody This is ad ire c! violation of state and%nr local regulations Because wastewater from cleaning parking areas or roadways nomial!y certa,ns metallic brake pad dust oil and other aitornotive fluids, d should never he discharged tc a street, gutter. or storm dra-n DO . . . Understand that mobile auto detailers 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 sufficient water volume to reach the storm drain, collect the runoff and obtain permission to pump it into the sanitary sewer. Follow local sewering agency's requirements for disposal. DO NOT .. . Dispose of left c.er clearmig agents a to the gu¢;t' sion n Cram or san tarysewe, Regarding CleaningAgents: If you must use soap, use biodegradablelphosphate 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 \Nater 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 TO HELP PROTECT OUR WATER... SCREENING WASH WATER A thomugh dry cleanup before washing iwdnout soep) surfaces such as building exenors and decks without loose paint. sidewalks- or plaza areas, shcu;d ha s✓Trident .o protect s.'srr. i dr, -:ins However, if any debris (scl�ds) could enter storm drains or remain In the gu::er or street after clearing, vvashvrater should first pass through a 20 mesh' of finer screen to catch ibe solid malena'. which should then be disposed of in the :rash DRAIN INLET PROTECTION/ CONTAINING & COLLECTING WASH WATER p Sand bags can be used to crease a barrier around storm drain inlets. p Flugs or rubber mats can be used to temporarily seal storm drain openings O You can also use vacuum booms ccritarmnen pads or temporary berms to keep wash water away from the street. cutter or storm dra n EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES Special materials such as absorbents, storm drain pugs and seals, small sunlp pumps and vacuurn booms a,e availab'e from many vendors, For more informo!cn check catalogs such as New Pig (500- 468-4647). Lab Safety Supply (800-356-0733), C&H (800-558-9866), and W W. Grainger(600-954-9174), or call he Cleaning Equipment Trade Association (800-441-0111) or the Power Washers of North America (800-393-PkNNA) I it1�0 1I @ For Information on "closed- oop` silrpiiers env recyc'ing:dl=_pcsal vendf,rs critact County of R vers de Health Services A,genc; Der-nmem of Er.\lronmewal Heal!h it(9o9,358-5055 SPILL RESPONSE AGENCY: HAZ-MAT: (909) 358-5055 AFTER 5:00 P.M,: (909) 358-5245 OR 911 RECYCLING AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL: (909)358-5055 TO REPORT ILLEGAL DUMPING OR A CLOGGED STORM DRAIN: 1-800-506-2555 Tc o•ce"eCCldonai buCh, �,15 or to o°l or o`^er D"IV, an P -el erUo- _.._.,, < e5 The Cities and County of Riverside Storm Water;CleanWater Protection Program 1-800-506-2555 >t � _ � �lean�V�at�er Rr.ers+de C-urxy g.elrlul'y az P',oniedgrs the Sa^!a Clara Petr,r.,r.UJjr r S_'J �e PLl1.,i y: ^. Jr,i'e' ,y� ori and the r_rt) of Los Ancoesg i,.— Kot=Y ld4 tea rv� -e^ en1 Ds.nn lot -nfOYnld40" �tC�,Oei r thl ?CdLbrP MAINTENANCE a CAR CARE .. .: I'lotionrWhaf;You Should Know Rig,ers;de County has two drunaoe systems - sarrtary ce,,,,ers acd storm droms The <in.h drain system s designed to f t- p prevent flooding by c frying e=cess rame.a'er away ircr-t Sheets S'nce the storm di a n s vs'ern does not pr, -vide for ,'rater treatnle' it a'so serves tf e- un711tE4'deO fonCilOil Oi �an5pvi'atg ijcfutant5 :'."cC V 100. r ,vat&rwayb Unlike sanitary sewers, storm drains are not connected to a treatment plant - they flow directly to our local streams, rivers and lakes. Rain and water rinofffrom automotive shops ard businesses can terry poll ,tont rr atenal ,nto storm dra'ns EzarnplesofpollutantsnciudeWan-- grease rom cars. eopper and asbestos from worn brake Ir,ings zdlcfrom tires, arid 'lox c=_ from spilled+luids Stonnwater pollution ca uses as much as 60% of our water pollution problem. it jeopardizes the quality of our waterways and poses a threat to groundwater resources if pollutants percolate through soil. M Since preventing poilution is much easier. and less costly, than cleaning up 'after the fact," it e Crow and County of Riverside StormWaterlCleanWater Protection Program informs residerts ar.d businesses on pollution prevention activities such as the Best Management Practices IBNIPsr described in :his pampnlet The Cities and County of Riverside have adopted ordinances fcr s'ormAa,er rnanagenlent anc discharge control In accordance vvith state and federal lav✓, ihese local stonTiwaier ordinance's prohibit the discharge of was!as into !he s''enn drain systern or local surface waters i"his includes d'scharges conta'ring oil, an' freeze. Casol!ne gild omerv✓a Fie materials. PLEASE NOTE: A common stom-waier pollution problem associated with automotive shops and ousinesses is the hosing down of service bays, parking and other areas. Often, th,s activity {lushes pollutants mto the storm drain sys'em The discharges of pollutants is st ictty prohibited by 'local ordinances and state and federal regulations Ah AIIIIIIIIIII A11111116 7 1. Changing Automotive Fluids • Designate an ,"ea away `rcr s'omi or sar, tar, dra rs to c` ange. auto. ci .-duds • Collect. scpa ote and ml,rie M: )r M. ant tree.: ,rr sr^iss cn `t.ic .. nc ge,-r of • D'a.n bloke fiWd ar, t ' er ^rr re-)-dcblcs n16 ap or'er c'Ur'12 ..Ir. -rid handle as a ha_ardous li-st' • Use a rac; for rushing 9uld ,r a1 �— c2n her yN .d cand add . ,o the :;2S;o aril (ate?e it 2. Working on Transmissions, Engines, and Miscellaneous Repairs • Keep a drip pan Y a wide ow-nmmed container under eh,nes tc catch fluids wneneyeryou u^clip hoses, unscrer,f fillers. or cnangeparts torontainunexpectedleaks 3. Preventing Leaks and Spills • .Avoid spills by emptying and ,vlping 5rp pans ,rhe- you move them to another vehicle or wher.they are half -full • Ro„tinely check equ-nment to wire up spills and repair+aake • Place large pans or an n;flelahle, ponsb'P herrn under wrecked car= • Dra n all fluids from wrecked %eh;cles or "bar`s"ca sycukeepor:,te 4. Cleaning up Spills O Clean up sr i;h spills - ;r'medtately using slop i� rdCs Keep d y ataorhtint m aRC O y aitria is or a rN_i"dry :aCuwT rleanei Gr hanC for r d-cCed O Co,da;n'age spills d atety b ock cr 5^ul Off floor and f arr.Ing of d,a;',s a- :he aut:hontr� • 1 ra"n en -f. c, t s :o hP for, ;iia, w,th hazardous ep.�I fesporce tuns and e,rcrgcrry procedures 5. Identify and Control Wastewater Discharges • Ensure that shop sinks a,•a floor dra.ns a,f connected to the sanitary sewer Check with the Iwai sewer authonly regard'ng Ger-iebrg or other requirerns, l_s • PCst S;gns to PQ le'! dlsp..SE' of 4QJid wa5'-e5 into sanitary dra;ns 6. Fueling Vehicles • Clean-up manor sp.`s w'th a -- i dry absorbent, rather than` allowing ire^; to eea0orale 1 UNLEAD"tD 5Y, Dispose -.f ,he absorbent as + tl( a dry hazardous waste I �1 • Use a damp cloth and a ii dar'p mop to keep the area j if clean rather tnen a hose- or a I if we mop 7. Removing and Storing Batteries • Slore ba,leries ;ndnnrs, on a-, noen rac% • Relw'n usec 1-rie•acs to a hattvry ,endo` • Contain cracked batteries to wevent hazardous spills 8. Cleaning Parts - O Clean parts n a se;f _ coriffiired ur•t sc':e,t s,,. or pats waster r to ire I-, ". sokenis are grea..e fro^ enter; g a serer or star- C -am conn ect,Dn. �I _ I 9. Metal Grinding and Finishing • Caxh rieta; f.l.ngs �n an e^c-;,"s. I a tai T,aurn. O Sweep filing area to oref ent e,ashi^q me'ais .-lo floor dra ns 10. Storing and Disposing of Waste • Store recyclable ,r. -I -,,tri rynabl^ %ast,. separately • Place liquid waste Ihazarcous or c.nc-ra,=.ef within a bsmred cr secunda-, carte met a -ea • Cover outdoor storage areas to p.r ,,nt ccnt ctw hrain waie, • Collect used parts for de ; aery t c a sc rap —^ tat dealer 11. Selecting and Controlling Inventory • Purchaserecyrlahleornon-I:�icn-:aienafs • Select "nosed -loop" sup; 'vers ar,d purch: se supphes ;n bulk 12. Outdoor Parking and Auto Maintenance • Treat uutdoc outdor areas �ls an ey'- sc� c! -,c.r se uce ba vs or av: s g :t Vr • S eep-up trash ai 7 J,rt rn u d.. pe <.i d int ntc rance alez s Da ii I r rt, d;.wn All 1.o'1 Lr-eS L < „rohibi',ed • ,� c.r wr rn rrcaS 7 a Sa litarl a'n ra'her r'.n a scrm Clam Ccntart c. 1 sewn ulhonto lio Ceternlno if ( e, ea., cr't ._ 'E.tu'red. 13. Washing Vehicles, Cleaning Engines, and Other Steam Cleaning • For occasional car e to -for cleanrig nu nlm¢e t` -e water used ars'.'jj,Grt nine f to Jai—caped areas, keel, ngit o.a of the sLrm da;r • Wash .ohicies with biodegracat''e, pr�osphate freedetercient • PAakesurenotvastematerfromeng,neorpa^,, cleanmg or steam. cleaning ;s d;scr,arged ;., rope t R,ay ilov. +o a s:reH p -lti or �'ur;.. dra 14. Cleaning Work Areas • Sweep or vacuum the shop floor fre,.;eptly • Damp mop work areas - do rot hose ds.nr, work areas Into the street or gulter • Co not pour mop wafer ;rto the pa,tirig ;;„ sleet. gutter orstorm drag • Use non-toxic cleaning proclirts :,nenf cr possible Please remember: NO DUMPING ONLY RAIN ILE ?AIN For information on "closed-loop" suppliers and recydingfdisposal vendors, contact: County of Riverside Health Services Agency Department of Environmental Health at (909) 358-5055. IWO111I) V NTE(: SPILL RESPONSE AGENCY: HAZ-MAT: (909)358-5055 AFTER 500 P.M.: (909) 358-5245 OR 911 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL: (909) 358-5055 RECYCLING INFORMATION: 1-$00-366 SAVE To REPORT ILLEGAL DUMPING OR A CLOGGED STORM DRAIN: 1-800-506-2555 To order additional brochures or to obtain information on other pollution prevention activities, call: (909) 955 -1111 - The. Cities and County of Riverside StormWater/CleanWater Protection Program 1-800-506-2555 PROTECTION PROGRAM Riverside County gratefully acknowledges the Santa Clam Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and the San Bernardino County Storrnwater Program for information provided in this brochure. �a euon ._.:What 'llYou Should Know Riverside County has two drainage systems - sanitary sewers and storm drains. The storm drain system is designed to help prevent flooding by carrying excess rainwater away from streets. Since the storm drain system does not provide for water treatment, it also 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. Waste or washwater generated bythe food service industry often contains materials such as food wastes, oil, grease, detergents, and degreasers. These materials can degrade local waters when �� k '. allowed to flow into a storm drain system.r ti Stormwater pollution causes as much. as 60% of our 1Y ^7 wafer pollution problem. It jeopardizes the quality of �. our waterways and poses a threat to groundwater resources if pollutants percolate through soil. Since preventing pollution is much easier, and less costly, than cleaning up "after the fact,"the Cities and County of Riverside StormWater/CleanWater Protection Program informs residents and businesses on pollution prevention activities such as the Best Management Practices (BMPS) described in 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. This includes discharges from the food service industry containing food wastes, oil, grease, detergents, and degreasers: PLEASE NOTE: A common stormwater pollution problem associated with the food service industry is the discharge of washwater into alleys and gutters, and the hosing down of outdoor areas. Often, these activities flush pollutants into the stone drain system. The discharges of pollutants is strictly prohibited by local ordinances and state and federal regulations. 810r WIN� a i_ For information on "closed-loop" suppliers and recydingfdisposal vendors, contact: County of Riverside Health Services Agency Department of Environmental Health at (909) 358-5055. IWO111I) V NTE(: SPILL RESPONSE AGENCY: HAZ-MAT: (909)358-5055 AFTER 500 P.M.: (909) 358-5245 OR 911 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL: (909) 358-5055 RECYCLING INFORMATION: 1-$00-366 SAVE To REPORT ILLEGAL DUMPING OR A CLOGGED STORM DRAIN: 1-800-506-2555 To order additional brochures or to obtain information on other pollution prevention activities, call: (909) 955 -1111 - The. Cities and County of Riverside StormWater/CleanWater Protection Program 1-800-506-2555 PROTECTION PROGRAM Riverside County gratefully acknowledges the Santa Clam Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and the San Bernardino County Storrnwater Program for information provided in this brochure. �a euon ._.:What 'llYou Should Know Riverside County has two drainage systems - sanitary sewers and storm drains. The storm drain system is designed to help prevent flooding by carrying excess rainwater away from streets. Since the storm drain system does not provide for water treatment, it also 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. Waste or washwater generated bythe food service industry often contains materials such as food wastes, oil, grease, detergents, and degreasers. These materials can degrade local waters when �� k '. allowed to flow into a storm drain system.r ti Stormwater pollution causes as much. as 60% of our 1Y ^7 wafer pollution problem. It jeopardizes the quality of �. our waterways and poses a threat to groundwater resources if pollutants percolate through soil. Since preventing pollution is much easier, and less costly, than cleaning up "after the fact,"the Cities and County of Riverside StormWater/CleanWater Protection Program informs residents and businesses on pollution prevention activities such as the Best Management Practices (BMPS) described in 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. This includes discharges from the food service industry containing food wastes, oil, grease, detergents, and degreasers: PLEASE NOTE: A common stormwater pollution problem associated with the food service industry is the discharge of washwater into alleys and gutters, and the hosing down of outdoor areas. Often, these activities flush pollutants into the stone drain system. The discharges of pollutants is strictly prohibited by local ordinances and state and federal regulations. Cleanin' It Right . Pour mop and wash water into the mop sink or down floor drains ... not into gutters, alleys, parking lots or i a storm drain. tom. Wash greasy equipment only ^�N in designated wash areas which are property connected to the sewer system with an appropriate oilfwater separator. Also, avoid washing kitchen mats, garbage containers, and other items in areas where wastewater is likely to flow into a stone drain. Watch Out For Spills ... Use dry methods for spill cleanup. Don't hose down outside spills. Use rags or absorbents such as cat litter and then dispose of in the garbage, or handle as hazardous waste as appropriate. If necessary, mop the area with a minimum amountof water Proper Storage and Disposal ... General cleaners, floor cleaners, solvents, and detergents often _ contain toxic substances. Read labels carefully and store and dispose of these products property. REMEMBER: Dont throw toxic waste into the trash or into a storm drain. To report toxic spill call 911. For information on hazardous waste pick-up call (909) 358-5055. Grease and Oil ... Handle and dispose of grease properly. Save used cooking grease and oil for recycling in tallow bins or sealed containers. Never pour grease into a sink, floor drain, dumpster or storm drain. Watch out for, and report to management, I - overflowing !i grease interceptors. Call (909) 358-5 for disposal information. How `Bout That Dumpster ... Keep dumpster and loading dock areas clean. Control litter by sweeping - don't hose down the area. Replace r .. leaky dumpsters 71' and keep lids closed to keep out u rainwater Use Water -Friendly Products ... Whenever possible, purchase water-based cleaning products. Look for products labeled "non-toxic," "non -petroleum based," "ammonia -free," "phosphate -free," and "perfume -free, or "readily biodegradable." Everyone contributes a little to the problem of stormwater pollution. Now it's time for all of us to become part of the solution! r Outdoor/Sidewalk Areas . Sweep up food particles, cigarette butts, and trash from outdoor dining areas before rinsing or steam cleaning. z Don't use toxic bleachesII or detergents when you pressure wash outdoor dining areas, entrances- � \' or surrounding sidewalk areas. You maybe already implementing many of the BMPs prescribed in this brochure. However, if you discover any potential problem areas, please consider using one or more of the recommended BMPS. Also, please note that the Riverside County Environmental Health Department will monitor potential sources of stormwater pollution activities during regularly scheduled inspections of food service facilities. if Health Department staff observe activities, which may be contributing to stormwater pollution, suggestions will be provided and/or use of prescribed BMPS listed in this brochure will be offered. Please remember: NO DIIMAIN ONLY, /N THE DRAIM Ar "�{(•r� �".:.{Ey, �,'tk` .9r'>._.� � �'� 0, 3. .:�°p: =-`0: p, c8:'t �'� .�, & Q �•`$.�8'�`4• @'' �.'"',fi:• $,. _-�,: � .6:"� �:>-B .�� � ��;.>p .�. `�,,.: Many communities have "Scoop the Poop' laws that govern pet waste cleanup. Some of these laws specifically require anyone who walks an animal off of their property to carry a bag, shovel, or scooper. Any F 1 waste left by 1A,y�t the animal must be cleaned up immediately. CALL YOUR LOCAL CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER to find out more about pet waste regulations. Pets are only one of the many fixtures of suburban America that add to water pollution. Lawn fertilizers, rinse water from driveways and motor oil commonly end up in streams and lakes. CALL 1-800-506-2555 FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION LOCATION AND DATES. Maintain your automobile to avoid leaks. Dispose of used vehicle fluids properly. Your pets can be poisoned if they ingest gas, oil or antifreeze that drips onto the pavement or is stored in open containers. NEVER HOSE VEHICLE FLUIDS into the street or gutter. USE ABSORBENT MATERIALS such as cat litter to clean- up spills. SWEEP UP used absorbent materials and place in the trash. HORSES AND LIVESTOCK Fortunate enough to own a horse livestock? You, too, can play a part protecting and cleaning up our water resources. a The following are a few simple Best_ Management Practices (BMPs) specifically designed for horse Qy. owners and landowners with horses. . or in STORE your manure properly. Do not store unprotected piles of manure in places where runoff may enter streams, or flood waters may wash the manure away. Place a cover or tarp over the pile to keep rainwater out. CHECK with your local conservation district to design manure storage facilities to protect water quality. These structures usually consist of a concrete pad to protect ground water and a short wall on one or two sides to make manure handling easier. TRY composting - A vegetative cover placed around buildings or on steeper slopes can help minimize erosion and ' absorb nutrients while improving they appearance of your property. In addition, avoid costlier erosion controls, vegetative covers will provide animals with better traction during wet or icy conditions. KEEP animals out of steams - Designed stream crossings provide a safe, easy way for horses and livestock to ford streams. Fencing encourages the use of the crossing instead of the streambed to navigate streams. This will allow vegetation to stabilize stream banks and reduce sediment pollution. MOW pastures to proper height, six inches is typically recommended. Material STORAGE SAFETY TIPS - Many of the chemicals found in barns require careful handling and proper disposal. When using these chemicals, be certain to follow these common sense guidelines: Buy only what you need. Treat spills of hoof oils like fuel spill. Use kitty litter to soak up the oil and dispose in a tightly sealed plastic bag. Store pesticides in a locked, dry, well -ventilated area. Protect stored fertilizer and pesticides from rain and surface water. Call 1-800-506-2555 to locate your local conservation district to find out what to do with your current backyard manure pile, how to re-establish a healthy posture, what to do about weeds, and what grasses grow best in your soils. Thank you for doing your part to protect your watershed, the environment, and the equestrian way of life in your community. n LJ Adopt a pet from your local animal shelter or adoption centers at pet stores. A variety of animals, from purebred tomixe d breed are waiting for loving arms and good homes. Consider' �' volunteering at your local animal t f) shelters. Volunteers, donations, food, newspapers, old towels and linens are needed to help the animals. RIVERSIDE COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER LOCATIONS: BLYTHE 16450 West Hobson Way Blythe, CA 92225 760-921-7857 HEMET 800 South Sanderson Hemet, CA 92545 909 925-8025 INDIO 45-355 Van Buren Indio, CA 92201 760-347-2319 RIVERSIDE 5950 Wilderness Avenue Riverside, CA 92504 909-358-7387 FOR ALL OTHER AREAS CALL 1-888-636-7387 Riverside County gratefully acknowledges the City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program for the design concept of this brochure. E i 1 1 TIPS FOR A HEALTHY FET AND A HEALTHIER ENVIRONMENT HOUSEHOLD PETS We all love our pets, but pet waste is a subject everyone likes to avoid. Pet waste left on trails, sidewalks, streets, and grassy areas is immediately flushed into the nearest waterway when it rains. Even if you can't see water near you, the rain or waste water WASHES all that PET WASTE and BACTERIA INTO THE STORMDRAIN, where it travels to your neighborhood creek or lake untreated. These animal droppings also contain nutrients that can promote the growth of algae, if they enter our streams and lakes. The risk of STORMWATER CONTAMINATION INCREASES, if pet wastes is allowed to accumulate in animal pen areas or left on sidewalks, streets, or driveways where runoff can carry them to storm sewers. Some of the DISEASES THAT CAN SPREAD from pet waste are: Campylobacteriosis — a bacterial infection that causes diarrhea in humans. Salmonellosis — the most common bacterial infection transmitted to humans from animals. Toxocarisis — roundworms transmitted from animals to humans. 40 owing their Flies and other pest insects can also increase when pet waste is disposed of improperly, becoming a nuisance and adding yet another vector for disease transmission. WHAT CAN YOU DO? SCOOP up pet waste and flush it down the toilet. NEVER DUMP pet waste into a storm drain or catch basin. USE the complimentary BAGS or mutt mitts offered in dispensers at local parks. CARRY EXTRA BAGS when walking your dog and make them available to other pet owners who are without. TEACH CHILDREN how to properly clean up after a pet. TELL FRIENDS AND NEIGH BOP 5 about the ill effects of animal waste on the environment. Encourage them to cleanup after pets. each year? a,: g, a. a. Discharge Regulations Requirements for pool draining may differ from city to city. Check with your water t �c agency to see if disposal to the sanitary sewer line is allowed for pool discharges (see reverse side for Riverside County water purveyors). If sewer discharge is allowed, a hose can be run from your swimming pool pump to the washing machine drain or a sink or bathtub. If sewer discharge is not allowed, or if your house is served by a septic tank, review the options presented below. Discharge Options Refinishing Pool Surfaces If you are resurfacing your pool, or resurfacing the pool patio area, be sure to hose down mixers, tools and trailers in a dirt area where rinse water won't flow into the street, gutter or storm drain. Local storm water ordinances strictly prohibit the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system. Residues from acid washing and similar activities require special handling. Never discharge low or high pH wastewater into the street, gutter or storm drain. If your local sewer agency will not accept pool water into their system, or if you are on a septic tank system, follow these guidelines: 1. Reduce or eliminate solids (e.g., debris, leaves or dirt) in the pool water. 2. Allow the chemicals in the pool water to dissipate. This could take up to seven (7) days depending on the time of year. Create a co-op; I_ - your neighbor share your pool while theirs is being prepared for draining, then use their pool while yours is being drained. Chlorinated water should not be discharged into the storm drain or surface waters. This includes large pools such as community swimming pools or spas. 3. When the pool water is free of all chemicals (verify by a home pool water test kit) drain pool waterto landscaped areas, lawns, yards, orany areas thatwill absorb the water. 4. You may have to drain the pool water over a period of a few days to allow the landscape areas to absorb most of the water. 5. Control the now of the draining pool water to prevent soil erosion. Do not allow sediment to enter the street, gutter or storm drain. 6. Avoid discharging pool water into the street and storm drain system. Water runoff that enters the street can pick up motor oil, pet waste, trash and other pollutants, eventually carrying them into the storm drain system and local surface waters. Cleaning Filters Discharge of pool filter rinse water and backflush to a stream, ditch, or storm drain is prohibited. Backflush from pool filters must be discharged to the sanitary sewer, on-site septic tank and drainfield system (if properly designed and adequately sized), or a seepage pit. Alternatively, pool filter rinse water and backwash may be diverted to dirt or landscaped areas. Filter media and other solids should be picked up and disposed of in the trash. Chemical Storage and Handling Use only indicated o labels. the amount n product , Store chlorine and other chemicals in a covered area to prevent runoff. Keep out of reach , of children and pets. Chlorine kits, available at retail swimming pool equipment and supply stores, should be used to monitor the chlorine and pH levels. Chlorine and other pool chemicals should never be allowed to flow into the gutter or the storm drain system. Algaecides Avoid using copper - based algaecides unless absolutely necessary. Control algae with chlorine, organic polymers or other alternatives to copper -based pool chemicals. Copper is a heavy metal that can be toxic to aquatic life. Proper Disposal of Pool Chemicals If you need to dispose of unwanted pool chemicals, first try giving them to a neighbor with a pool. If that doesn't work, bring unwanted pool chemicals to a Household x` Hazardous Waste (HHW) I Collection Event. There's no cost for bringing HHW items to collection events - it's FREE! Call 1-800-506- 2555 for a schedule of HHW events in your community. NEVER put unused chemicals into the trash, onto the ground or down a storm drain. AIF N' J-_zbU.- — vY•L6a,. teleonene namers and links; RIVERSIDE COUNTY WATER AGENCIES: City of Banning City of Beaurnom City of Bwe City of Coachella Coachella valley'water District coy or Corona Dalen Center, CSA Y51 Eastern Municipal Water District Eainwe valley MWD Farm Mutual Water Company cMe District Jurupa Cpmmurgty Services Distrix Lake Hemet MWD Lee Lake Wafer District March AC Forty Base Mnsron Springs Wafer Disidd Water District Services District Western Municipal Water Disind Yucaipa Valley Water District CALL 1-800-506-2555 to: Repan clogged stem drains n illegal conn drain deposal born residential. adugnak construcwn aro ccrnmercvl sial kna puck streets, slum drains ardhrwalerbxlies. Fad out aawaaur venous stam+riam patkavun prevenaat rrureroa (.orale the daces and lives at Household Fia+ardota Waste NMI Request adJ4 neigMorhoad,acrossmpm pesenaems. • Lo(ateoararcanty errvironmeMal SeNiaea. • Receive grassing information and composting workshop f,rIXmaaOfL Or visit our (Riverside County Flood Control District website at www.fioodcontrol.co riversitlega.us Other links to additional storm drain pollution information County of Riverside Enwromnental Health- California State • Caafaraa Stale Water Resource Conservation Bgatd: wrm coLmazvt%qMjyAftnkt,lAml Calafomia Water Quality Task Force: vrrrv�-ra Wahamdtnoks.wrN United State EmnronmentaI Protection Agency (EPA). vrmv.epatialoondnlhb2rronwJonwramsbusgrc inm fGomplance assisance infoumalion) River. Qe County Onty Rain in the Storm Drain Pollutron Pmiecran Program rralefully acknowledges the Bay Area Slormavaler Managema"f:wennes Ass iation and the Cleaninq Equm ipenl Trade Rssotra;io; 11 in`ormafioh prov✓ded in This h•echme. ( {° �tDfill 119di`: a 11fulfil Storm Brains are not connected to sanitary sewer systems and 'S (` treatment plants! \ j ) The primary purpo e: of storm drains is to carry rain water away from developed areastto prevent flooding. Untreated storm water and the pollutants it carries flow directly Into rivers, lakes, and streams. Wastewater T t from residential swimming pools' Jacuzzis, fishponds, and fountains often contain chemicals used for sanitizing or cleansing purposes. Toxic 4 u chemicals (such as chlorine or copper -based algaecides) can damage the CG environment when wastewater ls'allowed to flow into our local rivers, lakes, and streams by way of the storm d ' in system. Each of us can do our part to help clean our water, and that adds up to a pollution solution.. + The Cities and County of Riverside. avdadiipted ordifiances for•storm drain pollution management to maintain discharge control and prevent Illegal storm drain discharge. In accordance with state and federal law, these local f" storm water ordinances prohibit the discharge of pollutants into the storm "?la drain system or local surface waters. The Only Rain in the Storm Dfain 00 •aa• taa••a\aaaataaa•Iaa••••r t Pollution Program informs residents and businesses of storm drain pollution prevention activities such as those described in this brochure.o 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. 0 HOMEOWNER EDUCATION LOG NAME UNIT DATE WOMP MATERIALS PROVIDED E • TENANT CERTIFICATION I certify that at the time of Final Walk-through, I have received, reviewed and discussed all WQMP (Water Quality Management Plan) materials provided to me by (Print)an Authorized Representative of the development, and fully understand the importance of following these requirements and activity restrictions. Tenant Name(s) (Print) Tenant Signature(s) is Unit Address, City, State, Zip Developer's Representative (Signature) • Date Date Date Date Date 0 Appendix E 0 0 C� Appendix E Soils Report and Results of Percolation Tests The soils report is part of the more comprehensive soils report for the entire Roripaugh Ranch project. A copy of this soils report is on file with the City of Temecula. The results of percolation tests on site are included in this appendix. • 0 • Basin 2 Infiltration Rate Test • 0 Date Time Depth 10 -Oct 12:01 PM 31'-11" 10 -Oct 2:01 PM 32'-6" 11 -Oct 12:01 PM 37'-5" 12 -Oct 12:01 PM 40'-4" Total time elapsed: 48 hours Total infiltrated: 8'-5" Infiltration rate: 2.10 in/hr 0 Basin 1 Infiltration Rate Test u • Date Time Depth 70ct 1236 PM 31'-11" 10 -Oct 236 PM 37'-2" 11 -Oct 12:55 PM 32'-2" 11 -Oct 2:55 PM 37'-0" Total time elapsed: 2 hours Avg total infiltrated: 5'-1/2" Infiltration rate: 30.2 in/hr TABIJ n(inued) LOG G. � -ST PITS Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch 0 LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-29-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRYTYPE MOIST PI'1'tl (FT) DENSITY (%a) U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C, B & DEPTH (PCF) 0-3' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose,, silty, fine to medium SAND; highly porous, abundant rootlets 3-8.5' SM Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse T-68 SAND 8.5-10' While -gray, very dense, SANDSTONE T.D.: 10'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 04' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, abundant roots T-69 4-8' Bag @ 0-2' SM Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, dense, silly, very fine to coarse SAND; common root hairs T.D.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 0-4.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to moist, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, highly porous 4.5-7.5' SM Pauba Formation: Red -brown, very moist, medium dense, silly, tine to coarse SAND; common root hairs T-70 7.5-10' SP Red -tan, very moist, dense, Fine to coarse SAND 10-12' ML Dark brown -tan, moist, stiff, sandy SILT T.D.: 12'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 TABUnlinued) LOG L ST PITS Project Nu. 11990013-001 CLFINT: Roripaugh Ranch 7 LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-29-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPE DENSITY (%) U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH PCF 0-3' SM Pauba Formalion: Red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly weathered, common roots 3-8' SM Red -brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND; non - T -71 porous 8-10' SM Red -tan, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND T.D.: 10'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 04' SM Alluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, highly porous T-72 4-7' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, damp to moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; minor rootlets (upper 1.5' is slightly weathered) T.D.: 7'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 0-1.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; abundant roots, highly porous, 1.5-4.5' SM Dark brown, damp to moist, rl dium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; common root hairs, moderately porous T-73 4.5-6' SM Pauba Formation: Dark red -brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly weathered 6-8.5' SM/ML Red -brown, moist, dense, silty, fine Io coarse SAND with inlerbeds of hard, ,sandy SILT T.U.: 8.5% No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 • Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch TABI "ontinued) LOG . FST PITS 0 LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-29-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPE DENSITY (%) US.CS. D CRIPTION C B & DEPTH PC 0-2' SM Pauba Formation: Dark red -brown, damp to moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND with gravel up to 1.5" in di meter, slightly weathered T-74 2-5 SM Tan, damp, dense, silty, fine to me ium SAND; minor rootlets in upper I' 5.5.5' White -tan, very dense SANDSTO T.D.: 5.5% No Groundwater Encotitt red, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 SM Pauba Formation: Dark red -brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; porous, abundant r s 1.5-5' SM/SP Tan, damp, dense, silty, very fine S ND with 3-6" interbeds/pads of white, T-75 medium to coarse SAND 5-9' ML Tan to olive, damp, stiff to hard, sa dy SILT T.D.: 9'; No Groundwater Encount red, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 0-2' SM Dubs Formation: Dark brow,,da p, medium dense to dense, silty, fine SAND; blocky, porous, common root) is 2-9' SM/SP Tan, damp, dense, silty, very fine l medium SAND; non -porous, common pads of T-76 while, medium to coarse SAND ( omes finer grained with depth) 9-12' ML Grades to olive, damp, hard, sandy ILT T.D.: 12'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 2-1-99 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 1 of 2 Project No. 1199000t •Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 IDS Drop 30 1evation Top of Hole +/-1212' ft. Ref. or Datum o a Z e : :� '"- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION C r_ t m a a ai s ,r, O Lw 7r ep, O H mJ, mLL 4J O ¢ 4 O r mea O a e° Uy O W w C eV Logged BY SER n Sampled By SER 1210 1 14 107.1 7.1 SM AI I INII IM I(1a11 @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose, silty SAND: minor root hairs, slight porosity 2 16 119.8 9.4 SM @ 5': Same as above 12 1 3 18 103.4 8.5 SM @ 10': Brown to dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND lless silt) 1200 is 4 27 6.8 SW @ 1 Light brown, damp, medium dense SAND; with gravel up to .75' t 1195-- 2 5 22 103.4 14,2 SM PAIIRGFARMATION IOnel------------------ @ 20': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; slight porosity 1190 2s 6 54 8.6 SIMISF @ 25': Light brown, damp, dense to very dense SAND with small pockets of silty sand 118 38 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECt SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS n AIN&CAUWIc B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 505A(IIi-M CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE ON & ASSOC TES RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX Date2-1-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 ' Sheet- 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH ShftnNo. •Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Project Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive_ Weight 140 lbs Elevation Top of Hole +1-1212' ft. Ref. or Datum Of .2. 11990013.001 B-53 Drop 30 in. °a S SPLIT SPOON D Z e0 BULK SAMPLE T - GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m �mLL"O � V� LLO O pLO °E` Z a3o w o �v Logged By SER rm o c Sampled By SER F 7 57 106.0 21.4 SM 30': Brown to dark brown, moist, very dense, silly SAND 118 3 e 42 18.1 SM @ 35': Same as above 117 9 Bo 103.5 22.2 SM @ 40': Brown to dark brown, wet, very dense, silty SAND @ 41': Groundwater Encountered �7 10 62 21.9 SM @ 45': Some as above II6 t t 65/6- 99.0 29.0 SM @ 50': Same as above ll Boring Terminated @ 51.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 41' 55 Backfilled 2-1-99 155 60 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE S BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE i05Apl?7J TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOCIJ TES CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B=6 Date 2-1-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 119901199073-001 mg Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 Hda Diameter 8 In. Lone vvelam 140 lbs Drop 30 in. ]ovation Top of Hole +/-1215' ft. Ref. or Datum o `mo Me W cm °li ° aO1 .mr p o Z a s E fO - 3LL °. Q<o or. O n > c` m� «c m� �o v •"' mmy of GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER o °a 1' _ MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B • BULK SAMPLE 1 9 91.1 9.5 SM AI I lIVI11M ftldl @ 2': Brown to dark brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; EI EXPANSION INDEX i05Apl/T7) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES moderate porosity, common root hairs 1210 2 17 110.7 7.5 SMPAUBA F i6 ATI -AS Highly Weathered - - - -' @ 5': Same as above; slight porosity, Common root hairs 1205 1 3 17 99.9 5.8 SM @ 10': Same ssabove 1200 1 4 36 3.8 SP @ 15': Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense SAND 119S 20 .".: .. 5 50/6' 101.1 17.0 SM ________________________________ @ 20': Brown to light olive brown, moist, very dense, silty, fine SAND 1190 2 6 50/6' 12,6 SM @ 25': Brown to dark brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE - S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE _ MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B • BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX i05Apl/T7) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Data 2-1-99 - Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH . Proj C NoNo. 11990013-001 gftDrilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B 53 ;Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 in. lavation Top of Hole +/-1215' ft. Ref. or Datum SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 75A011m TYPE OF TESTS: OS °GEOTECHNICAL MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN = SU e- EXPANSION INDEX DESCRIPTION e �'e _ Lpl • e ;O C� rc eLL eLL mJ O Z 6 Oi m0. GS e.. UV w t7 m to O io of y— Logged By SER • U Sampled By SER1185 r t- 7 7016' 94.3 18.8 SM 30': Brown to olive, damp, very dense, silty SAND 1180 3 e 50/5' M/S @ 35': Light brown to brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND 1175 9 50/6- 97.2 24.4 C!S @ 40': Dark brown, moist, vary dense, silty to clayey SAND ,I Boring Terminated @ 41.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2.1.99 1170 45 1165 5o 1160 55 ]55 60 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 75A011m TYPE OF TESTS: OS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOU CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LWIrrS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX Bag 3 I 1 @ 1-5, 2 12 185.3 19.0 I SM I @ 2': Brown, damp, loose, silty SAND moderate porosity, fYf .. inn. l-.- 49 1117.01 8.2 I SM I @ 5': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND; slightly porous 4 ■ 60 5 6 20 6.0 I SMI @ up Red -brown, damp, very dense.25", silty SAND with gravel 6.1 I SP I @ 15': Ught•brown to red, damp, loose to medium dense SAND with gravel up to .25- 61 161.7 153.7 I SM I @ 20': White to olive, moist, very dense, silty SAND with gravel up to 1' 7 n 50/6 - SAMPLE TYPES: 5 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7 RING SAMPLE Data 2-1-99 7 TUBE SAMPLE AL Project CN RORIPA[IGH RANCH Sheet 1 of 2 DrillingCo. SU CAL PAC DRILLING— Project No. 11990013-001 ---_ • Hole Diameter B in. Drive Weigh TYPe of RIg B-52 ]ovation140 Top of Hole +/-1232' ft. Ref, or Datum lbs .. .. ------------ Drop 30 in.c O d p a 0 >, GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O O L f9 O _ ?i 0.Or C.r aCLLmom oi5� oa Logged By SER ]10" Sampled BySER - Bag 3 I 1 @ 1-5, 2 12 185.3 19.0 I SM I @ 2': Brown, damp, loose, silty SAND moderate porosity, fYf .. inn. l-.- 49 1117.01 8.2 I SM I @ 5': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND; slightly porous 4 ■ 60 5 6 20 6.0 I SMI @ up Red -brown, damp, very dense.25", silty SAND with gravel 6.1 I SP I @ 15': Ught•brown to red, damp, loose to medium dense SAND with gravel up to .25- 61 161.7 153.7 I SM I @ 20': White to olive, moist, very dense, silty SAND with gravel up to 1' 7 n 50/6 - SAMPLE TYPES: 5 SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE 7 TUBE SAMPLE 05A(1117) 11.4 I ML I @ 25': Brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MO MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERSERG LUITS CN CONSOLLDA71ON RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX Date 2-1-99 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter -8 9evation Top of Hole + GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B=7 Sheet 2 of 2 RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 11990 CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rip B-52 I. Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 1232' ft. Ref. or Datum o„ = z P�`° :n; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION o • r„ • L ill e 2 ,,; '' O re, 0: mLL' DIi relJ 0 C e �D, C 4 �w vN C W O H G �V Logged By SER n t Sampled By SERju ►T e 59 95.5 28.8 SC @ 30': Tan to brown, damp, very dense, atiff, Clayey SAND 3 9 49 21.8 SC @ 35': Same as above, damp to moist 119 740— 10 5016- 114.9 13.6 SP @ 40': Brown, wet, very dense SAND; Groundwater Encountered ,90. 4S—:::11 39 16.1 SP @ 45': Light brown to brown, wet, dense SAND 1185 12 48 SP @ 50'; Same as above, no recovery HIM Boring Terminated @ 51.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 40' Backfilled 2-1.99 S 11'75 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SI`ft SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS a BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 505A(11177) L Mu mw UM venal l T AL ATTERSERG LIMITS ON CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX -D ate 2-2-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8 Sheet of of 2 DiProject RORIPAUGH RANCH Proleot No. 11990013-001 *filing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig Hole Diameter B in. Drive Weight 140 lbs B-52� " lavation Top of Hole +/-1221' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. • mLL w+ ae e� n as a� e o o Z zd e n m .; o o� 00a.. ". C pn t] : �« V 25 a,6 � GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER a o n t 13 1 D6.1 4.6 SM ALLUVIUM UVIUM Incl) @ 2': Brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common root heirs 2 a4 112.2 5.6 SM @ 5': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND 121 Iless silt), slight porosity 1 3 35 103.4 9.2 SP @ 10': Red -brown, moist, medium dense SAND 121 1 4 10 6.2 P/SM @ 15': Light brown to red -brown, damp. loose, silty SAND 1205 2 - 5 74111'116.7 9.0 SM P4lIRA Fr1RA ATIl1tJ lnn.l------------------ 12 Brown to red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, silty SAND 25 6 e0 16.0 ML @ 25': Light brown to olive, damp, very dense SILT 1195 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERSERS LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 'ON & ASSOCU Date 2-2-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B=8 - "Oct RORIPAUGH RANCH Shoe 2 of 2 DrillingCo. Project No. 1 1990013-001 CAL PAC DRILLING Type of m — —_ •Hole Diameter Bin. Drive Weight 9 5-52 1401bs 30 in. Drop °Jevation Top of Hole +l-1221' ft. Ref. or Detlrm — I '05AU1/77) 8 P90110'1 J40 -9J ML 1 @35': Same as above, moist 10 A 5514-1 96.4 122.7 I SP I @ 40': Olive to light brown, wet, very dense SAND @ 41': Groundwater Encountered 11 58 I 132.6 I ML I @ 45': Olive, wet, very dense SILT 12 A 5014' 194.6 116.6 I SP I @ SO': White to brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE S BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE r�L Baring Terminated @ 51.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 41' Backfilled 2-2-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION i --: GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION nm y F ver •e ]COL -102, o o. o Oa INC V M G� p e moo t• :o of Logged By SER e 'AO U n Sampled By SER F - 7 e0 72.8 49.2 ML 30': Olive• damp, very dense SILT 11 I '05AU1/77) 8 P90110'1 J40 -9J ML 1 @35': Same as above, moist 10 A 5514-1 96.4 122.7 I SP I @ 40': Olive to light brown, wet, very dense SAND @ 41': Groundwater Encountered 11 58 I 132.6 I ML I @ 45': Olive, wet, very dense SILT 12 A 5014' 194.6 116.6 I SP I @ SO': White to brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE S BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE r�L Baring Terminated @ 51.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 41' Backfilled 2-2-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBEAG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Date 2-2-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 •Dnll'mg Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig �— Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs levation Top of Hole +/-1188' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 C,; rSPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m° CL ox 00 C °.°r 0 Z n o: m6 On °° Y w G �V tip Logged By SER c cc Sampled By SER I' 1 13 109.3 12.0 SM Ar i L Ivn IM Ines @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose, silty SAND with 11 gravel up to .25', common rg2tlets,_ 2 10 107.2 5.3 SP @ 5': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose SAND I1 1 3 23 100.1 8.2 SP @ 10': Light brown, moist, loose to madium dense SAND 15 4 24 8.2 SP/ML @ 15': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND with 4- interbed of olive silt 1170 2 5 39 102.7 6.1 SP @ 20': Brown, moist, dense poorly graded SAND 1165 ZS S 23 14.2 ML PAUBA FORMATION IQosl - - - - - - @ 25.1damp to moist, medium dense SILT 160 30 V^�„ yS , rSPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 25A(11177) rTM UP TESrs: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE ON & ASSOCU CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG umrTS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Date 2-2-99 Sheet 2 of y !'roles RORIPAUGH RANCH ProjeeNo. 11990013-001— — �►N�9 Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 8.52 Hob Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 lbs "-- Drop 30 in. ovation Top of Hole +/-1188' ft. Ref. or Datum o„ DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION a* :dl EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION �„• t t9 O O Lw i _ieO Oe CLL ao O Z n OLL a0_.O > n UV _ D Mn �� a rA °1;a e o H– Logged By SER O U Sampled By SER > 1– 7 56 107.1 3.7 BP 30': Whhe to light gray -brown, damp• dense to very dense SAND 1155 35— a 30 38.0 ML @ 36': Olive, damp, medium dense SILT 1150 40 9 9019' 102.3 21.0 ML @ 40•: Olive, damp, very dense SILT 45- 1045 37.7 ML @ 45': Same as above 11 5 11 50 65.0 53.3 ML @ 50': Same as above Boring Terminated @ 51.5' 1135 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-2.99 55 113 60 SAMPLE TYPES S SPLIT SPOON • D RING SAMPLE B BULK fiAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 75A(11177) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10 Date 2-2-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 119901_ •Dnll'Ing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 lbs Type R�g 2— in. lavation Top of Hole +l-1194' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 o DS DIRECT SHEAR MD z CN CONSOLIDATION SU -i--: GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION am am Qo ,ao a am o °. c� «c ° t- ali aiL p _a�J. O 2 a Em m� O� =° O Til': O IY O Z. C �� � Logged By SER a o. rn Sampled By SER F 1 72 99.9 9.4 SM Al 1IIVILIM Inwn @ 2': Brown, damp, very dense. silty SAND; moderate Porosity, common root hairs 1190 2 18 90.5 6.6 SM @ 5': Brown, damp, loose to medium dense, sihy SAND; moderate porosity, common root hairs 1185 1 3 36 98.5 12.0 SM @ 10': Light brown to brown, damp, dense, silty SAND (less sand) 118 1 4 32 6.7 SM @ 15': Same as above 117 2 5 60 105.0 6.7 SP PAIIRA FORMATI[]N lOnel---------'-"--' @ 20': Red -brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, Poo dy graded SAND; iron -staining present, gravel up to 117 6 88 5.8 SP @ 25': Light brown, damp, very dense SAND 16 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON • D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE iO3A01177) LEIGH TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10 Date 2-2-99 sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1199`01 riling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-52 Pole Diameter �8 In. Dnve Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 in. ovation Top of Hole +/-1194' ft. Ref. or Datum Ir Ir «e >LL W r« «a J. ° Lap aJ e O - O Z z • 06 m N « CLL 91; �d p` o V 0 a of OT_ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER m f O m n 1= BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION T TUBE SAMPLE SU 8211 t- 92.030.9 ML 30'; Olive, moist, very dense SILT 1160. e 55 19.4 ML @ 35': Same as above @ 37': Groundwater Encountered 1155 40 9 5016- 114.3 13.3 ML @ 40': Olive to brown, wet, very dense, sandy SILT 45- 10 86111- 16.6 SM @ 45': Dark brown, we[, very dense, silty SAND 1145 5 11 5014' 96.9 16.8 'SP @ 50': White to light brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAND; gravel up to .5' 1140 5 12 5016' 11,2 ML @ 55': Olive,.wet. very dense SILT Boring Terminated @ 56.5' 1135 Groundwater Encountered @ 37' Backfilled 2-2-99 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: -. S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR - D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE L'1 M CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE O EXPANSION INDEX 11 1 2 3 4 5 75 25 S rg 3 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON ' D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE (11/77) 49 I111.41 6.3 I SM I @ 2': Brown to dark brown, moist, dense, silty SAND; I N abundant rootlets. small oieees of ma. ;,. .__�_ is 1724.91 4.3 I SP F - -Br��-SAND wn moist, loose to medium dense, poorly - - j 12 197.1 114.2 I SM I @ 10': Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity 32 I 14.3 I SP I @ 15': Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 82 112.7 6.0 1 $P PAIIRA FriRMATI Q IO 1------------------ @ 20': Red -brown, moist, dense to very dense SAND 27 1 113.0 I SP I @ 25': Red -brown, moist to wet, medium dense SAND TYPE OF TESTS: DS GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11 MAXIMUM DENSITY Date 2.3-99 SU SULFATE EXPANSION INDEX Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Sheet 1 of 3 D Drilling Co. . CAL PAC DRILLING Project No. 11990013-001 •)Hole Diameter 8 in.Drive Weight TYPe of Rig B-52 9evation Top of Hole +/-1197' h. Ref. or Datum .140 lbs D� in Or �� O el Z so HNICAL DESCRIPTIONOe= hyo, OLL OlOC.r 4J n O e OOW(7 Z mm6 O nac L SER on O -Sampled SER IRI I IAf 1 11 1 2 3 4 5 75 25 S rg 3 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON ' D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE (11/77) 49 I111.41 6.3 I SM I @ 2': Brown to dark brown, moist, dense, silty SAND; I N abundant rootlets. small oieees of ma. ;,. .__�_ is 1724.91 4.3 I SP F - -Br��-SAND wn moist, loose to medium dense, poorly - - j 12 197.1 114.2 I SM I @ 10': Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity 32 I 14.3 I SP I @ 15': Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 82 112.7 6.0 1 $P PAIIRA FriRMATI Q IO 1------------------ @ 20': Red -brown, moist, dense to very dense SAND 27 1 113.0 I SP I @ 25': Red -brown, moist to wet, medium dense SAND TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERRERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 2 of 9 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project NO- 1199013.001 VoleCo. CAL PACDRILLING Type of Rig &52 Vole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight, 140 lbs �— ovation Top of Hole +/-119T ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. 0 >o. W iu o mo. le t] rO or t7 o `o Z z° o a m vo ;o oLL Ali c,. wo t] �� ee 2v w; e VC1 cacq GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged BY SER Sampled By SER a 7 70 122.2 10.1 SW 30':R -brown, moist to wet, dense SAND 11 3 B 54 5.1 ML @ 35': Brown to olive, moist, dense SILT @ 38': Groundwater Encountered 9 50/5• 115.2 15.0 ML @ 40': Olive -brown, wet, very dense, sandy SILT �5 45- 10 � 42 25.1 ML @ 45': Olive -brown, wet, dense SILT 1150 so tt 50/4• 121,8 15.1 SP @ 50% Brown, wet, very dense SAND 1145 5 12 88/11' 27.9 SP @ 55': Same as above 1140 60 SAMPLE TYPES: S SRR SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 03.1(11 /T/) TYPE OF TESTS; DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 3 of 3 �Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1199`01 �mg Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 8-52 Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weigh 140 Ibs ]ovation Top of Hole + 1-1197' ft. Ref. or Datum DroP 30 in. SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D z B a t'� TUBE SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m ee Ce. pa o o •- .s ;� m` $� e VV H I e1 C 2J Z n o� ma Oa =e W h C i a rom Logged By SER a Sampled By SER H 13 50/5• 706.6 16.6 SP @60': White to light brown, wet, dense to very dense SAND 113 14 50/5• 20.1 SP @ 65': Same as above ML @ 65.B': Olive, wet, very dense SILT, silty, very fine SAND 1130 Boring Terminated @ 66.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 38' Backfilled 2.3.99 7 �5 75 112 s0 111S. 8 11 90 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE '05A(m/Tn C TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MO MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX SAMPLE TYPES: — GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 D Date 2-3-99 " - - T Project EXPANSION INDEX Sheet 1 of 3 RORIPAUGH RANCH WTilling Co. Project No. 11990013-001 CAL PAC DRILLING------�� ole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weigh Type of Rig 140 lbs lavation Top of Hole +/-1210' ft. Ref. or Datum - Drop 30 in. C o zCi:— so aGEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION as s n o� oLL m m� O O o 2 pa �6 y G itj 2 Logged By SER a Sampled By SER AI I - UMUlet Inas t 29 105.0 9.3 SM @ 2': Brown to dark brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity�Commop_rootlets______ I I2 19 96.5 6.8 SM @ 5': Same as above Bap @ 5- 39' I 1200.1 4 22 109.2 9.4 SM @ 10': Brown to dark brown, dry to damp, medium dense, I silty SAND, slight porosity 119 15 5 26 5.5 SM @ 15': Same as above 1390 2 6 36 112.7 8.8 SM @ 20': Brown to dark brown, damp, dense, silty SAND 165 2 T IS 17.2 SPISM @ 25': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND; silty fine SAND SAMPLE TYPES: 'S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE e SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE iA(ll177) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERTERG uNvrS RV R VALUE El EXPANSION INDEX 9 R 52/0'1 144.6 I ML I @ 35': Brown to olive, moist to wet, very dense, sandy SILT @ 37': Groundwater Encountered 10' 84111"1 98.1 127.8i ML I @ 40': Brown to dark brown, moist to wet, very dense, sandy SILT 11 N 52/5- 12 0 50/5' 11 11.5 I SM I @ 45': Brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND 11.4 PMt" @ 50': Dark brown, wet, very dense SAND; fine, silty SAND 13 60/6' 17,8 1 SP @ 55': Dark brown, wet, very dense SAND ___________________ PA50A FfIRMATIDN(rM---'--'----- @ 56': Olive, wet, very dense SILT ML SAMPLE TYPES: - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 D Date 2-3-99 BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 2 of 3 DrMin Co. 9 CAL PAC DRILLING Prolect No. 11990013-001 ----�_ .dole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight � Type of Rig 8-52 evation Top of Hole +/-1210' ft. Ref. or Datum 140 lbs D� 0 �n sC., r z° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a a• ae oo c S o'a. 00 em VU t - WLL GLL t7J Z Oa m� O �ti Logged By SER mn Sampled By SER 9 R 52/0'1 144.6 I ML I @ 35': Brown to olive, moist to wet, very dense, sandy SILT @ 37': Groundwater Encountered 10' 84111"1 98.1 127.8i ML I @ 40': Brown to dark brown, moist to wet, very dense, sandy SILT 11 N 52/5- 12 0 50/5' 11 11.5 I SM I @ 45': Brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND 11.4 PMt" @ 50': Dark brown, wet, very dense SAND; fine, silty SAND 13 60/6' 17,8 1 SP @ 55': Dark brown, wet, very dense SAND ___________________ PA50A FfIRMATIDN(rM---'--'----- @ 56': Olive, wet, very dense SILT ML SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D NTNG SAMPLE S BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE A(ll/77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY ON CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX Date 2-3-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 - Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Sit 3 0{ 3 Drilling Co. Protect ND. 11990013-001 9 CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig — .Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs �— levetion Top of Hole +/-1210' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. I SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON z e; T .� a GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION s Z S t C D O Vr/1 . v G -O' �V 2 Logged BY SER p c rnat Sampled By SER r' 60 14 50/6' 108.8 18.8 ML 60': Brown to dark brown, wet, very dense, sandy SILT is 50/e- 20.1 SP @ 65': Brown, wet, very dense SAND SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE Boring Terminated @ 66.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 37' Backfilled 2.3.99 - TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE snuim� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTER13ERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX 4 K 32 5 6 SP @ 11% Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 8.5 SP P- - - FnR --- --- @ 15': Lrght brown to brown moist, medium tlense to dense SAND 78111'1 120.71 8.3 I CL I @ 20': Brown to dark brown, moist, very dense, sandy CLAY, iron -staining present, gravel up to 1- 32 24.2 MVCL GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13 TYPE OF TESTS: Date 2-3-99 DS Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Sheet 1 of 2 SIEVE ANALYSIS 11ing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Project No. 11990013-0011 ole Diameter Type of Rip B in. Drive weight `�-- &52 140 lbs _ 'evation Top of Hole +l-1224' ft. Ref, or Datum Drop 30 in. R VALUE r = EI ; m o� apy. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION c. ` mm om o.LL m� nO0 o o m ;o I- a n o� on +o Vri m` I— aF Z e �S m C 0J O ty > H O` fV W Logged By SER u Sampled By SER AIIIIVIUti in 1 27 98.5 9.5 SM @ 2': Brown to dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity Common toot_hairs_._-. _ 122 I2 20 116.5 9.4 SM @ 5': Same as above 1121 1 3 18 109.5 7.8 SM @ 10': Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND 4 K 32 5 6 SP @ 11% Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 8.5 SP P- - - FnR --- --- @ 15': Lrght brown to brown moist, medium tlense to dense SAND 78111'1 120.71 8.3 I CL I @ 20': Brown to dark brown, moist, very dense, sandy CLAY, iron -staining present, gravel up to 1- 32 24.2 MVCL @ 25': Olive, damp to moist, medium dense SILT TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS OWCT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERSERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX 9 1 5Ne- I 1 1 SAMPLE TYPES: GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13 D Date 2-3-99 BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 2 of 2 - Drilling Cc' CAL PAC DRILLING Project No: 11990013-001 -----_ *Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig 140 lbs &52 �— lievation Top of Hole +/-1224' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in- n. c o„ ,,; : ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION e 'LeL m4LL E� o e n O e Cw. °a «� 410? w • �- C t7 Z lot p°O C iia i� LoB9ed 61 SER rn Sampled By SER n 7 1 77 99.1 21.ii I MLw 30': Brown, damp to moist, very dense SILT 9 1 5Ne- I 1 1 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 3.2 I SP I @ 35': Light brown to white, dry to damp, very dense SAND 9.1 1 SP I @ 40': Same as above Boring Terminated @ 41.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled on 2-3-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE UA(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCU CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERRERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION MAFY - Date 2-3-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-14 Sheet- 1 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 •Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig Drop ? 1bs 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1196' ft. Ref. or Datum- 140 — 11 11! [if 11170 S SPLIT SPOON O RING SAMPLE e SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE I rrc Vr ILbTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MO z CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION e ne ;o c� 80 F li DeLL_z mn_ Oa ea `o a G ftj =y Logged By SER n y y°? Sampled By SER 9S A1111VNM 10.11 - t 60/8' 135.5 4.6 SM @ 2': Brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, silty SAND, minor rootlet@ 10 2 28 86.6 1.6 SM @ 5': Same as above Iles silt) Bap 3 @ 8-12' 1 4 22 101.3 2.8 SM @ 10': Light brown to red, medium dense, silty SAND; iron . staining present 1 5 1s 5.3 SM @ 15': Same as above 20 6 28101.1 14.3 M/S " '_ n ___________________ �A(IRO FORMATIlr11V f0e1 @ 10': Light gray -brown to brown, damp, medium dense, fine SAND to silty, fine SAND ; slight porosity, minor iron -staining _ ZS 7 22 26.2ML @ 25': Olive, damp, medium dense SILT S SPLIT SPOON O RING SAMPLE e SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE I rrc Vr ILbTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MO MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 05AU1177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCl/ CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX 9 [.j 68 10 0 60 11 11 67 as 11.6 I SM I @ 35': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense, sihy SAND 15.9 I ML I @ 401: Brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT 29.1 I ML I @ 45': Brown, moist, very dense SILT 12 ' 5016'1117.71 15-.4 I ML I @ 50': Brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT SAMPLE TYPES: 5 SPLIT SPOON O RING SAMPLE 6 SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 5A(II/77) LEI Boring Terminated @ 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-3-99 TYPE OF TESTS: GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG -B-14 MD Date 2-3-99 CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE Proles RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 2 of 2 • �I^9 Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Project No. 11990013-00,1 Hole Diameter8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig 8-5_? ]ovation Top of Hole +/-1196' ft. Ref. or Datum 140 140 Ibs , Drop 30 in. rTECHNICAL am m m DESCRIPTIONe� m .2 z n ;o 7dw— e° G nEm"SER ro SER o.y 9 [.j 68 10 0 60 11 11 67 as 11.6 I SM I @ 35': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense, sihy SAND 15.9 I ML I @ 401: Brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT 29.1 I ML I @ 45': Brown, moist, very dense SILT 12 ' 5016'1117.71 15-.4 I ML I @ 50': Brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT SAMPLE TYPES: 5 SPLIT SPOON O RING SAMPLE 6 SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 5A(II/77) LEI Boring Terminated @ 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-3-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX Date 2-3-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-15 - ` Protect RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 1 of 2Project No. 11990013-001 ►Ming Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig �— ole Diameter 8 in. Drive. Weight 140 lbs-- ovation Top of Hole +/-1289' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. r I i . C L„ = ° z °; p T :,,'; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION em no ioe _ o� ae Ulf >tr eLL or ° 2 a o. ma° Oa « v . MO O in C :MC)yoj Logged By SER n Sampled By SER F fEAIIRA FORMATION IO 1 1 50 124.8 8.9 SM @ 2': Red -brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND, poorly sorted, minor root hairs 2 1 54 1120.1110.6 1 SM I @ 5': Same as above 3 1 5216-1124.71 7.3 I SM I @ up': ed -brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND with gravel 4 K 26 5 0 68 [W-'/.lErf" SAMPLE TYPES: S - SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 5A(11177) 16.91 ML I @ 15': Brown to olive, damp, medium dense SILT 5.4 I SP I @ 20': Light brown, damp, very dense SAND 13.3 I ML I @ 25': Light brown to olive, damp, dense to very dense, sandy SILT TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY ON CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LMWS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION WDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B=15 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 2 Of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project NO. 11990001 _D�Img �• CAL PAC DRILLING ole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight, 140 Lbs Type Rig B-52`— evation Top of Hole +1-1289' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. C S SPLIT SPOON m RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX ao zm 4 38 5� VeJ F ou°. G� 10� 2 a OI: has Oc o8. `o_ iu t7 0 t � o Logged By SERCL • H rn Sampled By SER H 7 5016• 101.0 2.7 SP 30': Wnne to kgnt Drown, damp, very denee SAND 125 a 46 23.4 CL @ 35': Ofive, damp, dense CLAY Boring Terminated @ 36.5' I 12 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-3-99 45 1240 5 123S- 5 1230 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE SA(ll/Tn TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOCl/ CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B=16 Date 2-8-99 Sheen 1 of 2 Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 11990013.001 Wtiilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 4`— ale Diameter 8 in. Detre Weight 140 lbs .. �- - - Drop - 30 in. Ovation Top of Hole +/-1213' ft. Ref. or Datum t, em mw W set OPLL • cm m� C7 D z .°•. • Z n W - eo eLL ma° = c` o •� �� •evl, GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION F Logged By SER n Sampled By SER EXPANSION INDEX 1 28 123.7 10.8 SC TnPCnll @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, medium dense, clayey 1210 SAND; abundant rootlets 2 53 114.9 12.3 SM YALlBA FbRMAT10N rQoa1----------------" Brown, moist, dense to very dense, sihy SAND, minor root hairs 1205 1 3 6515- 95.6 13.7 ML @ 10': Brown, damp, very dense, sandy SILT 15 a 56 ML @ 15': Brown, damp, very dense SILT 195 2 5 64 108.3 2.4 SP @ 20': White to light brown, damp, dense to very dense SAND 190 25 6 61 SP @ 25': Same as above SM @ 26': Brown to olive, damp. very dense, sihy SAND 3 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RUNG SAMPLE S BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 5.401/77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOCIA TES CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSEAG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX d X11 Il SOM (w77) 8 9 BO am 9.01 M. SAMPLE TYPES: GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-16 D Date 2-8-99 BULK SAMPLE T Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Shoot 2 of 2 Drilling Co. g CAL PAC DRILLING Projeet No. 11990013-001 ------_ • Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive We' M Type of Rig 140 lbs B-53 4X4 Elevation Top of Hole +1-1213' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop— Q" o e ° Z Oo O e� e- 6*0J GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O O a L O O C., 7« e o O Z 4 m0. T O Logged B Y SER ° Roe w O v y_ Sampled By SER 1= d X11 Il SOM (w77) 8 9 BO am 9.01 M. SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE very ML I @ 35': Olive, damp, very dense, sandy SILT 66.3 152.1 1 ML I @ 40': Same as above ML f @ 45': Same as above Boring Terminated at 46.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-8-99 TYPE OF TESTS: , DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTIERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE El EXPANSION INDEX - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-17 Date 2.8.99 sheet , of y Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Drilling Co. TYpProjeot Rig 11990013-001 9 CAL PAC DRILLING �----. -Type of Ri Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weigh 140 lbs g B-5— 3 4X4 Elevation Top of Hole +/•1215' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 3C 1 ' 30 182.7 12.9 I SM I @ 2': Dark Drown, most, medium dense, silty SAND; minor rootlets, abundant porosity 2 28 103.5 5.8 SM @ 5': Brown to red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense. silty SAND; poorly sorted, iron staining present PALIBAF5*,ATI6R 111 1I------------------ 3 22 93.4 28.6 ML @ 10% Olive, damp, medium dense SILT 4 50 MIMI 15.5': Brown, moist, dense, silty SAND/ sandy SILT 5 57 107.1 14.1 ML @ 20': Olive to brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT S 32 I I I ML I @ 25': Brown to olive, moist, medium dense, SILT SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS - DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY - AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX S p D O Y - e� w^ 'e'y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION zom «m rm S ? 3! c.0 5«r m' �CL re. OR W m G f d Logged By SER 0 CL Sampled By SER ... T171PR If)l llNllim 1 ' 30 182.7 12.9 I SM I @ 2': Dark Drown, most, medium dense, silty SAND; minor rootlets, abundant porosity 2 28 103.5 5.8 SM @ 5': Brown to red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense. silty SAND; poorly sorted, iron staining present PALIBAF5*,ATI6R 111 1I------------------ 3 22 93.4 28.6 ML @ 10% Olive, damp, medium dense SILT 4 50 MIMI 15.5': Brown, moist, dense, silty SAND/ sandy SILT 5 57 107.1 14.1 ML @ 20': Olive to brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT S 32 I I I ML I @ 25': Brown to olive, moist, medium dense, SILT SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS - DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY - AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX S SPLIT SPOON D i 121 BULK SAMPLE T 1 ' 30 182.7 12.9 I SM I @ 2': Dark Drown, most, medium dense, silty SAND; minor rootlets, abundant porosity 2 28 103.5 5.8 SM @ 5': Brown to red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense. silty SAND; poorly sorted, iron staining present PALIBAF5*,ATI6R 111 1I------------------ 3 22 93.4 28.6 ML @ 10% Olive, damp, medium dense SILT 4 50 MIMI 15.5': Brown, moist, dense, silty SAND/ sandy SILT 5 57 107.1 14.1 ML @ 20': Olive to brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT S 32 I I I ML I @ 25': Brown to olive, moist, medium dense, SILT SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS - DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY - AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-17 Date 2-8-99 _ Sheet 2 of 2 WB-5�Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 r4gng Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri . Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight __ 140 lbs 9 4Xq_ Elevation Top of Hole +/-1215' ft. Ref. or Dattmr Drop 30 in. 1 11 I SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON • D RING SAMPLE B SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 95A(11/77) I TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR t.00 o=4.7 MAXIMUM DENSITY CJI CONSOLIDATION CAL DESCRIPTION°maSERSER SULFATF EXPANSION IND" am 7 e9 SM @ 30.5': White to light brown, damp, very dense, silly SAND 1180. 3 8 94 SP @ 35': Same as above Bag9@ 35-38' 117 70 84 91.7 24.7 ML @ 40': Olive, damp, very dense, sandy SILT, minor gravel up to .25' 1170 q5 t t 88 ML @ 45': Olive to brown, damp, very dense SILT 1165 5o 12 88 67.2 51.7 ML @ 50': Same as above Boring Terminated at 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-8-99 16 55 155 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON • D RING SAMPLE B SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 95A(11/77) I TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MO MAXIMUM DENSITY CJI CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATF MA CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE El EXPANSION IND" - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-18 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 1 of _2 Project RORIPALIGH RANCH DProject No. 11990013-007 • ulling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter 8 in. DriveWeightg B-5_ 2 4X4 14016s Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +l-1223' ft. Ref. or Datum I 0— OSA(11177) OSA(11/77) 1 2 3 50 1 88.3 1 25.21 SM I @ 2': Dark brown to brown, moist to wet, medium dense, silly SAND; abundant porosity, common rootlets and root heirs 27 198.8 14.4 I SM I @ 5': Red -brown, moist, medium dense. silty SAND; abundant porosity, common root hairs 28 1107.41 1,7 1 Sp I @ 10': Red to light brown, damp, medium dense SAND; iron staining present 4 (a 23 1 1 1 SP I @ 15': Same as above 5 46 106.014.1 1 SP PAITRA FOF AT(_ph Tda------------------ @ 20': Red -brown, damp to moist, dense SAND, some clay; iron staining present 6 23 MLISp @ 25': Red -brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, sandy SILT with 2-4-interbeds of sand SAMPLE TYPES: ° SPLIT SPOON ° RING SAMPLE B T GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ESCRIPTION eC '� e Z °— O omOtaIn V Imo - m mo h C � V c! a Logged By SER °n Sampled By SER 0— OSA(11177) OSA(11/77) 1 2 3 50 1 88.3 1 25.21 SM I @ 2': Dark brown to brown, moist to wet, medium dense, silly SAND; abundant porosity, common rootlets and root heirs 27 198.8 14.4 I SM I @ 5': Red -brown, moist, medium dense. silty SAND; abundant porosity, common root hairs 28 1107.41 1,7 1 Sp I @ 10': Red to light brown, damp, medium dense SAND; iron staining present 4 (a 23 1 1 1 SP I @ 15': Same as above 5 46 106.014.1 1 SP PAITRA FOF AT(_ph Tda------------------ @ 20': Red -brown, damp to moist, dense SAND, some clay; iron staining present 6 23 MLISp @ 25': Red -brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, sandy SILT with 2-4-interbeds of sand SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT. SHEAR MO MAXIMUM DENSITY ON CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-18 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 2 of y.. Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990_ Dn1Gng Co. 013-00, CAL PAC DRILLING • Type of Rig B-52 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 lbs Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1223' ft Ref. or Datum 0 4 Ile 117! 1178 1165 SIL ° 4J t7 Z z G H .CLL moo Cc Z-0 D.e., BULK SAMPLE Cooj GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER n ►' 5294.9 27.9 ML @ 30': Brown, damp to moist, dense SILT 3 B 38 ML @ 35': Some as above B 82 91.5 28.2 ML @° 40': Same as above Boring Terminated at 41.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backttlled 2-8-99 4 5 55 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE - - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-19 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 •Dulling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING T of '— — Hole Diameter B in. Drive Weight 140 lbs Type Rig &5� 2 4X4 30 in, l7evation Top of Hole +/-1244' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 50SA(11/TIT LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES W* ai GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION `^ m• ae a� o e 3o e� «c moi 0 a o -p y : o m� 'w OmLL boa v m ' fo gR Logged By SER tO— m N V Sampled By SER > I– 1 7 104.7 6.8 SM Ai I 1 vu IM Inau @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose, sihy SAND; abundant porosity, common rootlets 1240 5 2 15 112.5 11.1 SM @ 5': Same as above 1235 1 3 16 100.5 14.9 SM @ 10': Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, sihy, SAND (increase in sift), very porous. common root hairs B 4@ 10 14' 35 5 14_ SP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----- - 15': Brown, damp, loose to medium dense SAND 1225- 20 a 50112' 103.7 9.7 Sp @ 20': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND; carbonate lined frature 1220 25 - 7 48 Sp @ 25': Some as above 130 ML @ 26': Olive, damp, very dense, sandy SILT 1211 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE - SU SULFATE FI FYPANSMN Mnev 50SA(11/TIT LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-19 Date 2-8-99 _ Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. • 11990013-001 Dolling CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig &52 4U Hole Diameter 8 In. Detre Weight. 140 Lbs Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1 -1244' -ft. Ref. or Datum — I 1 o?p z GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION • T,Y m tet • O C� ;LL 4J Z SIL Or O6 CC � C . W DOLL E mo G i� tip Logged BY SEA to Sampled By SER C. 6 83116' 89.9 26.3 ML IF 30': Brown, damp, very dense SILT 121 3 9 42 ML @ 35': Olive, damp, dense to very dense SILT 1205 10 58 78.6 48.5 CUML @ 40': Olive to brown, damp to moist, very dense SILTICLAY ac 4 t t 78 SP @ 45': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND 1195 5 12 84116' 96.7 27.2 ML @ 50': Brown to dark brown, damp to moist, very dense sandy SILT Boring Terminated at 51.5' 1190 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-8-99 55 1185 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(II/M LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 Date 2-8-9 9 Sheet 1 of 3 .. Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No.. 11990001 •Dulling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight. 140 lbs g 8-5-x_ Elevation Top of Hole +l-1226' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. o„ D SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE a :�; TUBE SAMPLE EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a �„ qa o� e F ne mLL o� CLO m1 -D a oLL 0-j'y em UV N W 0 C7 Z a m60 t, O H°� Logged BY SER O °a h 0 v Sampled By SER 1225. AlllIV11IM In.n 1 24 79.5 68.4 SM @ 2% Dark brown, moist, medium dense, siny SAND; abundant porosity, common rootlets 5 2 25 106.6 8.1 SM @ 5': Same as above 122 1 3 29 104.5 4.8 SP @ 10': Red -brown, moist. medium dense SAND 1215 15 4 23 SP @ 15': Same as above 121 20 5 39 99.1 1 3.5 $P P41 IBA F1'1RMATIIIN Inn 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - " " - [205 @ 20': Red -brown to brown, moist, dense SAND; becoming more fine grained towards bottom of sample 8 14 SP @ 25% Brown, damp, loose to medium dense SAND 200 30- • S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE a BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SO SULFATE i05A(JJ1 q LEIGHTON & ASSOCI) CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX 0 75AU1/'77) 8 F;J 55 9 0 90 10 050/1 11 12 SAMPLE TYPES: GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 SPLIT SPOON Date 2-8.99 Sheet 2 of 3 Project Drilling Co. TUBE SAMPLE RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 CAL PAC DRILLING------_ • Hole Diameter 8 in. Type of Rig Drive Weight 140 Ibs 8 53 4X4 7evation Top of Hole +1-1226' ft. Rei. or Datum Drop 30 in. s`„ r„ z° ao ,•�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION s a O G,., t7 CL IM- °00. w _ G m? Logged By SER 0 Sampled By SER ;23.4 CL H 25 100.5 SP 30': Same as above 119 ML @ 31': Brown, damp, dense, sandy SILT 0 75AU1/'77) 8 F;J 55 9 0 90 10 050/1 11 12 SAMPLE TYPES: 5 SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE SP I @ 351: White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND 3.6 1 SP I @ 40': Same as above SP I @ 45': Same as above 76.7 143.8 I ML I @ 50': Brown, damp to moist, very dense, sandy SILT 50 1 1 1 ML I @ 55': Same as above TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY - CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX - Boring TeiminateEat 61.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2.8-99 r 6 SAMPLE TYPES: GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 SPLIT SPOON Date 2-8-99. B BULK SAMPLE Project TUBE SAMPLE Sheet 3 of RORIPAUGH RANCH 3 Drilling Co. Project No. 11990013-OOt CAL PAC DRILLING ---�_ Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive We' ht Type of Rig IO 8-53 4X4 Elevation Top of Hole +/-1226' 140 lbs.. ft. Ref. or Datum Dr— in GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION mLL0`0oi J-0 eMae — ey �maD mDa ir- to Logged By SER Sampled By SER n a' 11 13 74 98.7 19.4 ML 60': Brown to olive, damp, very dense SILT - Boring TeiminateEat 61.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2.8-99 r 6 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MO MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 05A""M LEIGHTON & ASSOCIA CO COLLAPSE - SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-21 Date 2-9-99 Sheet 1 of 3 Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 1199001 Dolling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 8-52 .' Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs -�_ Elevation Top of Hole +l-1233' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. 505e(11177) -- LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES z° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION am nm- cp .; oma. ec. eU F 06 DIL' ■J Z O. Or O6 G«' Vel - O 'w O y Oltc fV Logged BY SER n m°� Sampled By SER ►' 1 68 122.4 8.8 SM At I IIVII IM Inell @ 2': Dark brown, moist, dense to very dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity, Common. rootlets. . 2 30 99,8 5.3 SM @ 5': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common rootlets and root hairs 1 3 45 101.5 3.3 SP @ 10': Light brown, damp, dense, poorly graded SAND; very friable 1 4 29 SP @ 15': Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense to dense, poorly graded SAND 1215 20 5 40 99.7 10.3 SP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �AI1RA FORMATIt1N Ill el @ 20': Red -brown, tlamp to moist, dense SAND 1210 - 2s s to SP @ 25': Light brown to brown, damp, loose to medium dense, poo ty graded SAND 1205- @ 29': Groundwater Encountered 3 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLn SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS - D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSRY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE FI eYPeuonu lune„ 505e(11177) -- LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG_ B-21 Date 2-9-99 Sheet 2. of 3 - •Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. If 1990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B 52 Hole Diameter B in. - Drive Weight 140 lbs -------- -Elevation Top of Hole +/-1233' h. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. 1 >0 uiLL ce. 00 ��` am 00 �� O Z z a 6 0 ,, ;o OLL �0. c.. 00 O o. «�- �O ay VV _ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER - a 7 29 106.2 78.9 SP 30': Li In' brown to brown, wet. medium dense, poorly gratletl SAND _ 1200 3 B SP @ 35': White to light brown. wet, medium dense, poorly graded SAND 119 9 7016' 100.3 16.9 SP @ 40': White to light brown, wet, very dense SAND 45 10 40 CL @ 45': Olive, wet, dense, silty CLAY; some interfingering of SW into CL observed I18 so - 11 52/12' 105.3 24.1 ML @ 50': Olive, wet, very dense, sandy SILT 180 5 12 70/17• Sp @ 55': White to light brown, wet, very dense SAND 175 60 iMMRC ITP : S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-21 Date 2-9-99 _ Sheet 3 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH ProjeciNo. 11990 01 Dolling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs op 3 Bavation Top of Hole +1-1233' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 ` S = vo RWG SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION TUBE SAMPLE «e it-so m La m ;o° c. .mli m� m� o .n oLL ru t7 Z m f°0. �t`o� Logged By SER a o`T Sampled By SER 13 7516' 119.5 14.5 SP Q 60': Light brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAND 1170. ... ... ..... 14 50/6- SP.. .- @ 63.5': Same as above Boring Terminated at 65' Groundwater Encountered at 29' 1165 Backfilled 2-9.99 7 1?T 7 1155 80 115 85 145- 90 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RWG SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 10SAU1177) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG UMIYS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX - Data 2.9-99 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-22 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH She" 1 of y • Dulling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Project No. 11990013-001 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Wei ht Type of Rig 9 8-52 Elevation Top of Hole +/-1209' ft. Ref. or Datum 140 Ills Drop 30 in. ` S O ' L RING SAMPLE `ems OP O GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION mm nm nm m o ;o° 5. 4 pJ Z E mo cc o� vvi y d c i� Logged By SER SampleSER AI I I NI 1 1 25 1 19.3 9.3 SM @ 2': Red -blown, moist, medium dense, silly SAND; moderate porosity common rootlets z 13 110.1 5.8 SM @ 5': Same as above, common root hairs 3 1 34 110.7 2.$ 1 SP V1 O': pFORMATION TC -,_--------------- Bag 4 @ @ Red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 10.14' 5 [1 24 I I 1 SP I @ 15 % Same as above 5 ' 39 1102.01 10.91 ML I @ 20': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, sandy SILT, slight porosity 7 2 45 I I. I ML I @ 25': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense SILT SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE SO5A(11177) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSrTY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA .SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS Rv R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX 9 35 NIL @ 35': Olive, damp, dense SILT 10 84 113.2 8.9 ML @ 40': Brown, damp, very dense SILT t t 50/11• SP @ 45': White to light brown, d ryto damp, very rydens dense SAND 72 50/9- 102.9 2.1 SP @ 50': White, damp, very dense SAND SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE Boring Terminated at 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-9-99 TYPE OF TESTS: - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-22 DIRECT SHEAR . Date 2-9-99 CN CONSOLIDATION Protect SULFATE Sheet 2 of 2 RORIPAUGH RANCH DrillingCo. •Hole Project No. 11990013-001 CAL PAC DRILLING --�_ Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig 2 Elevation.Top of Hole +/-1209' 140 lbs ft. Ref. or Dstum Drop 30 in. ` -S Y s GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a a 7 m L pp 1-04 O • 0 C.► IJ 0 d • o� CLL W 2 E m o` c _ ) o c gU m°? Logged By SER °a t°n Sampled By SER f' s 78 91.5 30.6 ML 30': Olive, tlamp, very dense SILT 9 35 NIL @ 35': Olive, damp, dense SILT 10 84 113.2 8.9 ML @ 40': Brown, damp, very dense SILT t t 50/11• SP @ 45': White to light brown, d ryto damp, very rydens dense SAND 72 50/9- 102.9 2.1 SP @ 50': White, damp, very dense SAND SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE Boring Terminated at 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-9-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 75"u„7 LEIGHTON & ASSOCII CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE El EXPANSION INDFX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-23 Date 2-9-99 Sheet i of 2 •Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013.001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rip ' 3 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weigh - - 140 lbs - - - —'---- Elevation Top of Hole +l-1320' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. o„ "0„ z :,'; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION mo ge "00-01 o e .; ac mac cf «c e mLL O� `J O Q D 4 �« Do W D Z W m0-° G f s y Logged By SER °a Sampled By SER ►' O.4 PAI IRA FORMATION IOn.I 2 W17" 112.6 11.0 SM @ 2': Red -brown, moist, very dense, silly SAND; minor rootlets 131 3 71112. 127.3 8.8 SM @ 5': Red -brown, damp, very dense, silly SAND with UP to .5 gravel 131 1 4 50111. 109.7 5.9 SP @ 10': Red -brown, damp, very dense, SAND 130 15 5 74 SP @ 15': Same as above 13 2 B 5016' 110.3 7.7 SP @ 20': Same as above 1295 25 7 75 SP @ 25': Same as above, increase in fines at bottom of sample 1290 30 _ SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE FI FYPANCInu Honer SOSAi/I/T� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-23 Date 2-9-99 Sheat 2 of 2 . •Project - RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 5— Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight. 140 lbs Drop 3p Elevation Top of Hole +1-1320' ft. Ref. or Datum — 1 1 C„ s„ a ��GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONere «r'as mO �e V 0 em4 �LLOLL Ji oLogged BY SERvSampled BY SER ,1 5.2 SP 30': Retl•brown, tlemp, very dense SAND 1285 3SP @ 35': Same as above t111140': Same 0 11,1 Sp @ as above; becoming more fine grained Boring Terminated at 41.5 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-9-99 1275 127 50 1265 55- 12600J SAMPLE TYPES: _TYPE OF TESTS: - CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 1p D B RING SAMPLE BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY qV CONSOLIDATION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EKPANSKIN INDEX 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES RV q VALUE C„ s„ a ��GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONere «r'as mO �e V 0 em4 �LLOLL Ji oLogged BY SERvSampled BY SER ,1 5.2 SP 30': Retl•brown, tlemp, very dense SAND 1285 3SP @ 35': Same as above t111140': Same 0 11,1 Sp @ as above; becoming more fine grained Boring Terminated at 41.5 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-9-99 1275 127 50 1265 55- 12600J SAMPLE TYPES: _TYPE OF TESTS: - CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 1p D B RING SAMPLE BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY qV CONSOLIDATION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EKPANSKIN INDEX 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-30 Date 2-12-99 et t of Z Project RORIPALIGH RANCH SheProiet • Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING et No. 11990013_001Hole DiameterB in. Drive Weight 140 lbs Type of Rig B-52 lievation Top of Hole +1-1302' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. 1 2 73 11 3 E5011 4 h, 63 5 . 50/11'11 MIME SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D ez B BULK SAMPLE e� :— GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 00 off. Due,.. 1-01Z. --c- as, e,. N W til m6 C H iv Logged By SER in° Me? n Sampled By SER 1 2 73 11 3 E5011 4 h, 63 5 . 50/11'11 MIME SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 75A(11177) 7.3 I SP I @ 2': Red -brown, moist, very dense SAND; minor rootlets 7.5 I SP I @ 5': Red -brown, damp to moist, Very dense SAND SP I @ 10': Same as above ML I @ 15': Brown, damp, hard, sandy SILT 8.1 IMLISPI @ 20': Brown, damp, very dense, sandy SILT with 2.4- interbeds of white to light brown sand @ 25': Same as above TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE Co COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBEAG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-30 Date 2-12-99 _ . - - Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 • Dulling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B- Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 lbs Elevation Top of Hole +/-1302' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. I I J1 ° w n`e0. nm Z ° t°EE m0. —'' m` G °* �v si• a GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER a 7 5515' SM 0 30': Red -brown to brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND 127 3 B 92 SP @ 35': Red -brown, damp, very dense SAND 1265 9 50/6. 120.5 10.1 SM @ 40': Red -brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND �6 45 10 57 ML @ 45': Dark brown, damp, very dense, sandy SILT 1255 Boring Terminated at 46.5' No Groundwater Encountered So Backfilled 2-12-99 125 55 245 60 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE e BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MO MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE S05A p1/7n LEIGHTON & ASSOM CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS NV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX 4 , 31 1107.61 10.3 I SP I @ 10% Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense SAND 5 PJ 42 1 1 1 SP I. @ 15': Brown, damp, dense SAND Partial I 6 ' 20 11 Recovery MiWE SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D BUNG SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 7.3 ISM/SP!I @ 20': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND with 2-6- 1 interbeds fine to coarse sand; porous locally Sp I @ 25': Brown, damp, dense SAND TYPE OF TESTS: DS GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-31 MD Date 2-12-99 Sheet 1 of 2 CONSOLIDATION Project •Drilling ling Co. SULFATE RORIPAUGH RANCH Projaet No. 11990013-001 CAL PAC DRILLING Hole Diameter TYPO of Rig 8 in: Drive Weight B-52----- 140 Ibs-— Elevation Top of Hole +/-1252' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. L 0 .. > _ Oo' aim GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ao � m� mm -o a oo c� err), Do •u. w CLL tj� Z E f3 e` d Da oc `o in C iv v°i? Logged BY SER n Sampled By SER H Boo @a0-4' aI I uwuM In.vn�1 1 t6 114.8 8.0 SC @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense, cisyey SAND; minor rootlets 1 3 25 112.3 4,1 SP @ 5': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND; minor root hairs 4 , 31 1107.61 10.3 I SP I @ 10% Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense SAND 5 PJ 42 1 1 1 SP I. @ 15': Brown, damp, dense SAND Partial I 6 ' 20 11 Recovery MiWE SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D BUNG SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 7.3 ISM/SP!I @ 20': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND with 2-6- 1 interbeds fine to coarse sand; porous locally Sp I @ 25': Brown, damp, dense SAND TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE TES CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-31 Date 2-12-99 Sheet 2 of y •Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g SZ Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs ]ovation Top of Hole +/-1252' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. I O t.. ° e O 2 � e0 e � Wj EXPANSION Pin" GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ` .. Lce CF CL .pJ Z a m�..�a o °c ;a Logged By SER °a w Sampled By SER ►'- e 71 111.1 9.0 ML 30': Dark brown, moist, very tlense, sandy SILT 122 3 9 32 M/M @ 35': Brown, damp to moist, dense SAND with 2' interbetl of brown ML 121 Boring Terminated at 36.5' No Groundwater Enmuntered Backfilled 2-12-99 0 a 120 so zoo Ss 19S 6 �S SPLIT SPOON • - D BUSAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 1SA(77/Tn I TM OF r brs: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSFAG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION Pin" -GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-32 Date 2-12-99 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 1 of 2 Dnlful9 Co, CAL PAC DRILLING Project No. 11990013-001 --�� Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs Type of pig B-52�--- sevation Top of Hole +/-1236' ft. Ref. or Datum P 30 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27 1111.31 5.5 I SP I @ 2': Red -brown, damp, medium dense, poorly graded SAND; minor rootlets 40 1107.01 5.2 I SP I @ 5': Red -brown, moist, dense SAND 40 SM________ 10': Light brown to brown, moist, dense silly SAND 25 I I 1 SM I @ 15': Same as above 57 1115.21 8.4 1 SP I @ 20': Red -brown, moist to wet, very dense SAND; becomes finer grained towards bottom of sample @ 23': Groundwater Encountered 37 1 1 1 SP I @ 25': Red -brown to brown, wet, dense SAND 15A(11177) TYPE OF TESTS: o o z° MD MAXIMUM DENSITY e� .i— GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ` am nm _a 30o c� Gn o all `� Z a E ai`o o'er' Vvi cc o C �V m°� Logged By SER e SQ. ampled By SER Al I IIVItIM tnall 1 2 3 4 5 6 27 1111.31 5.5 I SP I @ 2': Red -brown, damp, medium dense, poorly graded SAND; minor rootlets 40 1107.01 5.2 I SP I @ 5': Red -brown, moist, dense SAND 40 SM________ 10': Light brown to brown, moist, dense silly SAND 25 I I 1 SM I @ 15': Same as above 57 1115.21 8.4 1 SP I @ 20': Red -brown, moist to wet, very dense SAND; becomes finer grained towards bottom of sample @ 23': Groundwater Encountered 37 1 1 1 SP I @ 25': Red -brown to brown, wet, dense SAND 15A(11177) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG UMRS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 50SA(11177) I Boring Terminated at 51.5' Groundwater Encountered at 23' Backfilled 2-12-99 TYPE OF TESTS: GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-32 DIRECT SHEAR Date 2-12-99 . . CONSOLIDATION ProjectRORIPAl1GH SULFATE Sheet 2 of RANCH 2 DrOling Co. Project No. 11990013-001 CAL PAC DRILLING —`— Hole Diameter 8 in. Type of Rig Drive Weight --- Elevation Top of Hole +/-1236' ft. 140 Ibs Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. C O e0 O Z 00 r ef/1 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a e mp i� •u' m0. q0 G S _. cu Oa t]LL OJ = E mm y o, ol: �v —y Logged By SER a Sampled By SER 7 59/6' 98.7 17.2 SP. 30': Brown, wet, very tlense SAND 120 B 3 8 58/12• SP @ 35': Light brown, wet, very dense SAND 12 9 50/6• 121,8 11.6 CL @ 40': Dark brown,wet, very dense, sandy CLAY - 1195 10 S4/6' Sp @ 45': Red -brown, wet, verydense, poor) y SAND 1190 graded e . ' No 61/6• Sp @ 50': Same as above Recovery - SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 50SA(11177) I Boring Terminated at 51.5' Groundwater Encountered at 23' Backfilled 2-12-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-37 Date 2-19-99 Sheet 1 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 n7gng Co.CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter _8 In. Detre Weight 140 lbs 9 B �Drop 30 in. IevaUon Top of Hole +/-1231' ft. Ref. or Datum o_z° 1'u� Ou c telCL 0 - 13 v Z • m s o m� p; Jr G fv H GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER `C 0 CL Al 1 uvnlM In n SP @ 1.5': Light brown, dry to damp. loose SAND; abundant 1 28 119.4 10.7 SM roots OLDFR r A I NI IM 10 II - @ 4`: Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; common root hairs, moderately porous 1225 2 30 104.6 4.5 SP @ 5'; Red -brown, moist, medium dense SAND 1 3 32 99.5 '9.7 ML ________________________________ 122 10'; Brown, damp, medium stiff, sandy SILT IS 4 21 SP @ 15% Red -brown, damp, medium dense SAND 1215 20 5 25 110.8 18.1 SP @ 20': Olive -brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, silty 1210. SAND @ 23': Groundwater Encountered 25 6 30 100.2 14.9 SP @ 25'; Dark brown, wet, dense SAND .205 30 '.::.. SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE 8 BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE OSAUM77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOCIA CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 13737 Date 2-19-99 _ Sheet 2 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. •� � Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING ' Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs Type of Rig - 11ggp61 p13 -p01 W4 Elevation Top of Hole +/-1231' h. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. w ■ 50SA(11177) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged B o 99 Y' SER c Sampled By SER 30': Light brown to brown, wet, medium dense SAND 12.0 1 SP 1 @ 35': Becomes dense SAND ML ` X40.5 Tan, wet, stiff SlLT�---------"—"-- ML I @ 45': Olive to tan, wet, very stiff SILT ML I @ 50': Same as above ML I @ 55': Same as above TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSnY CN CONSOLIDATION CO COLLAPSE - SA 9 Zcue ATTERSERG LIMITS e � 10 m o ro o m w0 o c� 3c wy m ml` a m3) Z E `o C c 'oma H a. Ln too 50SA(11177) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged B o 99 Y' SER c Sampled By SER 30': Light brown to brown, wet, medium dense SAND 12.0 1 SP 1 @ 35': Becomes dense SAND ML ` X40.5 Tan, wet, stiff SlLT�---------"—"-- ML I @ 45': Olive to tan, wet, very stiff SILT ML I @ 50': Same as above ML I @ 55': Same as above TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSnY CN CONSOLIDATION CO COLLAPSE - SA 9 37 ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE 10 50/4• 11 76 12 a 54 50SA(11177) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged B o 99 Y' SER c Sampled By SER 30': Light brown to brown, wet, medium dense SAND 12.0 1 SP 1 @ 35': Becomes dense SAND ML ` X40.5 Tan, wet, stiff SlLT�---------"—"-- ML I @ 45': Olive to tan, wet, very stiff SILT ML I @ 50': Same as above ML I @ 55': Same as above TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSnY CN CONSOLIDATION CO COLLAPSE - SA 9 37 ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE 10 50/4• 11 76 12 5051 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 50SA(11177) GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged B o 99 Y' SER c Sampled By SER 30': Light brown to brown, wet, medium dense SAND 12.0 1 SP 1 @ 35': Becomes dense SAND ML ` X40.5 Tan, wet, stiff SlLT�---------"—"-- ML I @ 45': Olive to tan, wet, very stiff SILT ML I @ 50': Same as above ML I @ 55': Same as above TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSnY CN CONSOLIDATION CO COLLAPSE - SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-37 Date 2-19-99 . Sheet 3 of _ Project RORIPAU3GH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 •Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Pig�— Hole Diameter B in. Drive Weight 1401bs E6144 Elevation Top of Hole +/-1231' ft. Ref. or Datum 5WP 30 in. AN IOSA(11/Tn LGEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION F SERy SER 14 ' 50JS" I I I CL I @ 63': Olive to brown; wet, very stiff CLAY SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RIND SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE EXPANSION INDEX C O O O z �, •�� met «m r« «m Po, m m m m0 ;o m c.. � e mJ 2 d Oa' G CL C O R,tV W Cil M and 2 0 i] AN IOSA(11/Tn LGEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION F SERy SER 14 ' 50JS" I I I CL I @ 63': Olive to brown; wet, very stiff CLAY SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RIND SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE Boring TennIneted at 64' Groundwater Encountered at 23' Backfilled 2.22-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO. COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTFRBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX @°&2. t 23 93.7 7.7 SM @ 2': Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty m, i SAND; slightly porous, minor rootlets 7 4 5 6 7 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE MM(11/T7) 33 194.7 111.5 1 SM I @ 5': Same as above 38 101.9 16.6 ML- - - - - -- - - - -- Tan, damp, dense silty SAND 28 I I I SM I @ 15'; Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND 41 1110.71 12.5 I SP I @ 20': While to light brown, damp, dense SAND @ 24': Groundwater Encountered 35 Sp I @ 25': Brown, wet, dense SAND TYPE OF TESTS: - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-38 MD Date 2-22-99 CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE Project1 RANCH Sheet of yProjectRORIPAUGH Drilling Co. •Do CAL PAC DRILLING Project No. 013=00t 17990 3X0 i Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weigh Type of Rig &6-1 - . Elevation Top of Hole +/-1244' ft. Ref, or Datum 140 lbs Drop 30 in. o ° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION pLplLL.eLL O,jO O.Za mn.ogged 4ALU"IUMIQ& By SERampled By SER @°&2. t 23 93.7 7.7 SM @ 2': Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty m, i SAND; slightly porous, minor rootlets 7 4 5 6 7 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE MM(11/T7) 33 194.7 111.5 1 SM I @ 5': Same as above 38 101.9 16.6 ML- - - - - -- - - - -- Tan, damp, dense silty SAND 28 I I I SM I @ 15'; Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND 41 1110.71 12.5 I SP I @ 20': While to light brown, damp, dense SAND @ 24': Groundwater Encountered 35 Sp I @ 25': Brown, wet, dense SAND TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-38 Date 2-22-99 - Sheet 2 of y Project RORIPALIGH RANCH DrillingCo. "act No. 11990013-001 CAL PAC DRILLING -------_ Hole Diameter Type of Rig B-6� 1 4X4 Elevation Top of Hole +/-1244' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. 11 34 GC @ 45': Olive, wet, dense granitic rock, highly weathered, sheared, local trace of clay, iron -staining present, few preserved leaf pieces approximately .25 to .5' diameter 12 50/5' GC @ 50': Same as above SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON ° Z Y q 0 = a � wj GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ` a Ye LQ _ e O C�.�« w _ • m� mom, .w.. o z 'o. �: ode On_m VV N e 0 m t f o c 3 Lo Logged BY SER U) v n Sampled By SER 1' e 50/t0' 118.5 14.8 SP 30': Light brown, wet, very dense SAND 11 34 GC @ 45': Olive, wet, dense granitic rock, highly weathered, sheared, local trace of clay, iron -staining present, few preserved leaf pieces approximately .25 to .5' diameter 12 50/5' GC @ 50': Same as above SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE i05A(11177) Boring Terminated at 51.5' Groundwater Encountered 24' Backfilled 2.22-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATlERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-39 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. •Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs Elevation Top of Hole +A 1228' ft. Ref. or Datum. Of 2 1199—X3.001 B--- -6 61 4X4 -Drop 30 in. c O o C Z T . O O w - GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a e 100 nm a0 C,r iC CN mLL or 2 c .. Ooa ems. GN- .. . c OmLL W H at G fV � Logged By SER a CL Sampled By SER - 1 25 99.7 7.6 SM All I IVIIIM (pAl/Qrl @ 2': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND: 1225 moderately porous, common rootlets 2 37 97.8 8.6 SM @ 5': Brown, tlamp, dense, silty SAND; slightly porous, minor root hairs 122 1 3 23 95.4 13.0 SM @ 10': Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense, silty - SAND; slightly porous 15 a 12 SM @ 15': Same as above .. .., .. ML ' ----- --------- 15.5': Brown to tan, damp, medium stiff, sandy SILT 1210 2 5 27 108.6 14.1 SM @ 20': Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND 1205 6 17 ML @ 25': Olive to brown, damp, medium stiff, sandy SILT 12 @ 26': Groundwater Encountered SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSnY AL ATTERSERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE . T TURE SAMPLE SU SULFATE Ft PI(PANclnu luno 505A(Illn LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-39 Data 2-22-99 Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 •Drilling Co. CAL -PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 ' Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 lbs - -- Drop 30 ,in. 9evation Top of Hole +/-1228'. ft. Rei. or Datum — mu. am O Z t10 .; s m6 4; O a G eo o.. g� _to � GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By. SER Sampled By SER `o $ T 44 109.5 20.8 SP @ 30': Light brown, wet, dense SAND 119 3 a 40 Sc @ 35': Light brown, wet, dense SAND with pockets of olive clay 1190, Boring Terminsted at 36.5' Groundwater Encountered at 28' 90 Backfilled 2.22-99 - �c 45-- 1180 1175 55 1170 50 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON O RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE ;05A(11177) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDFX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-40 Date 2-22-99 sheet 1 of 1 . Plrojeet RORIPAUGH RANCH Project •o: 11990013-001 Drilling Co.Co• CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter - 8 in. - Drive Weight 140 lbs g 8761 47(y Bevation Top of Hole. +1-1235' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. 1205 !� t� • q ° z tl0 ` -P O * tl'� ey T TUBE SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION n q Ctl JIM ;IL. 0�. iC. ;� Ili -00i - Z a ° O c e ° H - E- `o til y motl G i� v1°� Logged By SER °a Sampled By SER H t 15 91.6 10.3 SM Tnvcnit @ 2': Bmwn to tan, damp, medium dense, silly SAND; 184.5 moderately porous, common rootlets ... 2 16 9,7 SM PXFORMATION IOesl M ohly W tl. ed @ 5 : Brown, dry to damp, medium dense, SAND, silly slightly porous, common root heirs; carbonate line fractures L5 10 3 SOW 88.2 17.0 SM 1 O Brown to alive, dry -to damp very dense silty SAND; carbonate line fractures 1 4 50/5' ML @ 15': Olive, damp, very stiff SILT S 20- 5 93/9' 86.9 20.6 ML @ 20': Same as above 2 6 64 ML @ 25% Same as above Idry to dampl 130— Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-22.99 ;05A(11177) TYPE OF TESTS: - SAMPLE TYPES: • S D SPLIT SPOON RING SAMPLE CN B BULK SAMPLE SULFATE T TUBE SAMPLE ;05A(11177) TYPE OF TESTS: - - DS DIRECT SHEAR - MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-41 Date - 2-22-99 sheet 1 of 2 •"act RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 11990_ p1=� Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter- - B In. Drive Weight 140 lbs g &6- — 4X4 . Drop 30 in. SevatiogTop of Hole +/-1211' ft. Ref. oCDattnn o_ u'1 �_ ot°a IIIm� 4� e zo z E to .; e. 00a ": 2. C 3 fV w; z Ace GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER °n 121 AI I UVRIM I171,110rl 1 38 105.2 3.1 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, dense, sihy SAND; minor rootlets, minor gravel up to .5-, slightly porous 2 34 101.8 4.4 SM @ 5': light brown, damp to moist, dense, silty SAND: 120 non-porous 1 3 40 105.5 2.6 SP @ 10% Light brown, damp, dense SAND 1200 15 a 20 SM @ 15': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND; minor 1195 roots up to 1- 2 5 37 101.3 1.9 SP PALIRA FORMATIf7N 1[)neI------------------ 1190 @ 0': Light brown to gray -brown, dry, dense SAND; very 25 6 75 Sp @ 25': Same as above 1185 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE I Iuoe awanr� 105A(1117) SU SULFATE & ASS EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-41 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. _ • Dn7tinp.Co. CAL PAC DRILLING 1799 Type of Ri Hole Diameter -8 in. Drive Weight 1401bs B &6 Ebvetion Top of Hole +l-1277' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. T 505A(IIr17) SU SULFATE EI EXPANSH N & ASSOCIATES el GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O C.r mLL' OLL 4J 0 O. _U W t7 E m OO o ' C io of Logged By SER e J) G e to Sampled BY SER I- 7 41 114.1 15.2 SP @ 30': Grey -brown, dense, wet SAND I1 ' @ 33% Groundwater Encountered B 27 SP @ 35': Brown, medium dense, wet SAND 117 Boring Terminated at 36.5' Groundwater Encountered at 33' Backfilled 2.22-99 70- 45 1165 5 116 5 1155 60 SAMPLE TYPES: - TYPE OF TESTS: - CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON OS DIRECT SHEAR - SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERSERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE nw rnwem mamnw e.. T 505A(IIr17) SU SULFATE EI EXPANSH N & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-42 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 of _ Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 rilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri HDie Diameter -- 8 in. - - - Drive Weight 140 lbs - g E 6— 1_ ]ovation Top of Hole +/-1195' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 3O in. 1 19 115.8 9.8 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, clayey SAND; highly porous, common rootlets 3 16 10. 4 16 105 5 P1 26 7.2 I SIP I @ 5': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 7.1 I SP I @ 10': Light brown, damp, medium dense SAND SP I @ 15': Brown, moist, medium dense SAND; trace clay 117 2 __________________ PAURA FORMATION 10 •1 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 40 110.9 2.2 SP @ 20': Light red - brown, brown, moist, dense SAND to silty SAND 1170 25 0 36 ML @ 25': Olive, moist, stiff SILT o ISO �l t7 Z Cit. fV R Logged By SER °a 1165J 30 SAMPLE TYPES: Sampled By SER CO COLLAPSE • S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SA AL SIEVE ANALYSIS ATTERSERG UMrTS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI ALLUVIUM IDwU 25A(17177) 1 19 115.8 9.8 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, clayey SAND; highly porous, common rootlets 3 16 10. 4 16 105 5 P1 26 7.2 I SIP I @ 5': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 7.1 I SP I @ 10': Light brown, damp, medium dense SAND SP I @ 15': Brown, moist, medium dense SAND; trace clay 117 2 __________________ PAURA FORMATION 10 •1 6 40 110.9 2.2 SP @ 20': Light red - brown, brown, moist, dense SAND to silty SAND 1170 25 36 ML @ 25': Olive, moist, stiff SILT Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-22-99 1165J 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE • S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SA AL SIEVE ANALYSIS ATTERSERG UMrTS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX 25A(17177) 1 FI(21.JTn1►t 2. AQCnf%#ATCI+ GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-43 Date 2-22-99 sheet , of 2 •Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING - Type of Rig B-6 Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight.. 1 4X4 140 Ibs Elevation Top of Hole +/-1207' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. U 12 119 SAMPLE TYPES: - D ° Z D RING SAMPLE e� a T TUBE SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION a e a m po Q°I�C 2-p mU •. CLL m° O a� Z 6 - O mQo a po 2V VU m y Logged By SER n C Sampled By SER F' DS, 32 98.9 4.0 SM Al1IIvu1Ls U1aUQcl @ 2': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND; highly porous, - abundant rootlets 2 u 103.3 2.3 SP @ 5': Brown, damp, dense SAND 1 3 23 106.1 3.3 SP @ 10': Light brown, dry to damp, medium dense SAND 5 15 1 d 22 SP @ 15': Same as above 2 5 64 SP PAl1RA FORMATION IOnel --- EALIA----'----------------- @ 20': Red -brown, moist, very dense SAND 6 61 ML @ 25': Olive, damp, hard, sandy SILT 30 SAMPLE TYPES: - S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE ,05nr»1m LEIGHTON & ASSOCU CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG umm; RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-43 Date 2-22-99 Sheat 2 of p Project RCRIPAUGH RANCH sojecYNo• 11990073-007 Drilling CO. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig Hole Diameter 8 in: Drive Weight 140 lbs 9 &6� 1 4X4_ levation Top of Hole +l-1207' ft, Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. a pj at 9 ■ 50/5 - SAMPLE TYPES: DIRECT SHEAR 5 SPLIT SPOON CN D RING SAMPLE • S GEOTECHNICAL T q m no aO° - a ;oo cw -DESCRIPTION r° O Z E and G Logged BY SER V L Sampled By SER ► a pj at 9 ■ 50/5 - SP I @ 3S': Same as above Sp I @ 40': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND Boring Terminated at 41' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2.23.99 TYPE OF TESTS: SAMPLE TYPES: DIRECT SHEAR 5 SPLIT SPOON CN D RING SAMPLE • S BULB SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 5A(11177) - SP I @ 3S': Same as above Sp I @ 40': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND Boring Terminated at 41' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2.23.99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSrTY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION aao X GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-" Date 2-23-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. PAC • CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs g B-6--- 1_ Dro Elevation Top of Hole +1-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum p 30 in. SAMPLE TYPES: S PAI IRA FORMATION IO .1 Bag 3 1 90/11' 104.3 8.4 SM @ 2': Brown to tan, damp, very dense, silty SAND; slightly D z @ 2.5' porous, minor root hairs 5 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION mm gm -ccl m = ;o �. 5= e m Da mu. Om :0.O .J O Q. O� . e0 O a wm c _ H o ou. 7 58 105.4 5.7 - SP @ 20': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND z mom 8 50 ML @ 25': Olive, damp, very stiff SILT ;V Logged By SER to t] tiff a Sampled By SER f' SAMPLE TYPES: S PAI IRA FORMATION IO .1 Bag 3 1 90/11' 104.3 8.4 SM @ 2': Brown to tan, damp, very dense, silty SAND; slightly D RING SAMPLE @ 2.5' porous, minor root hairs 5 T 2 99/11. 103.4 7.3 SM @ 5': Ten, damp, very dense, silty SAND; non -porous 4 59 112.3 6.8 SP @ 10': Red -brown, moist, very dense SAND; trace clay Bag 5@ 12-16' 6 37 SM @ 15': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND a. 7 58 105.4 5.7 - SP @ 20': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND 8 50 ML @ 25': Olive, damp, very stiff SILT SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE S BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE iO5A(11 /77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE GO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING l0 SAMPLE TYPES: • 5 SRR SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE i05AN1/77) TYPE OF TESTS: G B-44 DIRECT SHEAR Date 2-23-99 ° Sheet 2 of 2 •Protect RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990_ Dulling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri 8 =l B-6� 1 424 Hole Diameter 8 In. Dmns Weight 740 Ills �P 30 in. )ovation Top of Hole +/-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum SAMPLE TYPES: • 5 SRR SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE i05AN1/77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD ° CN = SU SULFATE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION « eo gm Lao • WC r`e O NO W H G � Logged By SER a Sampled BY SER 9 BBA 1' SP @ 30': White to olive -brown, damp, very dense SAND_ 1300 a t0 52 SP IS 35': White to fight brown, damp, very dense SAND 1295. 17 ee Sp @ 40': White, damp, very dense SAND 1290 4 12 23 CL _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ________ Olive, damp, medium stiff, silly CLAY _ 1285 S 50 13 5015' - ML @ 50': Olive, damp, very dense. SILT i Boring Terminated at 51' X80 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-23-99 55 1275 50 SAMPLE TYPES: • 5 SRR SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE i05AN1/77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-45 Date 2-23-99 Sheet 1 of 1 Project RORIPAUGH-RANCH Project No. 119--i:61 001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter B m. Drive weight 140 lbs g &6— 4X� Drop 30 in. lavation Top of Hole +/-1242' ft. Ref. or Datum OO mIL 0 �.m GLL -c J a e. Z a 4 y 'p 0 0 r aga. OV 6 o e* 4C a� C a- Uy ycj GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER 0 c H 1240 7 06. 109.0 6.0 SM AI 111V111M IOaI/ON @ 2': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND; moderately Porous, common rootlets 2 24 101.8 5.4 SM @ 5': Light red -brown, slightly damp, medium dense, silly SAND; slightly porous 123 10 3 28 104.9 7.1 SM @ 10': Tan, damp, medium dense, silty SAND IS ___________________-, 4 29 Sm I5': Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; slightly porous 1225 2 5 30 107.0 11.4 SM @ 20': Brown, damp to moist. medium dense, silty SAND; few laminations 1220 B 25 ML @ 25': Tan, moist, medium stiff SILT 21 Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-23-99 30 SAMPLE TYPES D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE )5A(11/77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE TES CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-46 Date 2-23-99 Project RORIPALIGH RANCH Sheet of 1 • 'I— Drilling Co ProjeM No. 11990013-001 9 CAL PAC DRILLING g 8 6— 1— 4Xy Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Ri 9 140 lbs -- )ovation Top of Hole +/-1253' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. 1 18 1115.11 11.6 SC @ 2':Darkbrown, moist, medium dense, Clayey SANDminorrootletsPA IXA Tei Fa&TInFj Tr) 1------------------ 2 40 100.028.7 ML @ 5': Olive, moist, very hard, sandy SILT; iron -staining Present; carbonate line fractures 3 § 25 11 4 ria 75 6.2 I SMI @ 10': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND with P ockets of olive sift SM I @ IS': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND 5 96110. 115.0 14.4 SM @ 20': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND 6 63 SP @ 25': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled Z23-99 - TYPE OF TESTS: - CO COPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION aa)FJC I GI(241T�1A1 4- n 1e c�r�i+L w rK-.+ = ° Z M O "• e� v si' awj GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION s • Lp O TUBE SAMPLE ISA(11 /%n Cr. �� m - m m• u a� o Z _a d. mQ to G iV ti1� Logged By SER mn Sampled By SER AI I IIVUIM an.Im�I 1 18 1115.11 11.6 SC @ 2':Darkbrown, moist, medium dense, Clayey SANDminorrootletsPA IXA Tei Fa&TInFj Tr) 1------------------ 2 40 100.028.7 ML @ 5': Olive, moist, very hard, sandy SILT; iron -staining Present; carbonate line fractures 3 § 25 11 4 ria 75 6.2 I SMI @ 10': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND with P ockets of olive sift SM I @ IS': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND 5 96110. 115.0 14.4 SM @ 20': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND 6 63 SP @ 25': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled Z23-99 - TYPE OF TESTS: - CO COPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION aa)FJC I GI(241T�1A1 4- n 1e c�r�i+L w rK-.+ SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE • S BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE ISA(11 /%n GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-47 Date 2-23-99 Sheet 1 ct 7 ProjectRORIPAUGH RANCH Project No.11990013-001 Unlling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING �— — Type o1 Ri Ab Diameter 8 in- Drive Weight 140 Ills 9 &6 levation Top of Hole +/-1229' ft. Ref. or Datum �roP 30 ;, r„ = z RING SAMPLE ". BULK SAMPLE :�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX 4e p0! « .; Q. z w t7 r4 0. O �V . ;c;i Logged By SER n Sampled By SER 1 11 121.4 12.0 SM 6LLL11C81!ldlQal[IIt:i . @ 2': Dark brown, moist, loose, silty SAND; moderately Porosity, minor rootlets 2 27 107.8 14.7 SM @ S': Same as above, medium dense 122 1 3 29 92.6 8.2 SM @ 10% Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; slightly porous I$ 4 65 MLP9(1BA FORMATION IO el------------------ @ 15': Olivrbrown to olive -tan, damp, hard, sandy SILT; few fractures 1210 20 5 67 80.3 42.9 ML @ 20': Same as above - 20 25 6 43 ML SP@ 26 Lighbrow t n tlamp, dense SAND Boring Terminated at 26.5' rNo Groundwater Encountered i Backfilled 2-23.99 30 . rrea: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: OS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY ON CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 5Ap11779 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIA CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-48 Date 2-24-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH of No. 11990013-001 �trilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Typo of Ri ,sole Diameter B In. Drive Weight 140 lbs 9. B-61 — rop 30 in. D lavation Top of Hole +/-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum o„ W. Tu t, te 'N.J v Z G _OtL mS hu G qOV �� W s GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By SER Sampled By SER c 1 •50/4• 110.9 9.5 SM PAI IRA FORMATION Inn.l @ 2': Dark brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND; moderate Porosity, common root hairs 1330 2 85 114.9 10.6 SM @ 5': Tan to red brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND; - slightly porous 1325 1 3 88 115.6 7.2 SM @ 10': Same as above SP @ 11 Retl-brown, damp very Cense SAND with gravel up 10 .75 diameter 1.,..J 15 a 16 CL @ 15': Olive, damp, loose to medium stiff, silty CLAY 1315 Bag 6 @ 20 18-22' 5 55 106.9 21.4 ML @ 20': Olive -brown, damp, hard, sandy SILT to silty SAND [31 25 7 56 SW @ 25': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND 305 30 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN - CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 5A(11/7 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIA CO COLLAPSE - SA BMW ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG UMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-48 Date 2-24-99 Sheet 2 of . - 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Drilling Project No. 1.1990013- 001 ling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING �— - TYPe of Ri Hole Diameter 6 in. Drive Weight- 140 lbs 9 &6_ Elevation Top of Hole +/-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. SAMPLE TYPES: � SPLIT SPOON D Z " B dap O TUBE SAMPLE ram O « -e .00 ;� A io ` r «- eoi ae OLL o Q. D = —Ci (7J Z O and �a �O rn O V tO— SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged B 99 Y SER a Sampled By SER 30': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND ML I @ 35': Olive to red -brown, damp, very stiff SILT ML @ 40': Same as above SP @ 41 White to brown damp, very dense SAND ML I @ 45': Olive to brown, very stiff SILT SP I @ 50': Whhe to light brown, damp, very Dense SAND Boring Terminated at 51' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2.24-99 TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY ON CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE LEIGHTON St ASSOCII CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-49 Date 2-24-99. Sheet 1 of 2 .Project - RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990_ Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 Lbs g B-6-- 1 4X4 - - -- Elevation Top of Hole +!-1207' ft. Ref. or Datum UWP 30 in. ': TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S - SPLIT SPOON am GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m- DIRECT SHEAR �o rICUm m RING SAMPLE _-o MAXIMUM DENSITY AL pTTEReEgG LIMITSS Z CN iS� RV iuLL T SU H EI C Logged By SER a 05A(1117q I FM14TMU Z ACcr% 1ATz:c Sampled By SER 120 Sag 2 1 77 114.5 7.2 SM AI I IIVII IM I11,1/116 @ 2': Dark brown, moist, very. den7SAND:moderately@ 1.5' porous, abundant rootlets3 80 100.5 12.6 SM @ 5': Same as above: trace of Clay 1200 1 4 20 109.4 5.8 SP @ 10% Red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND 15 5 50/8- ML _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ATIOIJ IOn�I ------------------- Olive to Drown, damp, very stiff SILT 1190 2 W. 8 82nD 95.0 26.9 ML @ 20': Same as above 185 7 82 SW @ 25': Brown, damp, very dense SAND 180 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S - SPLIT SPOON - DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D • RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL pTTEReEgG LIMITSS BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX 05A(1117q I FM14TMU Z ACcr% 1ATz:c GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-49 Date 2.24-99 .. Sheat 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 *Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig —�--- B-61 4Xa - Hole Diameter 8 In. Drive Weight 140 lbs -Drop -30 in; lavation Top of Hole +/-1207' ft. Ref. or Datum Oo, i,. O S D C; _ e?p0 A a* ► s Oyj GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O e' O.e O'. �(1 oLL 0U. D.p"C '� Z E mo` oa a`•' j `o t7 H o fV Logged By SER t] C. Sampled By SER Jill - 5 5016' 103.7 16.1 ML 30': Brown; damp to moist, very stiff, sandy SILT - 1175- @ 35': Brown to olive, damp to moist, very stiff SILT 3 e� ML 117 10 50/3- 102.4 8.8 SP @ 40': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND Boring Terminated at 41.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-24.99 45 11 115 5 1150 60 U01/77) TYPE OF TESTS: SAMPLE TYPES: • - S D SPLIT SPOON NTNG SAMPLE CN B BULK SAMPLE SULFATE T TUBE SAMPLE U01/77) TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LINSTS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX ■ d 1 15 0 505A(11/T7) 1 ■ 78 2 E 50/3 - SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE SM I @ S': Medium brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel ML L@ 20': Medium brown, moist, hard, sandy SILTSTONE; _ manganese and calcium carbonate visible Total Depth 20.9' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 4.22-99 TYPE OF TESTS: GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-51 MD Date 422-99 CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE •Project Drilling Co. RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 1 of L Project No. 073-007 1199001 CAL PAC Hole Diameter Type of Rig 1 401bs ` 53 8 in. -Drive Weigh Elevation Top of Hole +1-1305' ft. Ref. or Datum - See Geotechnical Map.- - Drop 30 in. ` '14 ° O z' p0 O e� r :- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION e >e- a oo 'Co e - O- e 6 2 O C.,. - LL LL rZoand H Logged By AXT n Sampled By AXT H � PAI IRA FORMATIrTN 10 I ■ d 1 15 0 505A(11/T7) 1 ■ 78 2 E 50/3 - SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE SM I @ S': Medium brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel ML L@ 20': Medium brown, moist, hard, sandy SILTSTONE; _ manganese and calcium carbonate visible Total Depth 20.9' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 4.22-99 TYPE OF TESTS: - DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOCI) CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDint -1 1 I35 2 _- 135 134 2 t SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D" RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE A(11177) SP I @ 6': Few local light brown, friable SAND interbeds within red -Drown, damp, silty SAND 4 1101.71 4.9 SP I@ hick Light gray, very friable, medium to coarse sand, Thick below is medium brown to red -brown, silty sand, few light gray, fine sand pods SP I @ 16': Grades to light gray, medium dense, very fine SAND 5 1105.41 8.8 SP @ 21': Very friable SAND; some minor caving SP @ 28'to 30': Gradational contact to lightgray, very friable, fine to medium SAND; abundant mica, few gravels TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE El EXPANSION INDEX LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATFc GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB -2 Date 3-1-99 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet 1__ of Z.. Drilling Co. 411 -DRILL Pr*ct No. T1990013-001dole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight TYPO of Rig BUCK— ET A~ 9evation Top of Hole +/-1371' ft. Ref. or Datum seebelow - Drop P 30 in. GPS: 33 33.13N 117 6.13W a « a� e- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION e 0 o 1110 010 '++ H and C �V By RFR/SER o cog Sampled By RFR/SER Q. F — = SM 0': Dark brown, dry to damp, silty SAND _ • Sc --- --- PAUBAF(1RMA-'n nT,n= ---------------- - _ @ 1.5'; Red -brown, damp, very dense, clayey SAND Y -1 1 I35 2 _- 135 134 2 t SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D" RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE A(11177) SP I @ 6': Few local light brown, friable SAND interbeds within red -Drown, damp, silty SAND 4 1101.71 4.9 SP I@ hick Light gray, very friable, medium to coarse sand, Thick below is medium brown to red -brown, silty sand, few light gray, fine sand pods SP I @ 16': Grades to light gray, medium dense, very fine SAND 5 1105.41 8.8 SP @ 21': Very friable SAND; some minor caving SP @ 28'to 30': Gradational contact to lightgray, very friable, fine to medium SAND; abundant mica, few gravels TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE El EXPANSION INDEX LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATFc GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB -2 Date 3-1-99 Sheet -2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Ap rilling Co. 411 -DRILL BU Type of Rig CKET AUGER Hole Diameter_ 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow -- evation To of Hole +/-1371' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. P GPS- 33 33 73N i,� a ,mer C 1111 W isc QLL 11 ro mJ o Z _ D E rn ♦, Co � c � ia oy GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By RFR/SER Sampled By RFR/SER s n 3 10 110.7 4.9 1 81A/ Sp ine to SAND; moist, @ medium dense to dense fbrownewgravels r = 3 - Sp @ 34.8': 1' Thick medium gray, very moist, very fine SAND 133 bed, mica bed. pinches and swabs, bottom contact is I _� I iron -stained to light brown sand as above r -- 4 15 106.8 8.3 ML @ 40': Sharp, irregular contact to medium gray, very moist, 1330�s SILT to very fine sandy sit Sp @ 41': Grades to medium gray to brown -gray, fine to .=_ medium SAND i i 45 1325— Sp @ 48': Becomes fine to coarse SAND 5 — 5 10 101.5 6.4 132 Sp @ 51': Grades back to medium gray to brown, fine to medium SAND: pods to 55' Drive Weight: 0-25':2500lbs; 2648':1500lbs; 49-66':750lbs 55 Total Depth 52' 1315 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 3.1.99 6 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOCl/ TES CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB -4 _ Date 3.3-99 RORIPAUGH RANCH Shoot °f 1 •Project Drilling Co. 411 -DRILL Project No. 11990013-001 Hole Diameter — 30 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig -BUCKR seebelow - Drop Elevation Top of Hole +/•1380' h. Ref. or Datum 30 in. GPS: 33.33.26N 117 5.97W - c D o « •`� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 16 '6000J, C. 111616 �LL �U CL Z 0 we 0 06 moo. G f c ;%j Logged By RFR/SER COL Sampled By RFR/SER r' _ SM Surface: Red -brown, moist, loose, silty SAND: rootlets minor M/S EA11RA Fr1RMATIr1N f0 1 - _ _ @ 1.5': Tan, dry, medium dense, silty, very fine to fine —. _.. SAND and medium coarse SAND 3'to 8': Caving ' 137 �- @ 8': Becomes damp 1370. 1 —' _ t = 103.6 4.3 SP @ 10': Light brown to tan, dry to damp, fine to medium SAND; friable — • @ 10'to 74': Caving — �• Bag 2 @ ,— 12-15' I 15 a 9 94.8 7.6 ML/SP @ 15': Tan to brown, damp, sandy SILT and fine SAND to medium 1 1 2 101.4 5.7 SP @ 20': Brown, damp, fine to medium SAND @ 23' to 29': Caving 1355 25 Drive Weight: 0-25':2500lbs; 26-48':1500lbs; 49-66':750lbs 1350 3 - T.D. 29';No Grountlwater, Caving at 3'-8', 10'-14', 23'-29'; SAMPLE TYPES: 5 TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE D SPLIT SPOON MING SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERSERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION -' - T TUBE SAMPLE RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX tosealrrn LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES .,a=av I fcl1,n1MIUAL e3URING LOG LB -5 CO Date 3-5-99 Prqje - - RORIPAUI1 Sheet 1. _ of .3 Dfilin Co. 9 DRILL Projel"o: 1199101 Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight Type of Ri 9 BUCK�gUGER Elevation Top of Hole +/-1405' ft. Ref. or Datum seebelow GPS: 33 32-93N 117 s114w Drop 30 in. -- - C TYPE OF TESTS: CO e z s ": SA :y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY «m rm r� • a 3° Cr o« a SU SULFATE m EXPANSION INDEX a LL LL r a oLL _' a° _o �, Q Z E and G 2V Logged BY RFR/SER o W02 n 11— Sampled By RFR/SER 14115- i 1RM Tr10CM, 1400 Bag 1 @ 5-8' 1391 1 2 SC I lel 4 • Grades to red -brown, damp, dense, Clayey SAND @ 3': Becomes less clayey SP @ SANDaded to regrown, brown, dense, fine to medium @ 9': Becomes locally friable - 16 120.81 7.9 SP 3 § 5 1102.31 6.4 @ 12.7': Irregular, cemented, Clayey sand seam (112- thick) @ Below: Medium, dark red -brown, very dense, fine to medium SAND @ 14': Sharp contact to medium gray, fine SAND: Vertical Fracture: iron -stained, no shears @ 16.3':Sharp contact to medium red -brown to light brown, SM moist, medium dense, medium grained SAND SP 16.10': Grades to red -brown, slightly clayey, silty SAND 17.6': Becomes clayey, coarse SAND @ 19'; Grades to silty, fine to medium SAND; moist to very moist @ 21': West wall, irregular interbed light brown, fine to coarse SAND IpinChes out on South wall at 22.5') @ 22.4': Sharp contact to medium grained, medium dense, very moist, fine SAND C r SM @ 26': Grades to red -brown, fine to medium silty SAND -1 = SP @ 27': 4" Thick, medium gray, fine SAND bed Below: interbed, red -brown, fine to medium SAND and • !C' medium gray, fine SAND SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE - S SRR SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS a BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV q VALUE - T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX utv I LUMICAL BORING LOG LB -5 e - Date 3-5-99 e0 3fL e mae Project RCRIPAUGH-RANCH . Sheet 2 of 3 Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Project No. 11990013- 01 Hole Diameter 30 in.: Drive Weight;eebelow Type of Rig BUCKET AU ER Bevation Top of Hole +/-1405' ft. Ref: or DatumDrop i GPS: 33 32.93N 117.5-aaw �--- 30 in. -- '0/� ,Cr D e o Z. e e0 3fL e mae 4p " = CL I St e' CONSOLIDATION O R VALUE SU SULFATE s` EXPANSION INDEX rEEi O ` �; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 7. a eo t7V o _ra fV yoj Logged By - RFR/SER Sampled By RFR/SER S to 120.3 10.8 Bag 6 @ 45-48' SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULB SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 13 1101.3 10.4 SP I @ 31'; Bedding is horizontal . @ 34': Grades to medium Way to red -brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND @ 37': Few granitic grovels SM @ 37,9': Contact to medium gray, dense, silty, fine SAND; massive to very dense SP I @ 44': Becomes friable, very clean, fine SAND @ 46'; Becomes less friable P/ML @ 48': Few medium brown, Clayey, silt interbeds Ivariable: B" to 1/2" thick) SM Below: Gray -brown, dense, moist, silty, fine SAND; massive SC I @ 55': Grades to gray -brown, very stiff, clayey, fine SAND, very moist @ S7': Becomes less clayey SM @ 58': Grades to brown -gray, dense, silty, fine SAND TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MO MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX ` °� e WLL GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB -6 -- ° - • Z ° O a CL Z . coeE Dote - Project 3-5-99 RORIPA CH Sheet 3 of 3 DrillingCo. 1G DRILL Project No. 119900 •Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig seebelow BUCKET �AUGER —^— Elevation Top of Hole +/-1405' ft. Ref. or Datum rpc. -2� �� oxer . Drop 30 in. ` °� e WLL ��. ° ° _ O ° - • Z ° O a CL Z . coeE - •O O fDo° • Ch C °� r 7w gU •W ° H P GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° o Logged By . .. RFR/SER a 1= Sampled By RFR/SER1345 EXPANSION INDEX 60 �1. s 70 96.6 10.8 - - - SM @ 61': Grades to medium gray, silty fine SAND SP @ 63': Sharp contact; grades to light gray, medium dense, .._ fine to medium grained SAND; very friable 1340 6 7-- =r ML @ 69': Sharp contact to olive -pray, clayey SILT with 1335 7carbonates -- 9 7 87.1 22.7 Total Depth 71' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 3-5.99 13311 75 Drive Weight: 0-25':2500lbs; 26.48':1500lbs; 49-66':750lbs 1315 80- 320 3 315 SAMPLE TYPES: - S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOUDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX UEOTECHNIC_AL BORING_LOG LB -6 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 7 c{ 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Prgeet No. i-1-990013-001 Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER ole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight aeebelow Elevation Top of Hole +/-1329' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in. GPS: 33 32.50N 117 5 n7w I' -1.. -I._. CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA 1305 MD MAXIMUM DENSITY EOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION - -RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI 1 z n a4ga S `en.0z D RING SAMPLE - L_(11/771 B T BULK SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE . BY RFR/SER o Od led By RFR/SERi0 I' -1.. -I._. @ Surface: Red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine to worse SAND; minor rootlets @ 4": No roots, non -porous, massive - ... �. @ 4': -Becomes dense. @ 10% Becomes very dense SM I @ 14'; Sharp contact, olive -gray, silty, very fine SAND SP I @ 15.8% Sharp contact to brown -gray, dry, medium dense, fine to medium SAND , • 99.9 1 13.7 1 SM @ 17': Contact to silty, fine SAND, as above SP I @ 19': 1" Thick, fine to coarse sand bed; parallels contact above SM I @ 21': Contact to medium brown, damp, medium dense, Silly. fine SAND SP I @ 24': Grades to medium gray, very dense SAND SM @ 25.2': Contact to red -brown, damp, dense, silty, fine SAND SP I @ 27': Grades to medium gray SAND SM @ 28'; Grades to red -brown, moist, dense, silty, fine SAND TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA 1305 MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION - -RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI 1 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE - L_(11/771 B T BULK SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE @ Surface: Red -brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine to worse SAND; minor rootlets @ 4": No roots, non -porous, massive - ... �. @ 4': -Becomes dense. @ 10% Becomes very dense SM I @ 14'; Sharp contact, olive -gray, silty, very fine SAND SP I @ 15.8% Sharp contact to brown -gray, dry, medium dense, fine to medium SAND , • 99.9 1 13.7 1 SM @ 17': Contact to silty, fine SAND, as above SP I @ 19': 1" Thick, fine to coarse sand bed; parallels contact above SM I @ 21': Contact to medium brown, damp, medium dense, Silly. fine SAND SP I @ 24': Grades to medium gray, very dense SAND SM @ 25.2': Contact to red -brown, damp, dense, silty, fine SAND SP I @ 27': Grades to medium gray SAND SM @ 28'; Grades to red -brown, moist, dense, silty, fine SAND TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION - -RV R VALUE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX %aw t cur [MIUAL BORING LOG LB -6 .. .. Date 3-5-99 "act RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet. 2 Of 3 Drilling Co. . 411 DRILL Prole°t No: 11990 1 Hole Diameter . 30 in. Drive We' Type,of Rig BUCKET seebelow evation Top of Hole +/-1329' ft. Ref.Drop 30 in. _or Datum GPS: 33 32.50N 117 5.37w — p« aV O MD ° Z CN a-.. SU • �. GEOTE tm a a e a10. O c— -•� 7r e0 mLL CLL 4j O CL O� �4 s VV W.. O 2isooto 00IL G _. .fV...yo7. Logged By rn _ Sampled By SP @ 12 .Z7 Bog '@ 45-48' Qy4r •,JSP ` 4 c 5 SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE 9 1118.E 18 1 8.4 X111 21 1120.01 10.8 1 CHNICAL DESCRIPTION I F 0 RFR/SER c RFR/SER 32'i Grades to damp, dense, fine to medium SAND; Slightly friebIs @34': Becomes coarse SAND .-..:.... _.-.- @ 34.5': Red -brown, very dense, damp to most, silty, fine SAND @ 44': Grades to medium red -brown, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly friable @ 49': Sharp contact to dark red -brown, very dense, silty, fine to medium SAND @ 52': Grades to medium red -brown, silty, fine SAND @ 59': Grades to dark, red -brown, very dense, silty, fine SAND TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD ' MAXIMUM DENSITY CN -CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX wr'"MoPAL 15UMIMv LOU LB -6 S Date. _ 3-5-99 - D .. ... ... .... _.... _ _ Project Sheet 3 RORIPAt1GH RANCH of 3 EXPANBInu luncv Drilling Co: 411 DRILL Project No. i-1-990013.001 Hole Diameter 30 in. price Weight Type of Rig BUCKET Eq —�-- '• Elevation Top of Hole +/-1329' ft. Ref. or Datum eeebelow - Drop 30 in. GPS: 33 32.50N 11 T5.37W o� a z' Is a si GEOTECHNICAL DES=CRIPTION10Oe a -30 C,. mliGLLa-1 2n o:oein o mg _ fy� logged 8yRFR/SER Sampled By RFR/SER • Bag B @ 60 63' SP @ 61% Few medium gray, medium dense SAND; pods - ~ '42' _ SM- @ to olive -gray, very dense, silty, very fine - - G:NE'E SANDontact r 126 ". :. 31 S - - _ SP._ _@ 64': Grades. to red -brown, dense, fine to medium SAND - (� 64.5': - 65 . SM Grades to gray to;kwa-pray, dense to very dense, - ` r o' silty, fine SAND ...--r- 1 1- -C: N8."a: ML @ 65.8': Sharp contact to olive -gray to medium pray, hard SILT So •S SM @ 68': Grades to silty, fine SAND 1260 r 7 7 24 106.7 13.7 7; SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D LUNG SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE -__ T TUBE SAMPLE Total Depth 71' No Groundwater Encountered No Caving Backfilled 3-5-99 Drive Weight: 0.25':2500lbs; 26-48':1500lbs; 49-66':750lbs TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANBInu luncv .1777) Bag 2 12-15' 3 6 SE SAMPLE TYPES: `%0 a DUMINU LUG LB -7 SPLIT SPOON Date 3-5-99 _ B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE Project - 1_ RORIPAUGH RANCH Sheet of 2- - Project No. Drilling Co. @ 20.10% 3/4" Plastic, soft 10 firm, Clay seam, 411 DRILL 1199001-3-001 . e Diameter 30 in. 5 - Drive Weight Type of Ri g BUCK—=R •Hol 'Elevation Top of Hole +/-1267 ft. Ref. or Datum seebelow Drop GPS: 33 32.53N 117 5.32W 30 in. C; « �� =- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION SP _ m mLL e o 0 7« o iLL mJ e O 6 2 �r mi 06 @ 24': Grades to medium gray, hard, SILTSTONE; few f W O y C iv � Logged BY RFR/SER °a Sampler! BY RFR/SER f= SM Surfade: Dark red -brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND - -� _.. SC, ..@-4; Becomes clayey sand ...._ .. .._ 1260 . SM �AIIRA�ORMATIBN--------------- ------- @ 7': Grades to red -brown, very moist, silty, fine to medium SAND, thinly laminated, medium dense • @ 8% Becomes dense 10 11 70 714.7 17.2 .1777) Bag 2 12-15' 3 6 SE SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE @ 12'; Pew gravels SP I @ 15': Grades to very dense, fine to medium SAND; thinly laminated with crossbeds @ 28'; Medium Pinches out c TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR SM I @ 20': Grades to very dense, damp to moist, silty, fine to CN. CONSOLIDATION - SU SULFATE medium SAND CL @ 20.10% 3/4" Plastic, soft 10 firm, Clay seam, SP continuous ground hole 5 111.0 11.8 CL Below: Medium gray, dense, fine SAND @ 22': Clay seam, 1/2" thick, slightly sheared. ' SP Below: Medium to dark gray, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND ML @ 24': Grades to medium gray, hard, SILTSTONE; few vertical to near vertical random shears @ 28'; Medium Pinches out c TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN. CONSOLIDATION - SU SULFATE 'ON & ASSOCl/ soft, clayey. SILT bed, 2' thick, In and south wall If to very hard, locally cemented SILT CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERSERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDFY %aca.v I Q%vrI lVAL esvKING LOG LB -7 3-5-99 Date --.. - ... ._ ... ... - - ... .. ... _. 2 et Sha Project RORIPAUGH RANCH She - 2— of 2 Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Pro1et 11990_ Ot_= Hole Diameter30 in. - Drhre Weight TYPe of Rig . BUCKET seebelow 6evatiDn Top of Hole +l-1267' ft. Ref. or Datum Drop 30 in.GPS: 33 32.53N 117 5_12w s Z� . 2 O z OO = ° a* b�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ` a EXPANSION INDEX nbl ° ;ta c. 3c ° o ma. _q H C �v Logged BY RFR/SER rn� n Sampled By RFR/SER 1= SM@ 30': Grades to medium gray, silty, very fine SAND 123 SP 31.% rades to medto fine SAND @@ _ 32'SBecomes very dein a SAND r 3 y _ - C:` E ML - @ 34': Sharp contact: slightly in to 3 S dark red -brown, very hard, sandy SILTSTONEedium 1 I • i •. SM @ 38% Grades to medium brown, dense, silty, fine SAND V sag 5@ 11225 _ 40-43' @ 41.6': Contact to medium gray, dense, silty, fine SAND • _ SP @ 43': Grades to dense, fine to medium SAND - 45 r 46 6 t2 101.8 21.2 @ 45': Becomes slightly friable, grades to medium grained SAND 46': Sharp contact to medium brown, dense, fine SAND 122 ML @ 47': Grades to medium brown, very hard, clayey SILTSTONE SM @ 48': Grades to medium gray, silty, very tine SAND -... Logged to 49' !17 SAMPLE TYPES: 5 SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE B SULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE Total Depth 50' No Groundwater Encountered No Caving Backfilled 3-5.99 Drive Weight: 0.25':2500lbs; 26-48':1500lbs; 49-66':750Ibs TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MO MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX • Projec 1990013-00I LOG ( PITS LOGGED BY: SER CLEIN Roripaugh Ranch s DATE: 3-24-99, TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRYTYPE MOIST PIT# (FT) DENSITY Mf U S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH PCF) 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Dark brown, dry to dump, loose, silty, Fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets, highly porous 2-6' SM Brown, damp, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; minor root hairs, T40 slightly porous 6-8' SM/SP Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND and fine to coarse SAND; non -porous T.D: 8', No Groundwater, No Caving, Backfilled 3-24-99 0-2' SP Alluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, fine to coarse SAND; minor roots 2-6' SM Dark brown, very moist, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND with local trace clay T41 6-7.5' SC Becomes clayey SAND 7.5-10' SC Pauba Formation: Red -tan, very moist, medium dense to dense, clayey SAND 10-14' SM Becomes silty, fine to coarse AND T.U.: 14'; No Groundwater Encountered; No Caving; Backfilled 3-24-99 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, damp, loose, silly, fine to coarse SAND; common rootlets, highly porous 2-6.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly porous, T-42 common root hairs 6.5-7' SP/ML Pauba Formation: Red, moist, very dense, medium to coarse SAND with interbeds of olive SILT T.D.: T; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-24-99 • Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch TABL etinued) LOG U. GEST PITS LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-25-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPE DENSITY MUS.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH (PCF) 04' SM/SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty SAND and fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets, porous 4-6' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND; minor root hairs T-43 6-10' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, very moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND 10-13' ML Brown to olive, moist, stiff, sandy SILT T.D: 13', No Groundwater, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2' SP Alluvium/Colluviumt Light brown, damp, loose, fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets 24' SM Tan to brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; T-44 common root hairs, highly porous 4-7' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, silly, fine to coarse SAND, becoming very dense at depth, upper I' slightly weathered T.D.: T, No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, dry to, damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets 24' SM Dark brown to black, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; highly organic, abundant T45 rootlets, strong organic odor 4-7 SM/ML Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, very dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND and sandy. SILT T.U.: 7', No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 TABL�ttinued) LOG k- _TEST PITS ProjecP14'. 11990013-001 LOGGED BY: SER CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch DATE: 3-25-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRYTYPE MOIST PITA (FT) DENSITY (%) U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B &DEPTH (PCF) 0-1' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, dry to damp; loose, silty SAND; abundant roots, highly porous 14' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense; silty, fine to medium. SAND; porous, common T-46 root hairs 4-6' ML Pauba Formation: Olive, damp, hard, sandy SILT T.D.: 6', No Groundwater, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2.5' SM/SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, damp, loose, silty SAND with pockets (8" in diameter of light brown, medium to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets 2.5-6' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, tine to medium SAND; common root T47 hairs, slightly to moderately porous 6-8' SM/ML Pauba Formation, Olive -tan, moist, stiff, sandy SILT and silty, very fine SAND T.U.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-5.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown to dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty'; fine to coarse SAND, porous, common rootlets T-48 5.5 - SP Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, dense, fine to coarse SAND 10.5' T.U.: 10.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-4' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown to dark brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, silty, very fine to coarse, SAND; porous, common rootlets/root hairs T-49 4-8' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugb Ranch TABI, ,elinued) • LOG l _ i EST PITS LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-25-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPE DENSITY M U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C, B & DEPTH (PCF) 0-1.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown`to brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; abundant. roots/rootlets SM Dark brown, moist, medium densei silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, T-50 common root hairs 4.5-6' SM Red -tan to brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND T.D.: 6'; No Groundwater Encountered, NoCaving, Backfilled3-25-99 0-2' SM/SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND with pockets of light brown, medium to coarse SAND (up to 6" in diameter), porous 2-6.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense,lsilty SAND; moderately porous, common root T-51 hairs 6.5-10' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 10'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0 -LS' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown.'damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, abundant roots 1.5-5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; common root hairs, moderately porous T-52 5-9' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND 9-I0' SP Red -tan, moist, dense, medium to coarse SAND T.U.: 10'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: 'Roripaugh Ranch TAIIIlimed) LOG G ti T PITS LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-25-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (4T) TYPE DENSITY (�o) U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH (PCF) 0-1.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty SAND; highly porous 1.5-5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense; silty, fine to medium SAND; porous T-53 5-9.5' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 9.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavinp, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2' SM/SP Alluvium/ Colluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND, porous, and medium to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets. T-54 2-5' SM Dark brown, moist, dense, silly, fine to medium SAND; porous, common root hairs 5-8' SM Red -tan, moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 OA.5' SP/SM Alluvium: Light brown, damp, loose, fine to coarse SAND and silty SAND; abundant roots, porous 4.5-8' SM Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; T-55 common root hairs, porous 8-12.5' SM/SP Red-lan, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND and medium to. coarse SAND T.D.: 12.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 Projects i1990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch TABU *,(inued) LOG ( T PITS LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-25-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PtTN (FT) TYPE DENSITY U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH (PCF)M 0-5' SM/SP Alluvium: Light brown to dark brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, ) silty, fine to coarse SAND with pockets of medium to coarse SAND (up to 6" in diameter) highly porous, abundant rootlets T-56 5-T SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly weathered T.D.: 7'; No Groundwater, Slight Cavin @ 0-2', Backfllled 3-25-99 0-1' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, abundant roots/rootlets 1-7' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND; moderately porous, common root hairs, becomes non -porous at —5' T-57 7-10' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 10-11' ML Olive, very dense SILTSTONE; common calcium carbonate linings T.D.: 11'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, silly, fine to coarse SAND; 0-1.5' highly porous, abundant roots SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly porous, 1.5-3' common root hairs T-58 SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND 3-9.5' ML Olive, very dense SILTSTONE 9.5-10.5' T.D.: 10.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 • Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch TABL •ntinued) • LOG Ot, TEST PITS LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-25-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPE DENSITY M U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH (PCF) 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; abundant roots, highly porous 2-4.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly T-59 porous, common root hairs 4.5-6.5' SM/SP Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND and medium to coarse SAND; becomes very dense. at 6' T.D.: 6.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-1.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose, silly, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous 1.5-3.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium, slightly porous, common root hairs T-60 3.5-6' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, dense, silly, fine to coarse SAND 6-9' Bag @ 6-8' SM/ML Olive, damp, dense, silty, verfine to medium SAND and sandy SILT T.D.: 9% No Groundwater En ountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0-1.5 SC Pauba Formation: Dark red -brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND; common rootlets 1.5 d' SM Red -tan, moist, dense, silly, fine to medium SAND; minor root hairs . T-61 4-6' SM Olive, damp, dense, silly, very fine to medium SAND 6-9.5' SM Olive to light brown, damp, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 9.5-10' ML Olive, very dense SILTSTONE Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-25-99 0 Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch TABL Wtinued) LOG 01" TEST PITS LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-29-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (F1) TYPE DENSITY (%) U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH PC SM AiluviumlColluvium: Light brown to brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; highly 0-2' porous, abundant roots SM Grades to dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; porous, 2-5.5' common root hairs T-62 SM Pauba Formation: Red -Ian, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 5.5-10' SP Light brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse SAND 10-12.5' T.D.: 12.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 0-2.5' SM Undocumented Fill: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND 2.5-9.5' SP Alluvium: Light brown to brown, moist to very moist, loose, fine to coarse SAND; minor roots T-63 9.5-15.5' SP/SM Pauba Formation: Red -brown, very moist to wel, medium dense, . fine to coarse SAND and silty, fine to medium SAND; highly weathered T.D.: 15.5'; No Groundwater, Slight Cavin 04', Backfilled 3-29-99 0-3' SP Alluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, very loose, fine to coarse SAND 3-9' SM Brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse SAND with interbeds of 4- 6" of dark brown, silty, very fine to medium SAND T-64 9-11' SP Pauba Formation: Red -tan, very moist, medium dense to dense, fine to coarse SAND; weathered II -13' SC Becomes clayey SAND T.D.: 13% No Groundwater Encountered, Cavin 0-6', Backfilled 3-29-99 Date 3-5-99 S SPLIT SPOON project ..... RORIPAUGH RANCH ....... .... -Sheet. 2. _of ..2 _. .. Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Project No. 11990— Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight TYPO of Rig seebelow BUCK_ ETAUGER Elevation Top of Hale +/-126T • ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.53N 117 5.32W Drop 30 in. . gray, silty, very SP @ 31.5': Grades to medium to fine SAND @ 32': Becomes very dense SAND MLI @ 34': Sharp contact: slightly ifregulatory) to medium to dark red -brown, very hard, sandy SILTSTONE SM I @ 38': Grades to medium brown, dense, silty, fine SAND Bag5@ 40.43'@41.6': Contact to medium gray, dense, silty, fine SAND Sp @ 43': Grades to dense, fine to medium SAND e 12 101.6 21.2 @ 45': Becomes slightly triable, grades to medium grained SAND @ 46': Sharp contact to medium brown, dense, fine SAND ML @ 47':Gr0NE to medium brown, very hard, clayey SILTSM @ 48': Grades to medium grey, silty, very fine SAND Logged to 49' SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D ° Y= ..11 Z " a0 a _` r�. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 1 BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE EXPANSION INDEX o ~ mIi soli e� Z a3a o ` Vy O. �V Logged By RFR/SER I rn n Sampled By RFR/SER . gray, silty, very SP @ 31.5': Grades to medium to fine SAND @ 32': Becomes very dense SAND MLI @ 34': Sharp contact: slightly ifregulatory) to medium to dark red -brown, very hard, sandy SILTSTONE SM I @ 38': Grades to medium brown, dense, silty, fine SAND Bag5@ 40.43'@41.6': Contact to medium gray, dense, silty, fine SAND Sp @ 43': Grades to dense, fine to medium SAND e 12 101.6 21.2 @ 45': Becomes slightly triable, grades to medium grained SAND @ 46': Sharp contact to medium brown, dense, fine SAND ML @ 47':Gr0NE to medium brown, very hard, clayey SILTSM @ 48': Grades to medium grey, silty, very fine SAND Logged to 49' SAMPLE TYPES: S SPLIT SPOON D RING SAMPLE - B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE Total Depth 50' No Groundwater Encountered No Caving Backfilled 3-5-99 Drive Weight: 0.25';2500lbs; 26-48':1500lbs; 49-66':750lbs TYPE OF TESTS: DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION SU SULFATE CO COLLAPSE SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL ATTERBERG LIMITS RV R VALUE EI EXPANSION INDEX Projece 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch .nuL`nued) nd- . LOG PITS LOGGED BY: SER DATE: 3-29-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PITH (FT) TYPE DENSITY (%) U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH (PCF) P. 04' SM Topsoil: Dark brown, moist, loose;, silly SAND; abundant roots 4-1 P SC Colluvium: Medium olive brown, moist, medium stiff, sandy CLAY T-37 11-14' SM Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, dense, silty SAND with trace clay li 14-15' SC Olive, moist, dense, clayey SAND, it T.D.: 15', No Groundwater, No Caving, Backfilled 2-26-99 0-3.5' SM Topsoil: Dark brown, moist, looset silty SAND; trace clay, abundant rootlets 3.5-6' SM Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty SAND; minor T-38 rootlets 6-12' SP Red -brown, damp to moist, dense SAND T.D.: 12' No Groundwater, No Cavin , Backfilled 2-26-99 0-3.5' SM o soil: Dark brown, moist, loose, silty SAND; abundant rootlets 3.5-9' SP Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, medium dense to dense SAND T-39 9-10' SC Olive, moist, dense, sandy CLAY !' �i T.D.: 10', No Groundwater, No Caving, Backfilled 2-26-99 • Project No. 11990013-001 CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch TABL lalinued) LOG Or r'EST PITS LOGGED BY - .SER DATE: 3-29-99 TEST DEPTH SAMPLE DRYTYPE MOIST PITq (FT) DENSITY (�O) U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTH (PCF) 0-4' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, moderately porous 4-6' SM Pauba Formation: Red -tan, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND T-65 weathered 6-10' SM/ML Becomes dense with interbeds of tan, sandy SILT T.D.: 10': No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 0-2.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, highly porous T-66 2.5-5.5' SM/ML Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, dense to very dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND with 3" interbeds of dark brown, hard, sandy SILT T.D.: 5.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backfilled 3-29-99 0-5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, abundant roots 5-6' SM Pauba Formation: Red -brown, moist, medium dense, silty,fine to coarse SAND; T-67 slightly weathered 6-10' SM/SP Red -tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND with 6" inlerbeds of fine to coarse SAND T.U.: 10'; No Groundwater, Slight Cavin 0-2', Backfilled 3-29-99 r. Appendix F Appendix F Treatment Control BMP Sizing Calculations and Design Details Table 5.4 shows the number of BMPs that will included in this tract. Vegetated Swale: The sizing and design parameters for the vegetated swale are summarized in this appendix. The designs of Basin I and Basin 2, in which both Swale I and Swale 2 are located, are provided in this appendix as Figure F.1 and Figure F.2. Because these are not extended detention basins used for water quality purposes, they do not include outlet control designs. Filtration Units: Sizing of the filtration units and documentation regarding their effectiveness is included • in this appendix. U] Vegetated Swale Sizing • • 11 TahlP d_ Runoff Coefficients for an Intensity = 0.2 0/h, for Urban Soil Types' & {fit! ff � � - � xX 4' l • �`� Y<�:`�� �5'�'F 4 � �P-}%vi.v Fd; b t • �� t 40 SII I t� -Complete District's standards can be found in the Riverside County Hood control Hydrology manuai 0 5� Calculations for Vegetated Swale 1 CJ • 0 Worksheet 1 Design Procedure for BMP Design Volume 85th percentile runoff event Designer: Tom Mullen Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September 7, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch Swale Number 1 Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Create Unit Storage Volume Graph a. Site location (Township, Range, and T 7 South & R 2 West Section). Sections 21 & 20 (1) b. Slope value from the Design Volume Curve in Appendix A. Slope = 1.22% (2) c. Plot this value on the Unit Storage Volume Graph shown on Figure 2. d. Draw a straight line form this point to the origin, to create the graph Is this graph attached? X Yes No 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient a. Determine total impervious area A Impervious= 57.45 acres (5) b. Determine total tributary area Amami= 114.90 acres (6) c. Determine Impervious traction i = (5) / (6) i = 0.50 (7) d. Use (7) in Figure 1 to find Runoff ORC=.85813-.78i2+.7741+.04C=(8) C= 0.345 (8) 3. Determine 85% Unit Storage Volume a. Use (8) in Figure 2 Draw a Vertical line from (8)to the VU= 0.43 in -acre graph, then a Horizontal line to the acre (9) desired Vu value 4. Determine Design Storage Volume a. VBMP= (9)x (6) [in- acres] vomp= 49.41 in -acre (10) b. VBMP= (10)/ 12 [ft- acres] VBMP= 4.12 ft -acre (11) c. VsMP= (11) x 43560 [ft3] VBMP= 179358.3 ft3 (12) Notes: • Worksheet 2 • 0 Design Procedure Form for Design Flow Uniform Intensity Design Flow Designer: Todd Cantu Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September 7, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch — Flows Entering Swale Number 1 via Line A Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine Impervious Percentage a. Determine total tributary area Amar= 64.6 acres (1) b. Determine Impervious % I= 50% (2) 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient Values Use Table 2 and impervious % found in step 1 a. A Soil Runoff Coefficient Ca= (3) b. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cb= 0.52 (4) c. C Soil Runoff Coefficient Cc= (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient Cd= (6) 3. Determine the Area decimal fraction of each soil type in tributary area a. Area of A Soil / (1) _ b. Area of B Soil/ (1)= Aa= (7) c. Area of C Soil / (1)= Ab= 1 (8) d. Area of D Soil / (1) = Ac= (g) Ad= (10) 4. Determine Runoff Coefficient C = 0.52 (11) a.0=3 +4 8+5 9+(00 0 5. Determine BMP Design flow a. QBMP= C x I x A = (11) x 0.2 x (1) QBMP= 6.72 ft3/s (12) 0 L 0 Worksheet 2 Design Procedure Form for Design Flow Uniform Intensity Design Flow Designer: Todd Cantu Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September 7, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch — Flows Entering Swale Number 1 via Line B Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine Impervious Percentage b. Determine total tributary area Atm i= 50.3 acres (1) b. Determine Impervious %, i = 50% (2) 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient Values Use Table 2 and impervious %, found in step 1 d. A Soil Runoff Coefficient Ca= (3) e. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cb= 0.52 (4) f. C Soil Runoff Coefficient Cc= (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient Cd= (6) 3. Determine the Area decimal fraction of each soil type in tributary area d. Area of A Soil / (1) _ e. Area of B Soil/ (1)= Aa= (7) f. Area of C Soil / (1) = Ab = 1 (8) d. Area of D Soil / (1) = Ac= (9) Ad = (10) 4. Determine Runoff Coefficient C = 0.52 (11) a.C= (3b((7) + ffl8+5 9+6 10= 5. Determine BMP Design flow a. QBMP = C x I x A = (11) x 0.2 x (1) QBMP = 5.23 ft3 is (12) 0 • 11 Worksheet 4 Design Procedure Form for Infiltration Basin Designer: Tom Mullen Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September 25, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch - Flows Entering Swale Number 1 Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine Design Storage Volume (Use Worksheet 1) a. Total Tributary Area (maximum 50) Atotal 114.9 acres b. Design Storage Volume, VBMP VBMP= 179,358 ft3 2. Maximum Allowable Depth (Dm) a. Site infiltration rate (1) I = in/hr b.Minimum drawdown time (48 hrs) t = hrs C. Safety factor (s) s = d. Dm= [(t) X (1)]/[12s] Dm= ft 3. Basin Surface Area Am= ft2 Am= VBMP/ Dm 4. Vegetation (check type used or X Native Grasses describe "other") _ Irrigated Turf Grass Other Notes: • 0 Worksheet 9 Design Procedure Form for Grassed Swale Designer: Tom Mullen Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch — Swale for Swale Number 1 Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine Design Flow QBMP = 11.95 cfs (Use Worksheet 2) 2. Swale Geometry a. Swale bottom width (b) b = 50 ft b. Side slope (z) z = 5:1 c. Flow direction slope (s) s=2% 3. Design flow velocity (Manning n = 0.2) v = 0.56 fUs 4. Depth of flow (D) D = 0.41 ft 5. Design Length (L) L = 235 ft L = (7 min) x (flow velocity, ft/sec) x 60 6. Vegetation (describe) Native grasses and smaller shrubs (see list of candidate shrubs under Section 1.C.b of Section V of WQMP 8. Outflow Collection (check type used or X Grated Inlet' describe "other") Infiltration Trench _ Underdrain Other Notes: 0 0 VA Consulting, Inc. Calculation of Quantity of Gravel Pack for Vegetated Swale Basin 1 Provided Information Infiltration Rate:" 30.20 in/hr = 2.52 ft/hr Qbmp: 11.90 cis = 42840.00 cf/hr Duration of first flush runoff: = 3.00 hr Time for infiltration: = 72.00 hr Procedure: 1. Calculate total volume to infiltrate using an assumed dimension of gravel pack 2. Calculate required area to infiltrate 50% of first flush runoff 3. Confirm adequacy of assumed gravel pack dimensions Calculations: 1. Volume to infiltrate = Qbmp x duration of first flush runoff x 50% = 64260.00 of (Assume target of 50% complete first flush infiltration in swale) Volume of water stored in gravel pack 450' long, 47' wide, 1' deep = 2538.00 of (assume 2" median diameter aggregate base with 12% annular volume) Total volume = volume to infiltrate minus volume of water in gravel pack = 61722.00 cf 2. Required area to infiltrate 50% Qbmp within 72 hours = 340.63 sf =(total volume)(infiltration rate x time for infiltration) 3. Confirm adequacy of initially assumed gravel back dimensions Required width of 450' long gravel pack = required area / 450' = 0.76 It Based on infiltration test 10/20/20069:56 AM 0 Calculations for. Vegetated Swale 2 • • • 0 Worksheet 1 Design Procedure for BMP Design Volume 85th percentile runoff event Designer: Tom Mullen Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September 7, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch Swale Number 2 Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Create Unit Storage Volume Graph b.. Site location (Township, Range, and T 7 South & R 2 West Section). Sections 21 & 20 (1) b. Slope value from the Design Volume Curve in Appendix A. Slope = 1.22% (2) c. Plot this value on the Unit Storage Volume Graph shown on Figure 2. d. Draw a straight line form this point to the origin, to create the graph Is this graph attached? p X Yes No 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient b. Determine total impervious area A Impervious= 72.75 acres (5) c. Determine total tributary area Atow = 145.50 acres (6) c. Determine Impervious fraction i = (5) / (6) i = 0.50 (7) d. Use (7) in Figure 1 to find Runoff ORC=.858i3-.78i2+.774i+.04C=(8) C= 0.345 (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 Vu= 0.43 in -acre desired Vo value acre (9) 4. Determine Design Storage Volume b. VBMP = (9) x (6) [in- acres] VBMP = 62.56 in -acre (10) b. VBMP= (10)/ 12 [ft- acres] VBMP= 5.21 ft -acre (11) c. VsMP = (11) x 43560 [ft3] VBMP = 227110.95 ft3 (12) Notes: 0 0 Worksheet 2 Design Procedure Form for Design Flow Uniform Intensity Design Flow Designer: Todd Cantu Company: VA Consulting, Inca Date: September 7, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch — Flows Entering Swale Number 2 via Line C Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine Impervious Percentage Atotai= 116.5 acres' (1) b. Determine total tributary area i 50% (2) b. Determine Impervious % = 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient Values use Table 2 and impervious % found in step 1 d. A Soil Runoff Coefficient Ca= (3) e. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cb= 0.52 (5) f. C Soil Runoff Coefficient Cc= (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient Ca= 3. Determine the Area decimal fraction of each soil type in tributary area d. Area of A Soil / (1) = Aa= (7) e. Area of B SoiV (1) = Ab = 1 (8) f. Area of C Soil / (1)= Ac= (9) d. Area of D Soil / (1) = Ad= (10) 4. Determine Runoff Coefficient C = 0.52 (11) a.0=3 7+4 8+5 9+8 10= 5. Determine BMP Design flow a. QBMP = C X I X A = (11)x 0.2 x (1) QBMP = 12.12 ft3 is (12) Notes: This is the combined acreages of sub -basins designated F, G, and H in Figure C.2 (Hydrology Map — Proposed) 0 • Worksheet 2 Design Procedure Form for Design Flow Uniform Intensity Design Flow Designer: Tom Mullen Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September 7, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch — Flows Entering Swale Number 2 via Line D Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine impervious Percentage Atota)= 29.0 acres' (1) c. Determine total tributary area b. Determine Impervious % 1= 50% (2) 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient Values Use Table 2 and impervious % found in step 1 g. A Soil Runoff Coefficient Ca= (3) h. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cb= 0.52 (4) i. C Soil Runoff Coefficient Cc= (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient Ca= (6) 3. Determine the Area decimal fraction of each soil type in tributary area g. Area of A Soil / (1) = Aa = (7) h. Area of B Soil/ (1)= Ab= 1 (6) I. Area of C Soil / (1) = Ao= (g) d. Area of D Soil / (1) = Ad= (10) 4. Determine Runoff Coefficient (11) a.C= 3 7+4 8+5 9+6 10= 5. Determine BMP Design flow a. OBMP = C x I x A = (11) X 0.2 x (1) QBMP = 3.01 ft3 is (12) Notes: ' This is the acreage) Worksheet 4 Design Procedure Form for Infiltration Basin Designer: Tom Mullen Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September 25, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch - Flows Entering Swale Number 2 Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine Design Storage Volume (Use Worksheet 1) a. Total Tributary Area (maximum 50) Atowi= 145.5 acres b. Design Storage Volume, VBMP VBMP= 227,111 ft3 2. Maximum Allowable Depth (Dm) a. Site infiltration rate (1) 1 = in/hr b. Minimum drawdown time (48 hrs) t = hrs c. Safety factor (s) S= - =d. d. Dm = [(t) X (l)]/[1 2s] Dm= ft 3. Basin Surface Area Am= ft2 Am= VBMp/ Dm 4. Vegetation (check type used or X Native Grasses describe `other") _ Irrigated Turf Grass Other Notes: IE 0 Worksheet 9 Design Procedure Form for Grassed Swale Designer: Tom Mullen Company: VA Consulting, Inc. Date: September, 2006 Project: Roripaugh Ranch — Swale for Basin Number 2 Location: Temecula, Riverside County, California 1. Determine Design Flow QsMP = 15.13 cfs (Use Worksheet 2) 2. Swale Geometry a. Swale bottom width (b) b = 65 ft b. Side slope (z) z = 5:1 c. Flow direction slope (s) s=2% 3. Design flow velocity (Manning n = 0.2) v = 0.56 ft/s 4. Depth of flow (D) D = 0.40 ft 5. Design Length (L) L = 235 ft L = (7 min) x (flow velocity, ft/sec) x 60 6. Vegetation (describe) Native grasses and smaller shrubs (see list of candidate shrubs under Section 1.C.b of Section V of WQMP 8. Outflow Collection (check type used or X Grated Inlet' describe "other") _ Infiltration Trench _ Underdrain Other Notes: ` This is the combined flows calculated in both Worksheets 2 and includes flow from sub - basins designated F, G, H & I in Figure C.2 (Hydrology Map — Proposed) VA Consulting, lnc. Calculation of Quantity of Gravel Pack for Vegetated Swale Basin 2 Provided Information: Infiltration Rate:' 2.10 in/hr = 0.18 ft/hr Qbmp: 15.60 cfs = 56160.00 cf/hr Duration of first flush runoff: = 3.00 hr Time for infiltration: = 72.00 hr Procedure: 1. Calculate total volume to infiltrate using an assumed dimension of gravel pack 2. Calculate required area to infiltrate 50% of first flush runoff 3. Confirm adequacy of assumed gravel pack dimensions Calculations: 1. Volume to infiltrate = Qbmp x duration of first flush runoff x 50% = 84240.00 cf (Assume target of 50% complete first flush infiltration in swale) Volume of water stored in gravel pack 500' long, 55' wide, 1' deep = 3300.00 cf (assume 2" median diameter aggregate base with 12% annular volume) Total volume = volume to infiltrate minus volume of water in gravel pack = 80940.00 cf 2. Required area to infiltrate 50% Qbmp within 72 hours = 6423.81 sf =(total volume)(infiltration rate x time for infiltration) 3. Confirm adequacy of initially assumed gravel back dimensions Required width of 500' long gravel pack = required area / 500' = 12.85 It Based on infiltration test 10/20/20069:57 AM , I - ` . <J .' E 7ECH NICAL MAP, T ENT_ATI,V ELN THr CITY COUNTY 0� RIVERSIDE, STATE 0FCALIFORNIAALIF0 NIA TRACT N0. 29661, A PORTION OF' RORIPAUG HRANCH ' RI VERSIDE COUNTY, CAUFORNIA r A YOUT Prol: 990013 00 TENTAT 29661 1���C Scaie. v, 100 -- En meer Ge 1' _ 0 ois t. ATG RFR Date: . 5 o R P, l - 0 0 P , A GH o0 RANCH SPECIFIC 0 X00 ,...:...:400 ::. _ i C PLAN - . � ce .� �ghton and _ _ , , ; ilf� . ncrc o THEN € c° wem o NORTH HALF OF TRE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20 - TOWNSHIP H a 0 S IP 7 SOUTH RANGE 2 WEST scacE 1v FEer t = 1 - p SAN N c _ o0 BER AROINO BASS AND MERIDIAN, THE CITY OF TEMECULA LATE 2 .COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: STATE y � z OF CA IFORNIA, ACCORDING TOTHE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. • _ 1 � 6 9. 1 2/ a r-"'_- _ ; „ 63 0 � � S 1 2 9: : 1 1 294.2 1• r ,- � 1J7 .0 r : I 7 1 z • $ C 5 r 8 8 8 8 J .0 1 1 2 50. O I 1 5 / 2 . \ 9 g , .0 h . Ct s I i sb. r 117 2.7. rr 44. / / 1277.5 / j 2• ' 1 7.5 r' J i J Q 1' Q c J J �. / l g9� � 123 F „ \ti 6 12 .3 / / ,m 269 , J 7 ' 1" •,� K 272. :12780 w `;:- / 2 4 �a . , ' , ♦ 1293. ,yg / '�, j 1 INST. NO 331;125 RECD 12-2 -86 1 4.7 s ° ,� ti , / ���., 27. ` 1 9' { / _ I ■ 34. •. o h h � �" P 1 r �( � - ....216. \ S I: • • � � "� x234 zoo.. O.. ) h "°. / G a cp ay - ,++• / 1 11 i 1295 f ' ■ - ,, -,,,; / J •o V'r ,� � �1 \ : \ , r �� 1 e4 � Y , .• / , ,� .,q, 1 \ 299. • ) .: r 7235 ' .1 1 /• `,_ 7 : '•, / �/ a , %' ;; ,, t - ✓ � 126 a ' _ , .. y 3.0 ( + \ . _ ,� , ■ �-. _. as /29 . l �^ +*•a ,237. � -�_ _ ,,.. , _ � 1, 1 � _••�; _ / J -' � � ; F :. � I ,,:. _ .• � Q. � \ t _ ,? -�: r.. / �� ..9 / • z- 1 1239. \ - _ / 9 _ .� 3 r INST. NO 90-.818:0 REC D � 7-06-90 - J 1 `� .. - �,°° r 1r 4 �\ >� zs 2 1� - \ � - � �,.,, '+.\ �--'/ - I� f1 .o ' `_--� ) � 977 •■••I••v ••vim• " � I .. 2 t 2 ,.F 264. , e .1 .. ,.. _. - , ': 7264 4 •� _. - , . rz4 1 1 s 3 126 _ I 1 FAULT ,• /' - I u, 3 r 1 / \ , ..� 258 9. 2 _ 1 a .ffi i2�9.6 535 `\ /� + • ./ , J I / ■ I 1 ,:� , T . > 266.5 l / 1 $ 0 Q s _ • t 5 , :. I / 1264 126 / � , - Q / / , � � \ 6 .=.1261.9 1? 1255 '9 . 725L5 / .. y8• � I I _ 8-49 - 25 I h , 148 9 17BJ 9 .+• .. / s 1 ; 529 1 - 1 1.3 ♦ , , ■ � 0 1250.5 1 4. p 1 . 1246 4 I 1242 4 7.9 ■ 1149.8 , 1245 7 246.4 - ■■II 249 7746.8 - - - + '`� ■ � S 7 - _B-� I � / , 1248.1 A J L �Zp1 � _ Q J ' : � � • PM 63/22 12437 1244.3 1244.9 _ -` 25 ,g /i ' 1245 4 PM 59/86 12420 / 12465 �' I ■ Z� \ df 'a, 1243.1 `M1 /2415;. / J2469 1246.5 `` 1� 594 , ■ .. 7240. �. B- 8 12466 TA�.5• QQI/QC : ♦\ �-..►. 123�./J -1 ,15`'.9 -� / 2 45 7275.6 \ / 1236 123s.o f z79 / o _� 12385 124. a rJ .5316 D`>rS'r.. 12380 ' 14 ! { . .1s 1236.5 T a .S'.: 1 - 1234 :72367 : ;-.. 48.5 n 1- -- 12351 1235.6 -. 1 I � __-•- 2346 / iP \ - �• 1 - 1 .3 � ."1251. \\ � '.. a ' 43 .x,1253 0 PM 67 45 PM853 3 24.6 i 64 _ Qal \ % 1 ,251.9 1255.5 / $ `55 21 12223 9219:1 1230.0 J 9 31 ® • 125. + 7 .�. \ TA.aSIA' / ( / r/ zo \ s.2 rz J .0 1 4 ` 1� 2 ' Q a l / ; ■ 53.61 ` 1 i _ 7243.0 12427 1246 - 1 .. 1 55 _ _.. r� ♦ , 46 Z 4. i 4 f 44.7 .1246.1 2 5 , I, ♦ _ _ � 72451 124 .4 124 _ 1 670.3 B-2 � • _ x 5 , r I / + -'l , I 1 _ T.D. 4` + 25 I 4 4 , 1 2 r r 0. / 2t 7 / 0 J / 8.0 , r 25 l 1 f h d 4. \ S 1 5. 1 �1t2 2 WIN .�®L 1111off.-'.-_�_ _�../i®�_�.. PAP fill 1 ■�� 12,56 J .� v� o , w• r I I 0 q,, pp ► T �( � �,�__�, � I � 1111 / � � / � �� �► HOME Is KIWI A •_ X11 � - �• l� � � = ..� r V MullVIM _ .,• p ®/l9IrotIMM. �' ♦ � � d �� J� . L�� Qtti� � vtea AN '��`►� 1 •` I• • / I • i � .A '. f. WA Vii `- ��'-•- � ..... ►� , �� /� ��� ilk ��I . '��►� ♦ J /ice � � � '� 1 ►- r - - _ -- � � � � �i��♦,�� ��-_�_,.._,,,--�/��l�i � ���' � �� ��! .�'�.,I►� ,mss:_ . �i►��.,�> '®��ee�a®/ - %' �--��1.� —'. ----, � – � —__tea:. '�� ___��� � � e � , �I �����• � ' � ,' �� Yr,� � -- , ��� ► 1 �..� i; / r, NEWS fir- :. __.....-__.__-�..., .. , r .. �• �..: ���t���i _____. �.r___� '. �. MONSOONq- : � � � .. / - .�` '� moi'' � � l � _ � .•i., t ,)� �► . \ .Bills --'i / 1 �:, I i 1. . •r, �_ • • :� : • - ;. / WIN �'j„►. w. FA ( _ ' �� �,r � •' � � � .. � , � d�I � � .. ., --. .-i',+r _. rix,--.. r .. .3. ,-. - ✓ � � _ ���fj��,�:. / � ._ � . • , '�•r. , • r � ` v • � ..<:. -:'. �'3,^. .:>., "t 6 'p .'3 F '. .-T+''a,D "..s �JJ _ �t` .. }- ` WWI ., . \. C v MR& MM Aq� __ � � � / , � ' 1 ✓,.. ,. .. 9 o-. � ,.> _., a"u§ �, -.:, :: ,.r ... :, ..`. t,' _,z Y et 4 `;:,,1,� tai;. ���'������®�.M�r,®�_'�•. � �� ®�C,_t4 .v j� ' \t - :- b xX"',hu.- .. Ei � � S �d Z E- F K y Filtration Unit Sizing • 0 Estimated Sizing of Storm Filters for Roripaugh Ranch Project* FILTER NUMBER TRACT DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT WATER QUALITY FLOW (CFS) NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES SYSTEM SIZE ESTIMATED COST 1 30767 16.4 0.45 1.5 45 11' X 24' 2 PA 27 13.4 0.3 0.8 24 8'x 16' 3 PA 28 12.6 0.82 2.1 63 11' x 26' 4 32358 22.5 0.52 2.3 69 11' x 34' 5 PA 28 10.7 0.82 1.8 54 2 x 11 P x 24' PA 29 12.3 0.82 2.0 60 6 32357 26.1 0.52 2.7 81 2 x 11' x 24' PA 30 3.9 0.52 0.4 12 7 30768 5.3 0.52 0.6 18 7'x 14' 8 30768 17 0.52 1.8 54 11' x 24' 9 29366 26.2 0.52 1 2.7 1 81 *This Is an estimate only and will need to be verified/confirmed with the manufacturer 0 • — BALLAST ALTERNATE PIPE(SEE NOTE 8) LOCATION 0 rP) (5EE NOTE 6) COUPLING 9W) (BY CONTPAACCTTOR) A INLEr PIPE.: • `\\\\�\\ �\\\\\\"� Qj OUTLET(5EE NOTE5 54;G) l:7tY]9eiiliL OUTLET fILTIRATION DAY • •' Q v 30"0 FRAME AND COVER (TYP) (5EE NOTE 4) FLOW 5PREADER (TYP) BAFFLE WALL (IYP) LADDER GRADE RING (TYP) _ 4'-6" MIN (5EE NOTE 7) 3'-4" r. PERMANENT POOL ENERGY 5TORMFILTER UNDERDRAIN D1551PATOR CARTRIDGE (IYP) MANIFOLD (5EE NOTE 2) 8'x 16' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW (A1 1 ThE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5t mr,l�r® U.5. PATENT No. 5.322.629. No. 5,707.527. No. 6,027,639 No. 6.649,048, No. 5.624,576. - AND OTHER U.5. AND FOREIGN 02006 CONTECH Stormwaler Solutions PATENT5 PENDING AI/�uTCAV® 8'x 16' PRECAST STORMFILTER DRAWING PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS 1 STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL ,2 SOLUTIONS_. conte&stoonwater..rn I SCALE NONE I FILE NAME: SFe16-PC=OTL 1DRAWRWW JCHECKED:ARG • GENERAL NOTES 1) 5TORMFILTER BY CONTECH STORM WATER SOLUTIONS: PORTLAND, OR (800) 548-4667: SCARBOROUGH, ME (877) 907-8676; LINTHICUM, MD (5GG) 740-331.8. 2) FILTER CARTRIDGE(5) TO BE 51PHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. STANDARD DETAIL DRAWING SHOW5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIDGE5. ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED ON 517E PLAN5 OR.IN-DATA TABLE BELOW. 3) PRECA5T VAULT TO BE CON5TRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A5TM-C857-AND 0858. --DETAIL DRAWING REFLECTS DESIGN- - INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF 5TRUCTURE WILL BE 5HOWN ON PRODUCTION 5HOP DRAWING. 4) 5TRUCTURE AND ACCE55 COVER5 TO MEET AASHTO H-20 LOAD RATING. - 5) 5TORMFtLTER REQUIRE5 2.3 FEET OF DROP FROM INLET TO OUTLET. IF LE55 DROP. 15 AVAILABLE, CONTACT CONTECh _ 5TORMWATER SOLUTIONS: - -- G) INLET AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECA5T 5TORMFILTER VAULT EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CORED OPENINGS OR KNOCKOUT5 AT INLET AND OUTLET LOCATIONS. 7) PROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS, IF A 5HALLOWER 5Y5TEM 15 REQUIRED, CONTACT CONTECH 5TORMWATER 50LUTiON5 FOR OTHER OPTIONS. 8) ANTI -FLOTATION BALLA5T TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. 5ALLA5T TO BE 5ET ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF BOTH SIDES OF THE 5TRUCTURE. 9) ALL 5TORMFILTER5 REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE 30"0 FRAME AND COVER (P(P) (5EE NOTE 4) BAFFLE ,i •a.• FLOW WALL SPREADER BALLAST (5EE NOTE 8) • ,�r+t, Uy,�:ityg,�'r,e.a .j Y<—HEIT}GHT UNDERDRAIN WIDTH F -- MANIFOLD 8'x 16' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW %B1 2 5'-6" 5'-3' r•r � ` as i +�• �'.17,t �♦ ��yT:�a�s ` a.T�r •i.!�l;r.i A aI tr�.rr. ?i t `;a •"'=1,t•:'.5 �: /7.... • «(iti '7••r^r �� i '.�� •'Yvt w'... rJ�•% r�:r. .�"i'�:•�i.•.+qx ra.:.:�� 4' Ate., a A •i.; '••• yri .,.yr :r•(.v. .r l�;:•..`Ci:i•'^• .a�;.•;sia•:.r.(�t:,i�rn6�t�S:�. t��4%�:ir:�.>.. C'+<'r a 'ti::'!'� «.y", �• e.,r. '��. ;-.{'C''» r 16' 8'x 16' STORMFILTER - TOP VIEW n 02006 CONTECH Storrnwater Solutions L THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5olter® U.S. PATENT N629, No. 5.707,527,, No.. 6.02 6,027,639 No. 6,649,048, No. 6. AND OTHER U.S. ANDD FORPIG FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING A:: Iuwr~J16 8'. x 16' PRECAST STORMFILTER %5F%1 `Q— i MOW" TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA 2 STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS_ 12 contechstomwateccom DATE:09R9106 SCALENONE FILE NAME: SF616-PO-DTL I DRAWN: WW CHECRED:ARG • ALTERNATE PIPE LOCATION (TYP) (SEE NOTE C) INLET PIPE INLET (SEE! NOTES 546) BAY FILTRATION BAY 8'x 18' STORMFILTER - PLAN VIEW 1 30"0 FRAME AND COVER (TYP) (5EE NOTE 4) FLOW SPREADmPE,R) F� p --ALJ. IW(''� LADDER BAFFLE WALL (TYP) BALLAST ._. (5EE NOTE 8) COUPLING F YP) (BY CONTRACTOR) A OUTLET PIPE 1 (SEE NOTES 546) OUTLET BAY GRADE RING (TYP) 11 PERMANENT POOL —' ��� "•+*.�tiTi.;�• �,sr –. •.. STORMFILTER UNDERDRAIN ENERGY CARTRIDGE (TYP) MANIFOLD D1551PATOR (SEE NOTE 2) 8'x 18' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW rA-�\ 1 4'-6" MIN (SEE NOTE 7) THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5t.r Toter® U.5. PATENT No. 5,322.629, No. 5.707,527, No. 6,027.639 No. 6,649.045, No. 5,624,576. AND OTHER J.5. AND FOREIGN 02006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions PATENT5 PENDING Ax►ITCAn® 8' x 18' PRECAST STORMFILTER DRAWING ��vw"S i �' ' PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS_ +rz conlechstomnvaler.com DATE0929/05 SCALE:NONE FILE NAME: S1916-PC-DTL DRAWN: MIW CHEDKED:ARG • • • GENERAL NOTES 1) 5TOKMFILTER BY CONTECH 5TORMWATER SOLUTIONS; PORTLAND, OR (800) 548-4GG7; SCARBOROUGH, ME (877) 907-8676; LINTHICUM, MD (8GG) 740-3318. 2) FILTER CARTRIDGES) TO BE 51PHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. STANDARD DETAIL DRAWING 5HOW5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED ON 517E PLAN5 OR IN DATA TABLE BELOW, 3) PRECA5T VAULT TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH -ASTM C657 AND C858. DETAIL DRAWING REFLECTS. DESIGN INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF 5TRUCTURE WILL BE 5HOWN ON PRODUCTION 5HOP DRAWING. 4) 5TRUCTURE AND ACCE55 COVERS TO MEET PASHTO H-20 LOAD RATING. 5)5TORMFILTER REQUIRES 2.3 FEET OF DROP FROM INLET TO OUTLET. IF LE55 DROP 15 AVAILABLE, CONTACT CONTECH 5TORMWATER SOLUTIONS. -- G) INLET AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECAST 5TORMFILTER VAULT EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CORED OPENINGS OR KNOCKOUT5 AT INLET AND OUTLET LOCATIONS. 7) PROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS. IF A SHALLOWER SYSTEM 15 REQUIRED, CONTACT CONTECM 5TORMWATER SOLUTIONS FOR OTHER OPTION5. 8) ANTI -FLOTATION BALLAST TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. BALLAST TO BE 5ET ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF BOTH SIDES OF THE 5TRUCTURE. 9) ALL 5TORMFILTER5 REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE, REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE BAFFLE WALL UNDERDRAI MANIFOLD 390 FRAME AND DER BALLAST (5EE NOTE 8) HT 8'x 18' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW %B1 1`12 5'-4" 0 7-4° 5'-4" 8'x 18' PRECA5T 5TORMFILTER DATA 147 11a VO YI KIM ' FLOW XXX,XX' 4' V.4 18' - I THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 8'x 18' STORMFILTER-TOP VIEW %1� 115. 07.52ATENT No.5, 322,629. No. .649,527, No. 6.027,639 n No.6. 699,RJ. No. 5, 624,IGN L AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN 02006 CONTECH Stomwater $010i10Ds - PATENTS PENDING A� uvle to 8'x 18' PRECAST STORMFILTER owWiNt ���4jv'� m �""'' TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA 2 STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS_ I m conlechstart wate,.wm DRAWN�MJW CHECKED:ARG 0 • • ALTERNATE PIPE LOCATION (TYP) (5EE NOTE5 546) INLET PIPE (SEE NOTES 546) 24"0 FRAME AND COVER (TYP) (5EE NOTE 4) DALLA5T - - (5EE NOTE 8) 22 FILTRATION J - BAY 11'x 24' STORMFILTER -PLAN VIEW %11 1 3'x 9' (NOMINAQ ACCF55 HATCH (SEE NOTE 4) LADDER BAFFLE WALL (TYF) ENERGY 1)I55AA1FATAAOR AAA 3'-4" OUTLET PIPE (5EE NOTE5 546) COUPLING (TYP) (BY CONTRACTOR) 1 GRADE RING RYP) 5'-6" MIN (5EE NOTE 7) FLOW 5PREADER UNDERDRAIN 5TORMFILTER FYP) MANIFOLD CARTRIDGE (TYP) 11'x 24' STORMFILTER -SECTION VIEW �� 1 THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5Wo hltor® U.5. III NON.5.1%121 No5.707.527763 9 No. 6,649,048. No. 5.624,576. AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN ve.vnrrs vruniur 02006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Al- uTC'ALl 11' x 24' PRECAST STORMFILTER DRAWING �ij►�i� i �.�' _ PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS 1 STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS +n Oonlmhslonnwaler.Mm DATE:IDOM5 SCALE:NONE FILE NAME: SF1124-F -DTL DRAWN:MJW I CHECKED: All a %\P • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ pa ::: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �, ♦ ♦ AMw ♦ r ♦ • wi ♦ ♦ . 1R. 1 , jot • ♦♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Mir'. A, ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ J1.11 It • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ INFO ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �li�. D1X�RI�dL' _— FILTRATION J - BAY 11'x 24' STORMFILTER -PLAN VIEW %11 1 3'x 9' (NOMINAQ ACCF55 HATCH (SEE NOTE 4) LADDER BAFFLE WALL (TYF) ENERGY 1)I55AA1FATAAOR AAA 3'-4" OUTLET PIPE (5EE NOTE5 546) COUPLING (TYP) (BY CONTRACTOR) 1 GRADE RING RYP) 5'-6" MIN (5EE NOTE 7) FLOW 5PREADER UNDERDRAIN 5TORMFILTER FYP) MANIFOLD CARTRIDGE (TYP) 11'x 24' STORMFILTER -SECTION VIEW �� 1 THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5Wo hltor® U.5. III NON.5.1%121 No5.707.527763 9 No. 6,649,048. No. 5.624,576. AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN ve.vnrrs vruniur 02006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Al- uTC'ALl 11' x 24' PRECAST STORMFILTER DRAWING �ij►�i� i �.�' _ PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS 1 STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS +n Oonlmhslonnwaler.Mm DATE:IDOM5 SCALE:NONE FILE NAME: SF1124-F -DTL DRAWN:MJW I CHECKED: All • .' GENERAL NOTES 1) 5TORMFILTER BY CONTECH STORMWATER SOLUTIONS: PORTLAND, OR (800) 548-4GG7: 5CAR3OROUGH, ME (877) 907-8676; LINTHICUM, MD (866).740-3318... _ 2) FILTER CAP.TRIDGE(S) TO BE 51PHON-ACTUATED AND 5ELP-CLEANING. 5TANDARD DETAIL DRAWING 5HOW5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED ON 517E PLAN5 OR IN DATA TABLE BELOW. 3) PRECA5T VAULT TO BE CON5TRUCTED IN.A000RDANCE WITH A5TM C857 AND C858. DETAIL DRAWING REFLECT5 DE51GN INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF 5TRUCTURE WILL BE 5HOWN ON PRODUCTION 5HOP DRAWING. 4) 5TRUCTURE AND ACCE55 COVERS TO MEET AA511TO H-20 LOAD RATING. DOORS RATED FOR INCIDENTAL TRAFFIC ONLY. 5) 5TORMFILTER REQUIRE5 2.3 FEET OF DROP FROM INLET TO OUTLET. IF LE55 DROP 15 AVAILABLE, CONTACT CONTECH 5TORMWATER SOLUTIONS. G) INLET AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECAST 5TORMFILTER VAULT EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CORED OPENINGS OR KNOCKOuT5 AT INLET AND OUTLET LOCATION5. 7) PROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS. IF A 5HALLOWER 5Y5TEM 15 REQUIRED, CONTACT CONTECH 5TORMWATER 50LUTION5 FOR OTHER OPTIONS. 8) ANTI -FLOTATION BALLAST TO BE 5PECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. BALLAST TO BE 5ET ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF BOTH 51DE5 OF THE 5TRUCTURE. 9) ALL 5TORMFILTER5 REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE 24"0 FRAME AND COVER 0 tT) (SEE NOTE 4) UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD FLOW 5PREADER 11' x 24' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW �� 2 24' I I ' x 24' PRECAST STORMFILTER DATA STRUCTURE E) XKK F -•y RIM XXX"O' )OOC.Xx _y xxx.xx' l�.r.-. r tr • 1.. •'i="• I�� •:'�a.at '�•v"�l w: ••"�,+1 rsAf��yf.2.1.•��rYr'�T••'� K+�1 .!♦:Iif� fai.5Tf1 � f •'� • 1t:4'��Ia 1 ,y ..1_ '/. Y•�•~••;+`: �{•. J•I�h YA J1Iy �� y:�•..'r� ••��r �i:C 1L.J•� • �.. BAFFLE ' WALL .,tit•.+y;....• �• .s..i:..•.S!.•pti; .�+�•.• t i Y •%•.� ��1y�r.1. �!t �:I1; !:; ••�. ,•fir I :' •I •� :?I �..• •p• sp S Iii I •• Y � :t _S•Y: ♦�I4II. ,� � \/ �. � •' .'J.1 UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD FLOW 5PREADER 11' x 24' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW �� 2 24' I I ' x 24' PRECAST STORMFILTER DATA STRUCTURE E) XKK F -•y RIM XXX"O' )OOC.Xx _y xxx.xx' l�.r.-. r tr • 1.. •'i="• I�� •:'�a.at '�•v"�l w: ••"�,+1 rsAf��yf.2.1.•��rYr'�T••'� K+�1 .!♦:Iif� fai.5Tf1 � f •'� • 1t:4'��Ia 1 ,y ..1_ '/. Y•�•~••;+`: �{•. J•I�h YA J1Iy �� y:�•..'r� ••��r �i:C 1L.J•� • �.. 1 r. L �V� 4•�. r.' • i ' I .,tit•.+y;....• �• .s..i:..•.S!.•pti; .�+�•.• A. •%•.� ��1y�r.1. �!t �:I1; !:; ••�. ,•fir I :' •I S Iii I •• Y � :t _S•Y: ♦�I4II. ,� � \/ �. � •' .'J.1 .fil'+i�`A��w7^.C'^tib^,M1..'F.�Ir!Il•i`.•.' ..!t ;•ni 11' x 24' STORMFILTER - TOP VIEW %11 2 02006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions w�l�u�rrwrn u® STORMWATER SOLUTIONS_ conlacRslonnwaier.corn THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 51.r FJtcrO U.5, PATENT No. 5.322.629. No. 5.707.527. No. 6.027.639 No. 6.649,046, No. 5.624.576, AND OTHER U.5. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING 11' x 24' PRECAST STORMFILTER TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA 2 STANDARD DETAIL zit 1MM5 I SCALE NONE FILE NAME SF112a-PC-0TL DRAWN: MJW CHECKED: ARG . - - - BALLA5T (5EE NOTE 8) ALTERNATE PIPE _ LOCATION (TYP) _ INLET PIPE .INLET (SEE NOTES 546) BAY COUPLING PYP) (BY CONTRACTOR) FLOW 5PREAOER BAY FILTRATION _ BAY 8'x 20' STORMFILTER - PLAN VIE_ W (21\ 1 30'0 FRAME. AND COVER (TYP) (5EE NOTE 4) LADDER 24"0 FRAME AND COVER (TYP) (5EE NOTE 4) PERMANENT J `:i .'!(� t. •v-., , '-v POOL ENERGY STORMFILTERUNDERDRAIN D1551PATOK CARTRIDGE FY'P) J MANIFOLD (SEE NOTE 2) 8'x 20' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW (jA:) 1 OUTLET PIPE (SEE NOTE5 546) GRADE RING (TYP) 4'-G" MIN (5EE NOTE 7) THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5 f.ltc U.5. PATENT No. 5.322.629. No. 5,707.527, No. 6,027,639 No. 6,649,048, No. 5.624,576, AND OTHER J.5. AND FOREIGN ®2006 CONTECH $(Ormwater Solution PATENT5 PENDING 8'x 20' PRECAST STORMFILTER DRAWING 0514 '` i =,W'7 PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS_ +rz conlecllslormwaleLcom DATE:03I23I06 SGALENONE FILE NAME. SFB20-PC-DTL DRAWN: MIW CHECKED: 0 GENERAL NOTES 1) 5TORMFILTER BY CONTECH 5TORMWATER 50LUTION5; PORTLAND, OR (800) 548-4667; 5CAR130ROUGH, ME (877) 907-8676; LINTHICUM, MO.(866) 740-3318. . 2) FILTER CARTRIDGES) TO BE 51PHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. 5TANDARD DETAIL DRAWING SHOWS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES, ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED ON 517E PLAN5 OR IN DATA TABLE BELOW. 3) PRECAST VAULT TO BE CON5TRUCT€D IN ACCORDANCE WITH A5TM C657 AND C858. DETAIL DRAWING. REFLECTS DE51GN INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF STRUCTURE WILL BE SHOWN ON PRODUCTION SHOP DRAWING. 4) 5TRUCTURE AND ACCE55 COVERS TO MEET AA5HTO H-20 LOAD RATING. DOOR5 RATED FOR INCIDENTAL TRAFFIC ONLY. 5) 5TORMFILTER REQUIRES 2.3 FEET OF DROP FROM INLET TO OUTLET. IF LE55 DROP 15 AVAILABLE, CONTACT CONTECH STORM WATEP. 50 LUTI ON5. 6) INLET AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECAST 5TORMFILTER VAULT EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CORED OPENINGS OR KNOCKOUT5 AT INLET AND OUTLET LOCATIONS. 7) PROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS. IF A 5HALLOWER 5Y5TEM 15 REQUIRED, CONTACT CONTECH 5TORMWATER 50LUT(ON5 FOR OTHER OPTIONS. 8) ANTI -FLOTATION BALIA5T TO BE 5PECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. BALLAST TO BE SET ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF BOTH SIDES OF THE 5TRUCTURE. 9) ALL 5TORMFILTER5 REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE INFORMATION. DOWNSTREAM BAFFLE WALL 8'x 20' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW rB�\ 2 I, THE 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5w.fdter® U.8'x 20' STORMFILTER - TOP VIEW %� o.5. PATENT No. 5.3P$629, No. 5,707.52], No. 6.027.639 2 No. 6.649.048, No. 5.624.5]6, AND OTHER U.5. AND FOREGN 02006 CONTECH Stomw2ter SOIDLIOnS PATENT5 PENDING /A -+I41-- uTt'Anw 8'x 20' PRECAST STORMFILTER DMWING %iFvAl i� i �U. TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA 2 STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS_ � conlechslolmwateT.com DATEu08YL8l08 SCALE:NONE FILE NAME.SF820-PC-DTL DRAWN:M CHECKED: JIINCIION (IF • STORMCAI 0.ow ONTECH Stormwater Solulions JDATE BY RE �SIDN oa m o0 11 ��1 III I ESIGNED BY: ARC DRAWN BY: STORMGATE HIGH FLOW BYPASS & PRECAST STORMFILTER SCHEMATIC - PLAN VIEW w��u�rwu® SfORMWATER SOLUTIONS_ mnlecnsiorm«aiecmm 0 PARAMETER BRIEF STORMWATER r" MANAGEMENT INC. Performance of the Stormwater Management StormFilter° for Removal of Bacteria Microbial contaminants, generally referred to as bacteria, are frequently identified as a pollutant of concern and are common in stormwater runoff from both developed and undeveloped areas. Typically, fecal coliform is used as an indicator that enteric organisms may be present in the stormwater runoff and is used to set water quality standards. Human waste is a common source of fecal coliform; other sources include pets and urban wildlife, native wildlife in rural areas, and to a surprising extent, birds (Burton and Pitt, 2002; Crabill et al., 1999; Grant et al., 2001; Apicella, undated; WPT, 1999). The concentration of indicator microbial contaminants in urban stormwater is routinely measured in the thousands to tens of thousands of organisms per 100 mL range (Burton and Pitt, 2002). Typical federal coliform standards for different water uses range from less than 14 MPN (most probable number) per 100 mL for shellfish beds to less than 200 MPN per 100 mL for water contact recreation. Studies have found that mean fecal coliform concentrations • in stormwater runoff may well exceed 20,000 colonies per 100 mL (WPT, 1999). Given the concentrations of bacteria commonly found in stormwater, this could represent a required removal efficiency of 99.9% (WPT, 1999; NRDC, 2001). Fecal coliform levels may vary greatly depending on occurrences of dry weather flows, seasonal effects, and impervious cover. Effective reduction to meet federal regulations is best achieved through a technology such as ultraviolet disinfection, ozone disinfection or chlorination. Filtration of Stormwater Available research literature indicates that media filtration of stormwater can achieve a significant and reasonable level of bacteria reduction. Compared to other treatment technologies currently available, a media filter may be considered treatment to the "maximum extent practical". Since media filters, including sand filters, have no astringent properties, the removal of fecal coliform is typically associated with the removal of total suspended solids (TSS). An article from Watershed Protection Techniques (1999) establishes a link between bacteria and sediment. This article suggests 50% of fecal coliform bacteria are attached or adsorbed to larger suspended particles in stormwater. These larger particles can then be settled or filtered out. In general, the article concludes that filters are very effective for removing bacteria associated with TSS. The Stormwater Management StormFilter® is a passive, siphon -actuated, flow-through stormwater filtration system consisting of a structure that houses rechargeable, media - filled filter cartridges. The StormFilter has been demonstrated to be an effective BMP for • Stormwater Management, Inc. ©2004 StormFilter Performance for Bacteria 1 of 3 AG -04.13, 12/15/04 . • the removal of TSS (WADOE, 2004). Hence, according to the research presented by Schueler, the StormFilter will provide a reasonable removal of bacteria. It is important to note that sampling to determine the performance of stormwater BMPs with regards to bacteria removal is quite challenging. To ensure minimal die -off of the organisms between sampling and analysis, sample hold times are very short (approximately eight hours). In addition, samples must typically be manual grab samples with sterile equipment. Finally, there is such high variability in the level of organisms in the influent and effluent flows that many samples are required to adequately characterize facility performance. This combination of variability, sampling difficulties and required number of samples results in few field data or definitive reports on bacteria removal for any stormwater BMP. Study Results A laboratory study evaluating both bench scale and column tests of the CSF® leaf media demonstrated reasonable removals of both fecal coliform and E. coli. For the bench scale test, the media demonstrated removal efficiencies for fecal coliform on the order or 50 — 60% and for E. coli on the order of 65 — 75%. Column tests showed average removal for fecal coliform of 47% and E. coli of 30% (Roy, 1995). In a California field study, the StormFilter using perlite/zeolite media achieved an • average bacteria reduction of 47% even with a TSS removal of 50%, which is on the low end of the StormFilter performance scale (Caltrans, 2004). Bacteria reduction in future applications may be even greater if source controls such as street sweeping or removal of leaves and other organic matter upstream of the unit are provided. In addition, the StormFilter media -filled cartridges can be operated at lower cartridge flow rates to maximize contact time with the media and improve removal efficiencies. Finally, bacteria removals can be improved by ensuring complete drain down of stormwater devices between storms. This prevents mosquito breeding and eliminates putrefaction of collected pollutants, thereby limiting the availability of hosts for bacteria. Conclusion In conclusion, given the few data points and limited available literature, the StormFilter provides a level of bacteria removal consistent with other stormwater filtration systems. References Apicella, G. Undated. Urban runoff, wetlands and waterfowl effects on water quality in Alley Creek and Little Neck Bay. Online: www.stormwateresources.com/Library/071 PLAIleyCreek.pdf Burton Jr., G.A. and R.E. Pitt. 2002. Stormwater Effects Handbook: A toolbox for watershed managers, scientists, and engineers. Lewis, New York. • Stormwater Management, Inc. 9)2004 StormFilter Performance for Bacteria 2 of 3 AG -04.13, 12/15/04 • California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Final. Report ID CTSW-RT-01-050. Sacramento, CA. Crabill, C., R. Donald, J. Snelling, R. Foust, and G. Southam. 1999. The impact of sediment fecal coliform reservoirs on seasonal water quality in Oak Creek, Arizona. Water Research, 33: 2163-2171. Grant, S.B., B.F. Sanders, A.B. Boehm, J.A. Redman, J.H. Kim, R.D. Mrse, A.K. Chu, M. Gouldin, C.D. McGee, N.A. Gardiner, B.H. Jones, J. Svejkovsky, G.V. Leipzig, and A. Brown. 2001. Generation of Entercocci bacteria in a coastal saltwater marsh and its impact on surf zone water quality. Environmental Science and Technology, 35(12): 2407-2416. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Undated. Testing the waters 2001: a guide to water quality at vacation beaches. Online: www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/chapl -asp Roy, Steven. 1995. Stormwater Compost Filter Analysis — Bench Scale and Test Column Results. Burlington, Vermont. Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE). (2004). Draft General Use Level Designation For Basic (TSS) Treatment the Stormwater Management, Inc.'s StormFilter Using Zeolite-Perlite-Granular Activated Carbon Media And Operating at 7.5 GPM per • Cartridge. The final can be retrieved after December 22, 2004 from: www.ecy-wa.gov/prog rams/wq/stormwater/newtech/med ia_filtration. html Watershed Protection Techniques (WPT). 1999. Microbes and Urban Watersheds. Watershed Protection Techniques, 3(1): 551 — 596. • Watershed Protection Techniques (WPT). Undated. Comparative pollutant removal capability of stormwater treatment practices. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4): 515-520. Management, Inc. 9)2004 StormFilter Performance for Bacteria 3 of 3 AG -0413, 12/15/04 StormwaterDMG Parameter Brief Total Phosphorus Removal Comparing the Performance of the Stormwater Management StormFilter° and Sand Filters Summary Two media filters, the Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter) and sand filters were compared for the removal of total phosphorus. Nine different sites with 110 paired influent and effluent samples were evaluated. For the sand filter, 52 paired samples were retrieved from the International Stormwater BMP Database (BMP database) for five sites. For the StormFilter, 58 paired samples were analyzed from four peer reviewed and/or independent studies. Regression of Event Mean Concentration (EMC) results indicates that there was no statistical difference between the StormFilter and sand filter for the removal of total phosphorus. Introduction Total phosphorus (TP), expressed in milligrams/liter is the sum of particulate organic phosphorus, particulate inorganic phosphate, dissolved inorganic phosphorus (ortho- phosphate), and dissolved organic phosphorus. Organic phosphates are a part of plants and animals, their wastes or decomposing remains. Inorganic phosphate originates from decomposing mineral materials and man-made fertilizer products. TP concentrations in stormwater are variable but range from 0.01 to 7.3 mg/L (Minton, 2002). Removal of phosphorus can be accomplished by three mechanisms. The first is removal of organic and inorganic phosphorus associated with solids. The second is removal by biological uptake by plants or bacteria. The third is through chemical precipitation such as the reaction of ortho-phosphate with iron to form iron phosphate in aerobic conditions. Both the StormFilter and sand filters primarily remove TP by the removal of solids and can be amended with alternative media like iron to target ortho-phosphate. Approach Sand filter data were retrieved from the International Stormwater BMP Database (www. bmpdatabase org) on September 30, 2005. A total of six sand filter investigations that included TP - all roadway sites - were available from the BMP Database. Only five sites were utilized in this comparison. One sand filter site (1-5/SR-78 P&R — Vista, CA) contained a large variance in data and demonstrated poor performance (A 67% aggregate load removal) that was not consistent with the other investigations, and thus was omitted from the analysis. The only criterion for selection was paired influent and effluent samples with the assumption that the BMP database has screened and assured data integrity. The data set represents storm events that were sampled from April 1999 to May 2001. Data used for the StormFilter were collected from four sites that have been either independently tested and/or peer-reviewed. The criteria used for StormFilter data selection was that a final, completed evaluation report was issued as of October 1, 2005, all information has been peer- • reviewed; and each investigation evaluated a stand-alone, flow -based StormFilter system using 1 of 6 1021/05 SID www.stormwater360.com a2005 Stormwater360 RS -05-05a ZPG (Perlite/Zeolite/Granular Activated Carbon) or Perlite/Zeolite (PZ)media. Three investigations contained ZPG media, while one investigation contained PZ media. Only 5% by volume of the ZPG media contains granular activated carbon: Since 95% of ZPG and PZ media are the same, they were deemed comparable for the purpose of the analysis. The data set represents storm events that were sampled from November 2001 to March 2004. The peer review entities and/or third party investigators with report titles were: NSF International in cooperation with U.S. EPA, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources under the Environmental Technology Verification Program. o "Environmental Technology Verification Report. Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device. The Stormwater Management StormFilter Using ZPG Filter Media." NSF International, 2005. City of South Lake Tahoe in conjunction with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. o "StormFilter Performance Analysis prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe, CA." 2nd Nature Environmental Science + Consulting, 2005. State of Washington Department of Ecology and APWA Surface Water Managers Technical Review Committee. Resource Planning Associates provided a Technical Engineering Evaluation Report regarding Quality Assurance/Quality Control and confirmed analysis in accordance with the Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies, Technology Assessment Protocol — Ecology (TAPE) for Basic Treatment. o "Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media.' Stormwater Managment Inc., 2004a. o "Lake Stevens North Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with • ZPG Media." Stormwater Managment Inc., 2004b. Site Description Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of the general site descriptions available for the StormFilter and sand filter evaluated for the comparison. Limited information was available from the BMP database regarding the sand filters. Table 1 General Site Description for the StormFilter sites Location Media WQ Flow Unit No. of Surface Individual Site Description Rate (cfs) Size Cartridges Area of Cartridge Media (ft') Flow rate Vancouver, WA ZPG 0.50 8 x 16 23 168 7.5 Shopping Center Lake Stevens, WA ZPG 0.23 8 x 16 10 73 7.5 Roadway S. Lake Tahoe, CA PZ 1.65 CIP 50 365 15 Resort Milwaukee WI ZPG 0 30 6 x 12 9 66 .15 Roadway Table 2. General Site Description for the sand filter sites www.stormwater360.corn 2 of 6 02005 Stormw.ter360 Location Media WO Flow Surface Site Rate (cfs) Area of Description Media (11:2) Whittier, CA sand NA 291 Roadway Escondido, CA sand NA 291 Roadway Monrovia, CA - sand NA 431 Roadway Carlsbad, CA sand NA 776 Roadway Norwalk, CA sand NA 614 Roadway • NA — Not Available www.stormwater360.corn 2 of 6 02005 Stormw.ter360 E • Data Analysis Method Data were compared using Regression of EMC (REMC). Linear regression statistics similar to those suggested by Martin (1988) and URS et al. (1999) were used to estimate the mean TP removal efficiency. Instead of using calculated load values as suggested by Martin (1988), regressions were performed on EMC values alone so as to avoid any error associated with the storm volume data. REMC is a quantitative data analysis method that uses parametric statistics. REMC provides 95% confidence intervals and is more robust than using qualitative data analysis methods such as the Line of Comparative Performance, Discrete Removal Efficiencies, or Aggregate Load methods that can be subject to interpretation or require non -parametric statistical tools, such as a sign test. REMC analysis estimates the mean removal efficiency over a range of influent concentrations, and thus yields a continuous series of normal distributions. Resulting standard deviations can thus be used to statistically compare performance. 1.2 ANOVA Source of Variation df SS MS F Explained 1 0.1792 0.1792 17.59' J unexplained 50 0.5093 0.01019 1Total 51 0.6604 aJ 1.0 E SIGNIFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS 0.9 Aoeff. Std. Error t y0-O.OB 092 0.02615 J.09911 c e=0.3266 0.07787 4.194'•• W 0.8- 0.01 < P < 0.05 V) . = 0.001 < P < 0.01 = P < 0.001 o NEGPESSION EQUATION Q 0.6 y - 0.33a 1 0.081 / U) + 0 / ii 0.5 + + ICU 0.4 U + c 0.3 +++ / / + 0.2--- _ W'~ /�F#+ + 0.1� i} Regression T 95% Confidence Interval 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Influent Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) Figure 1. Sand filter data analyzed using Regression of EMC for Total Phosphorus (TP) removal representing 52 paired influent and effluent samples at 5 roadway sites and demonstrating a mean removal efficiency estimate of 67% with 95% confidence intervals of 52% and 83%. Data was statistically significant at the P <0.001 level. Results Figures 1 and 2, and Table 3 summarize the data analyzed using REMC. Figures 1 and 2 provide detailed statistical analysis. Table 3 provides general descriptive statistics. Both media www.stormwater360.com 3 of 6 ®2005 Stormwater360 • • filters had similar influent concentrations, with the sand filter data containing a higher median influent concentration (0.23 mg/L) than the StormFilter data (0.16 mg/L). Figure 1 and Table 3 indicate that the performance of the sand filter five roadway sites evaluated in California achieved a mean removal efficiency of 67% with 95% confidence intervals for the mean removal efficiency of 52% and 83%. A grand total of 52 storm events were sampled, and eight data points had an effluent concentration higher than the influent concentrations. The sand filter demonstrated a statistically significant removal (P<0.001; 99.9% probability of net removal) of TP. 1.2 ANOVA Source of variation of 55 F 1.1 Explained 1 0.2326 0.2323 26 56.63"• 1 Unexplained 56 0.2300 0.004100 0 Total 57 0.4626 1.0 SIa14IFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS oaff. Std. Error [ (� 0.9 y0�0.05095 0.0131"1 3.531•'• C a=0.3595 0.04979 7.525•" W 0.8 • =0.01 <P <0.05 to ...= 0.001 < P < 0.01 2 0.7 P < 0.001 pE- 0. 3ION EQUATION � Y = 0.3fix 10.050 CL 0.6 En / O / 0.5 + 0.4 o / 0.3 + {/ q +_ + / 0.2 / + / W Q.1ill .i. ReJre9al On �TL- - 95% confidence Interval 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Influent Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) Figure 2. StormFilter data analyzed using Regression of EMC for Total Phosphorus removal representing 58 paired influent and effluent samples at 4 sites and demonstrating a mean removal efficiency estimate of 64% with 95% confidence intervals of 54% and 74%. Data was statistically significant at the P <0.001 level. Figure 2 and Table 3 represent the StormFilter data using ZPG or PZ media at four sites for 58 storm events. The total phosphorus mean removal efficiency using linear regression was 64% with 95% confidence limits of 54% and 74%. Two data points that were included in the analysis had effluent concentrations greater than the influent concentrations. Overall the StormFilter system demonstrated statistically significant removal (P<0.001; 99.9% probability of net removal) of TP. In Figure 3, StormFilter and sand filter data were compared using the estimated mean and standard deviation of the sample populations. When comparing these distributions, a one -tailed www.stormwater360.com 4 of 6 @2005 Stormwater360 V or two -tailed test is used to determine the cumulative probability of Type I and Type II errors (Le. the probability of wrongly rejecting or wrongly accepting the null hypothesis) in the statistical analysis. In this instance, Figure 3 graphically demonstrates that the StormFilter data is 99.6% within the sand filter 95% confidence intervals. Thus, there is no significant difference (P=0.05) between the performance of the StormFilter and sand filter for total phosphorus removal. Table 3. Total phosphorus removal statistical information for the StormFilter and sand filters. Sand filter data were retrieved from the International Stormwater BMP Database. StormFilter data were from four sites (Milwaukee Riverwalk, Ski Run Marina, Heritage Marketplace, and Lake Stevens) using ZPG or PerlitelZeolite media. Sand Filter az v.a4 StormFilter 56 004 to 1.06 0.15 64••• 54 to 74 0.11 0.09 to 0.12 P < 0.001 distribution of the mean total phosphorus removal performance of these two types of media filters. A total of 9 sites, each data set containing over 50 storm events were used in the comparison. The overlap of the two bell shaped curves indicate that there is no statistical difference between the performance of the StormFilter and sand filters for the removal of total phosphorus. wwvv.stormwater360.com 5 of 6 02005 Starmwater360 Descriptive Statistics Regression of EMC Median Mean Median 95% Confidence Removal 95% Confidence Interval Effluent Interval for the Median Range of Influent EMCs n Influent Efficiency for the Mean Removal EMC Effluent EMC Estimate (mglL) EMC Estimate Efficiency Estimate (%) Estimate (m 9 ) Filter lyQ_ (mg/L) N (m�L) 1.n I, ,,, n ra Sand Filter az v.a4 StormFilter 56 004 to 1.06 0.15 64••• 54 to 74 0.11 0.09 to 0.12 P < 0.001 distribution of the mean total phosphorus removal performance of these two types of media filters. A total of 9 sites, each data set containing over 50 storm events were used in the comparison. The overlap of the two bell shaped curves indicate that there is no statistical difference between the performance of the StormFilter and sand filters for the removal of total phosphorus. wwvv.stormwater360.com 5 of 6 02005 Starmwater360 • • Conclusion Two media filters, sand filter and StormFilter, displayed similar TP removal performance when analyzing the data with REMC and comparing the standard deviation and the distributions of these sample populations. Although the sand filter demonstrated a higher mean (+3%) than the StormFilter; the StormFilter exhibited more precise range of performance (standard. deviation (SD) = 10) than the sand filter (SD = 15). Therefore, these two media filters can be said to have equivalent performance for the removal of total phosphorus. References 2nd Nature Environmental Science + Consulting. (2004). StormFilter Performance Analysis prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Santa Cruz, CA. Author. Martin, E. H. (1988). Effectiveness of an Urban Runoff Detention Pond -Wetlands System. J. Environnemental Eng. 114 (4), pp. 810 - 827. Minton, Ph.D, PE., Gary. (2002). Stormwater Treatment: Biological, Chemical, & Engineering Principles. Resource Planning Associates. Seattle, WA.: Author. NSF International. (2004). Environmental Technology Verification Report. Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device. The Stormwater Management StormFilter Using ZPG Filter Media. Report No. 04/17IWQPC-WWF; EPA/600/R-04/125. Milwaukee, WI.: Author. Stormwater Management Inc. (2004a). Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media (Report No. PE -04-008.0). Portland, Oregon: Author. Stormwater Management Inc. (2004b). Lake Stevens North Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media (Report No. PE -04-001.1). Portland, Oregon: Author. URS, Urban Drainage and Flood District, and Urban Water Resources Research Council of ASCE. (1999). Determining Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Removal Efficiencies. Task 3.1 - Technical Memorandum. Available on ASCE website: http"//www.asce.org/pdf/task3 1.pdf. Washington, DC: Author. www.stormwater360.com 6 of ©2005 Storm.t.660 • Ll RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENr INC. Performance of The Stormwater Management StormFiltero for Removal of Total Phosphorus Phosphorus in the Urban Environment Phosphorus loading to freshwater can promote algal blooms and eutrophication that threaten ecosystems by lowering dissolved oxygen levels. As shown in Figure 1 phosphorus cycles through the environment in forms organic, inorganic and soluble forms. Plants absorb orthophosphotes from the water or soil Food Chain ^ Animals obtain Oigank organic Short -Tom phosphorus from Phesphoms Cycle their food Decomposition Phosphorus is carried by rivers to lakes or the ocean bottom Rock Cycle Irmrgonic Phosphorus is tong -Term stored in Phosphorus Cycle sediment or by the formation of sedimentary R rock Bacteria feeding on Stored phosphorus is animal wastes or dead disturbed by currents, pipeline plants and animals construction or eroded by release phosphates rivers from uplifted rock Figure 1. Inorganic and Organic Cycle (RiverWatch, 2001) Total phosphorus (TP), expressed in milligrams/liter is the sum of inorganic . phosphate, organic phosphate, and soluble phosphorus (Ortho -P). Organic phosphates are a part of plants and animals, their wastes or decomposing remains. Inorganic phosphorus originates from decomposing natural materials and man-made products. Non -point source runoff (stormwater) increases phosphorus concentrations in lakes and streams by transporting sediment and organic matter (bud shatter, leaves, lawn clippings, etc.) from impervious surfaces. Additional phosphorus sources in stormwater are misapplied fertilizers, some detergents, and animal waste from birds and domestic pets. Phosphorus in urban runoff is typically measured as TP and sometimes Ortho -P is measured as well. The non -soluble portion of the TP is commonly associated with the total suspended solids (TSS). Of this form, the phosphorus can be in an organic or inorganic form. TP concentrations in stormwater are variable but range from 0.01 to 7.3 mg/L (Minton, 2002). Concentrations of Ortho -P in urban runoff are frequently in concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L (Wigginton, stormwater Management, Inc. 02004 Performance, Phosphorus 1 of 4 0 0 • 1999). USEPA guidelines indicate that Ortho -P concentrations in stream in excess of 0.10 mg/L can trigger algae blooms in fresh water lakes. Removal of phosphorus can be accomplished by three mechanisms. The first is removal of organic and inorganic P associated with solids. The second is removal by biological uptake by plants or bacteria. The third is through chemical precipitation such as the reaction of Ortho -P with iron to form iron phosphate in aerobic conditions. Depending on the type of treatment system, organic phosphorus can transform to Ortho -P and be released later. For example, leaves trapped in a sump can decompose or fall senescence of wetland plant can release Ortho -P. Results Performance data for removal of total phosphorus were summarized from ongoing field evaluations. These field evaluations are a combination of first and third party investigations. Data were collected from 9 sites located in different geographic locations (primarily from the West Coast (WA, OR, CA) and a single Midwest site) and configured with different media types at different flow rates. Available reports are listed in the reference section. This performance summary focuses on Total Phosphorus removal only. The following information presented in Figure 3 contains data collected since 2001, mostly during the late spring, summer, and fall for total phosphorus removal by the Stormwater Management StormFilter. Fifty-five data points are presented in Figure 3. The mean removal efficiency using linear regression was 62% with 95% confidence limits of 53% and 78% (lower and upper limits, respectively). Sixteen data points that were included in the analysis did not have a positive removal. Overall these systems demonstrated statistically significant removal (P<0.001; 99% probability of net removal) of Total Phosphorus. Management, Inc. ©2004 StormFilter Performance, Phosphorus 2 of 4 C� Table 1 General Site Description ,.5 1.4 Regression - WQ Flow 1.3 --_ 95% Confidence Intervals for Regression No. of 1.2 --- 95% Prediction Intervals J Unit Size Media E 1 1 Regression Equabon: U 1.0 y = 0.38x +0.065 t 23 Vancouver, WA Carwash W 0.9 CSF 2 Vancouver, WA i 0.165 6 x 8 CSF 0 0.7 Mixed Use 0- 8 x 16 (2) Perlite/Zeolite 48 Sammamish, WA o 0.5 Fertile a Vancouver, WA Commercial Office 0.594 0.4+ Pedite/CSF w 0.3 �- ++ice 0.297 8 x 16 Perlite/Zeolite 14 Redmond, WA Resort 1.650 0:1 l 'F f +.• 50 California Roadway 0.300 0.0 ZPG 9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 • Influent Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) Figure 3. Total phosphorus removal performance summary collected from 9 sites, in multiple geographic locations, with different media. The linear regression produced an equation of y = 0.38x + 0.065, which translates to a 62% removal with a 95% confidence interval of 53% and 78% (lower and upper limits, respectively). Data was statistically significant with a P < 0.001. Data was current as of July 2003. C� Table 1 General Site Description WQ Flow No. of Site Description Rate (cfs) Unit Size Media Cartridges Location Shopping Center 0.503 8 x 16 ZPG 23 Vancouver, WA Carwash 0.070 CBSF CSF 2 Vancouver, WA Hotel 0.165 6 x 8 CSF 5 Vancouver, WA Mixed Use 1.600 8 x 16 (2) Perlite/Zeolite 48 Sammamish, WA Shopping Center 0.033 CBSF Fertile 1 Vancouver, WA Commercial Office 0.594 8 x 16 (2) Pedite/CSF 24;30 Olympia, WA School 0.297 8 x 16 Perlite/Zeolite 14 Redmond, WA Resort 1.650 CIP Perlite/Zeolite 50 California Roadway 0.300 6 x 12 ZPG 9 Midwest Stormwater Management, Inc. ©2004 StormFilter Performance, Phosphorus 3 of 4 References Delaware State Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. (no date). Urban Stormwater Fact Sheet prepared for Inland Bays Watershed. Dover, DE. Retrieved 11/11/03 from www dnrec state.de.us/water20QO/S6ctions/Watershed/ws/fact ib stormwater.pdf Minton, Gary. (2002). Stormwater Treatment: Biological, Chemical, & Engineering Principles. Resource Planning Associates. Seattle, WA. RiverWatch. (2001). Beyond Books Institute of Alberta. (2001). Retrieved on 11/11/03 at www.riverwatch.ab.ca/how to monitodp info-tvpes.cfm Symons, James, Lee Bradley, Jr., Theodore Cleveland. (2000). The Drinking Water Dictionary. American Water Works Association. McGraw & Hill. New York, NY. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2002- Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with CSF Leaf Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. University Place Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with Perlite Media, Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Overtake School Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with PeditelZeolife Media. Author. Portland, OR. • Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Salmon Creek Plaza Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management CatchBasin StormFilter'" with Coarse Pedite Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. University Inn at Salmon Creek Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with CSF Leaf Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Larry's Carwash: Stormwater Management StormFilter with CSF Leaf Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Saffron Village Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with Perlite/Zeolite Media. Author. Portland, OR. Wigginton, Byran O. James Lenhart. (2000). Using Iron -Infused Media and StormFilter technology for the removal of dissolved phosphorus from stormwater discharges. Water Environment Federation — 73rd Annual Conference and Exposition. Anaheim, CA. Data from Two third party investigations were used in this analysis, reports shall be available in fall of 2004 and spring of 2005 (Midwest & California site). Stormwater Management, Inc. ©2004 StormFilter Performance, Phosphorus 4 of 4 • • 8' x 18' STORMFILTER - PLAN VIEW �11 1 TIF S t7.RVIA`: F..R i\ ,10.AGEIvl_NT L 5. -A-1iT y,.. 5..'.22.'2% 52 % No. G.= S.G' 5 8'x 18' STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW (�A1 a -..ER `5 vP�'...�• 02006 CONTECH Stormwaler Solutions 1 TIF S t7.RVIA`: F..R i\ ,10.AGEIvl_NT L 5. -A-1iT y,.. 5..'.22.'2% 52 % No. G.= S.G' 5 a -..ER `5 vP�'...�• 02006 CONTECH Stormwaler Solutions A4k—lUvlE~j® 8'x 18' PRECAST STORMFILTER DRAWING PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS 1 STORMWATER STANDARD DETAIL SOLUTIONS_. ,a contechsto"water.MM DATE:09129100 ISCALENONE I FILE NAME: SFBIB-t'C-DTL DRAWN:MJ CHECKED:ARG 0 Appendix 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 Covenants and agreements to ensure adequate ongoing operation, maintenance, funding and transfer of requirements for this WQNW have not yet been finalized. These agreements will be made available when the delineation of responsibility for operation and maintenance between the Home Owners Association and other agencies involved with the development and eventual management of the site are more clearly defined as project development proceeds. A draft outline of CC&Rs for the project is included on the following pages. •' •' Draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Regarding Water Quality for the Roripaugh Ranch Development in Temecula, Riverside County, California (a) Federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders prohibit the discharge of anything other than natural rain water into storm drain systems, including gutters and streets that drain into storm drains. These governmental requirements include the Clean Water Act, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, orders and permits of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the ordinances and regulations of the City and County, and any Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan covering the Project. Each property owner shall comply with all such governmental requirements. (b) Most discharges of anything other than natural rain water into storm drain systems are unlawful, potentially be reported to local regulating authorities, and may result in significant penalties and fines. No Owner shall discharge or permit to be discharges (for example, by a contractor working for the Owner) any of the following into any street, gutter, storm drain, or storm water conveyance system: toxic or hazardous chemicals, hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinner, wood preservatives, fertilizers, lawn clippings, yard waste, detergents, pet waste, wash water, car washing liquids, or other similar materials or pollutants. •, (c) Each Owner shall comply with and cause its contractors to comply with all federal, state, and City requirements, and the requirements of any other applicable governmental agency regarding the use, storage, and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and other such chemicals. Owners should consult with the City, other governmental authorities, and their refuse hauler regarding the proper disposal of any toxic or hazardous materials. (d) Each Owner shall ensure that any landscaping and construction materials brought into the Project by the Owner or the Owner's contractors shall be properly contained to prevent spillage into any street, gutter, or storm drain system. Should a spillage occur, the Owner shall (or cause the contractor responsible for the spill to) weep the spilled material and place it in a container; it shall not be washed into any storm water curb drain inlet. Each Owner shall prevent erosion and the runoff of soil and other sediment from the Owner's Lot into any street, gutter, or storm drain system. (e) Neither the Homeowners Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA) nor any Owner shall remove any temporary devices installed by Declarant during construction of the Project to prevent the discharge of soil, sediment or other materials into any storm drain system. (f) Each Owner shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold Declarant harmless from any and all claims, liability, actions, penalties or damages (including attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and costs of lawsuit) arising from or attributable to the Owner's failure to comply 0 with the requirements of this Section. n U (g) No Owner shall permit any act to be performed which would result in erosion of any area maintained by the HOA or POA, including, but not limited to, digging, dumping of soil, changing the grading of any area or over irrigating same. If the Owner causes or permits any act which results in erosion of or other damages to common areas, Owner will be personally liable to the Association for such damage and a Compliance Assessment shall be levied against such Owner to recover all costs and expenses incurred to repair or reconstruct the area to its original state. Owner will also be responsible for any additional corrective actions and fines levied by regulating agencies. (h) Owner shall ensure that solid waste is placed inside provided trash bins or other receptacles. Placement of trash, debris, or other unwanted materials outside of designated trash areas will result in immediate removal by the Owner or removal by the Association with fines levied against the Owner for removal of the materials and any repairs necessary to trash areas. (i) Owners are personally liable for immediate removal of Pet Waste using a plastic bag and disposal in provided trash areas. Pet Waste left anywhere on the property, beside trash receptacles, or placed in the storm drain conveyance system will result in cleanup and/ or removal by the Association, an investigation to identify the responsible Owner, fines levied against the Owner, and reporting the Owner to the jurisdictional Storm Water agency. 0 • WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND URBAN RUNOFF BMP TRANSFER, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Recorded at the request of: City of Temecula, California • 0 After recording, return to: City of Temecula City Clerk Water Quality Management Plan and Urban Runoff BMP Transfer, Access and Maintenance Agreement OWNER: Ashby USA, LLC OWNER ADDRESS: 39252 Winchester Road # 107-393 Murrieta, CA 92563-3509 Telephone (951) 699 0207 PROPERTY ADDRESS: No Street Address. Tracts No. 29353-2 and 29353-3 are located partly in City of Temecula, partly in Riverside County, California. They are subdivisions of Section 21 and a portion of the north 1/2 of Section 20, T.7.S, R.2.W. APNs: 964 460 004, 007, 008, 009 964 180 013, 014 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in Temecula, California, this day of the month of 2006, by and between Ashby USA, LLC, herein after referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, located in the County of Riverside, State of California hereinafter referred to as "CITY"; WHEREAS, the Owner owns real property ("Property") in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, more specifically described in Section 1 of this WQMP and depicted in Exhibit B.1, each of which is included hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, at the time of initial approval of development project known as Roripaugh Ranch within the Property described herein, the City required the project to employ Best Management Practices, hereinafter referred to as "BMPs," to minimize pollutants in urban runoff; WHEREAS, the Owner has chosen to install and/or implement BMPs as described in the Water Quality Management Plan, on file with the City, hereinafter referred to as "WQMP," to minimize pollutants in urban runoff and to minimize other adverse impacts of urban runoff; WHEREAS, said WQMP has been certified by the Owner and reviewed and approved by the City; WHEREAS, said BMPs, with installation and/or implementation on private property and draining only private property, are part of a private facility with all maintenance or replacement, therefore, the sole responsibility of the Owner in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; WHEREAS, the Owner is aware that periodic and continuous maintenance, including, but not necessarily limited to, filter material replacement and sediment removal, is required to assure peak performance of all BMPs in the WQMP and that, furthermore, such maintenance activity will require compliance with all Local, State, or Federal laws and regulations, including those pertaining to confined space and waste disposal methods, in effect at the time such maintenance occurs; NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually stipulated and agreed as follows: 1. Owner hereby provides the City or City's designee complete access, or any • duration, to the BMPS and their immediate vicinity at any time, upon reasonable notice, or in the event of emergency, as determined by the City's Director of Public Works no advance notice, for the purpose of inspection, sampling, testing of the BMP devices, and in case of emergency, to undertake all necessary repairs or other preventative measures at owner's expense as provided in paragraph 3 below. City shall make every effort at all times to minimize or avoid interference with Owner's use of the Property. 2. Owner shall use its best efforts diligently to maintain all BMPs in a manner assuring peak performance at all times. All reasonable precautions shall be exercised by Owner and Owner's representative or contractor in the removal and extraction of any material(s) from the BMPs and the ultimate disposal of the material(s) in a manner consistent with all relevant laws and regulations in effect at the time. As may be requested from time to time by the City, the Owner shall provide the City with documentation identifying the material(s) removed, the quantity, and disposal destination. 3. In the event Owner, or its successors or assigns, fails to accomplish the necessary maintenance contemplated by this Agreement, within five (5) days of being given written notice by the City, the City is hereby authorized to cause any maintenance necessary to be done and charge the entire cost and expense to the Owner or Owner's successors or assigns, including • administrative costs, attorneys' fees and interest thereon at the maximum rate • authorized by.the Civil Code from the date of the notice of expense until paid in full. 4. The City may require the owner to post security in form and fora time period satisfactory to the city to guarantee the performance of the obligations stated herein. Should the Owner fail to perform the obligations under , the Agreement, the City may, in the case of a cash bond, act for the Owner using the proceeds from it, or in the case of a surety bond, require the sureties to perform the obligations of the Agreement. As an additional remedy, the Director may withdraw any previous Urban Runoff -related approval with respect to the property on which BMPs have been installed and/or implemented until such time as Owner repays to City its reasonable costs incurred in accordance with paragraph 3 above. 5. This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder or Riverside County, California, at the expense of the Owner and shall constitute notice to all successors and assigns of the title to said Property of the obligation herein set forth, and also a lien in such amount as will fully reimburse the City, including interest as herein above set forth, subject to foreclosure in event of default in payment. 6. In event of legal action occasioned by any default or action of the Owner, or • its successors or assigns, the Owner and its successors or assigns agree(s) to pay all costs incurred by the City in enforcing the terms of this Agreement, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and that the same shall become a part of the lien against said Property. 7. It is the intent of the parties hereto that burdens and benefits herein undertaken shall constitute covenants that run with said Property and constitute a lien there against. 8. The obligations herein undertaken shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. The term "Owner" shall include not only the present Owner, but also its heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns. Owner shall notify any successor to title of all part of part of the Property about the existence of this Agreement. Owner shall provide a copy of such notice to the City at the same time such notice is provided to the successor. 9. Time is off the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 10. Any notice to a party required or called for in this Agreement shall be served in person, or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first calls postage prepaid, to the address set forth below. Notice(s) shall be deemed effective upon receipt, or seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, whichever is earlier. A 0 • party may change a notice address only by providing written notice thereof to the other party. IF TO CITY: City of Temecula Department of Public Works 43200 Business Park Drive PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 IF TO OWNER: Ashby USA, LLC 39252 Winchester Road #107-393 Murrieta, CA 92653-3509 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures as of the date first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OWNER: City Attorney, City of Temecula Name • Name Title Title ATTEST: City Clerk Date NOTARIES ON FOLLOWING PAGE 0 Appendix H 0 0 Appendix. H Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment — Summary of Site Remediation Conducted and Use Restrictions This document is on file with the City of Temecula and is available on request. • 0 • Appendix I 0 0 • Appendix I Water Quality Management Plan Checklist 0 ��ortcite�r WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) INITIAL CHECKLIST . .., Applicant Name: Ashby USA, LLC d` °> rexv Planning Application Number: a:K Project Name: Roripaugh Ranch - All • 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; X (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. X Non -Residential Development - This category includes projects that create more than 100,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. X 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 that create more than 5,000 sq. fL of Sa impervious surface. X Restaurants creating less than 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface are only required to follow the site design and 5b source control requirements of the WQMP. X Hillside Development - This category includes any developments that create more than 5,000 sq. ft. of 6 impervious surface, are located in an area with known erosive soil conditions, and where the project will require X grading naturalslopes 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. Note: "Directly adjacent" means within 200 feet of the ESA. "Discharging directly to" means outflow from a X 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 that create 5,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface for 8 temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles. This category includes parking areas associated with any of the X 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 exem t. Retail Gasoline Outlets - This category applies if either of the following criteria is met: (a) 5,000 sq. ft. or more X 10 of impervious surface, or (b) a projected 'Average Daily Traffic' count of 100 or more vehicles per day. 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. 00 (03/05) 0ov • cy�� WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST Applicant Name: Ashby USA, LLC a Planning Application Number. - - - - - --- 1989 Project Name: Roripaugh Ranch — All Comments By Reviewer: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed• Applicant Signature: 0 The Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan guideline and template can be downloaded from the City's website at http://www.cityoftemeeula.org/cityhall/pub_works/landDey/npdes.htm • Page 2 of 2 Rev. 00 (03/05) Appendix J Executive Summary of Water Quality Management Plan �j 0 • Roripaugh Ranch WQMP Executive Summary This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) serves as a guidance document to address all water quality concerns for Tract 29353-2 and 29353-3, the Roripaugh Ranch multi-purpose development within the City of Temecula in Riverside County California. This document has been prepared in accordance with requirements stipulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the City of Temecula. The Roripaugh Ranch Project is located on an 804 -acre site of land that is currently undeveloped (although grading is now taking place on portions of the project area). When completed the project will include residential, commercial, institutional properties. and land designated as open space. Specifically the project will include several residential gated communities, commercial retail units, two schools, sports and recreation parks, and a large tract dedicated as open space. After the project is completed, stormwater that discharges from the site will flow downstream via Santa Gertrudis Creek and the Long'Valley Channel. The water will now through a series of water bodies toward the ultimate destination of the Pacific Ocean. Unless treated, this urban runoff is expected to contain a wide spectrum of pollutant categories, including sediment, nutrients, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil, grease, and pesticides. •;; Phosphorous is the primary pollutant of concern for the project because a downstream water body is impaired by this nutrient, according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water segments, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented at the project site to mitigate the impact of stormwater pollutants to downstream receiving waters. These include Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs. Site Design BMPs will include maintaining the natural drainage systems of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Channel on site, the inclusion of 202 acres of open space as well as public parks, and the provision of native and drought resistant trees and landscaped areas between sidewalks and roads. Two types of Treatment Control BMPs will be used to treat pollutants contained in urban runoff. These will be two vegetated swale / infiltration BMPs and eight proprietary manufactured filter units known as Storm Filters. All stormwater flow emanating from the project site will be treated by one of these two types of BMPs before being discharged offsite. Together these BMPs will treat a combined flow rate (Qsmv) of 46.7 cfs. Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and at least one Property Owners Association (POA) will be formed to take over inspection, operation and maintenance responsibilities from the developer after residential and commercial properties have been constructed. The • HOA and POA will abide by water quality CC&Rs that will be finalized after project construction commences. Appendix K ADDENDUMS 1 REVISIONS EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN TRUE TRIBUTARY AREA DETAIL NORTH SCALE: 1"=200- RETAINING WALL PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN RSP B3 -3A 36" RCPJ HEADWALL PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN D89 :\\' 77 3:1 SLOPE 34 7' I NOTCH TYPE WEIR 15'-2" 2' T.O.W.=1300.50 6" tt to to » OUTLET STRUCTURE PLAN SCALE: V'= 5' ELEV. =1300.00 ELEV. =1298.50 ® 8' WEIR ELEV.=1297.00 ® 4' WEIR 6 X6 X6 X6 W.W.F. 3'X3' DROP INLET - r °3. ELEV.=1395.00 DFB=1' "00STEEL ORIFICE PLATE AND TRASH RACK PER DETAIL 3 49 ;t 18 - , ; SAND FILTER LAYE RCP AND ORIFICE/ \ DBS=4 /PLATE , WITH. 6", ORIFICE 3" PEA GRAVEL- ELEV. 138 6.67 RAVEL ELEV.=1386.67 1 CHOKING LAYER VSOLID PVC ® 0.5% MIN. PERFORATED PVC 7\ IN GRAVEL LAYER ELEV.= 1386.83/ ELEV. =1385.92 2 OUTLET STRUCTURE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 5' 1% MIN. SLOPE AT 1 % MIN. SLOPE AT I i l TRENCH BOTTOM 00 TRENCH BOTTOM FROM - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- FROM FOREBAY TO 0 LOW FLOW TRENCH TO 4 I "ry 4 BOTTOM STAGE TOE OF SLOPES T --Q t 1'-6" 1 % MIN. 4'� 1% MIN. 1% MIN. 1% MIN. f (r, ,. :..;c:<...�4Z. - .n ';°e' Yk , ,Ta .r,.; -s:" .y -k .T a:• t4p...., ,. ,<.. L HOLES SPACED ®4" O.C. E.W. y\ a 4 LOW -FLOW TRENCH TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 1" = 5' 5 COLLECTOR TRENCH TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: I"= 5' 48" RCP PER STORM DRAIN PLANS HEADWALL PER STORM DRAIN PLANS ---------_ ROCK BERM � �PPROX. 65' 20' RIP—RAP PAD PER STORM DRAIN PLANS --'*\ f. l \. Y LOW—FLOW TRENCH 6 FOREBAY STRUCTURE SECTION SCALE: 1"=5' LANDSCAPING NOTE: "LS" ON THE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED HATCH DENOTES AREAS AND SLOPES OF LANDSCAPING. BASIN VEGETATION PROVIDES EROSION PROTECTION, ENHANCES EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND INFILTRATION, AND IMPROVES POLLUTANT REMOVAL. THE UPPER STAGE BASIN SURFACE, BERMS AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE PLANTED WITH NATIVE GRASSES (CUTTINGS OR HYDROSEED IS ACCEPTABLE). PROPER LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE VEGETATION DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO WATER POLLUTION THROUGH THE USE OF PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, OR FERTILIZERS. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THE "BASIN GUIDELINES" (APPENDIX C OF THE DESIGN HANDBOOK FOR LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PUBLISHED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) OR OTHER EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE GUIDELINES. c- E 0 E O 0 I i l 00 �. - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- N 0 4 I "ry 4 ,E E LLLV.= I JZ1 -A 117 f/�\j.\\ d •d d /DFB 18„ \, RCP AND \% /. — - °' —6 • •' , /.`\ \ d': d - ��. .ECFV. =121 ORIFICE PLATE \� j\j • : d _ �' yy . \^ \/%`i WITH 6 ORIFICE : •••: 'dpd, d.. ` d ' \ \\/\/�\\\ n.. . • d d \ d to .41 ` d44 / % °d d: \ / \ p' a e \ e t •. f / / ••d \ `\ \/\� x ELEV.=12 :DBS -4 ECFV.=1 " RCP AND ORIFICEIt PLATE WITH 6" ORIFICE ° ` DRAIN HOLE WITH - ° _ 31 4.: GEOTEXTILE FABRICS. ;;• SAND FILTER LAYER PER ` p •. i d 1� V$=`• •' . :,. ` RCFC&WCD LID BMP DESIGN -.:•:•� '�t" HANDBOOK SPECIFICATIONS ,r;• 1 I' ° • . 316. =.` - 4 ,• 3tt PEA GRAVEL': 1�= a-,•. / p _ : 1 CHOKING LAYER ELEV =1286.67 FG V: 1316.2 < p p FS °° •� <wlz °" d °6" PERFORATED PVC ° . ° to UNDERDRAIN 1 `° C Jr? U'/ \ �:vr,!t� inky f i \ i '� {�aF 4 l 1`/ '✓ k ° GRAVEL LAYER . / << ^ . /•�, ,\ OUTLET STRUCTURE THE RORIPAUGH RANCH COiUliM ASSOO Civil Engineering • Surveying • Planning 6879 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504 Tel:(951) 688-0241 • Fax:(951) 688-0599 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP MAP AND DETAILS Einem 131j PO I i l it LIT 'r �. - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- TRASH RACK PER RCFC&WCD 4 I "ry 4 STD. DWG. WQ501—E , T --Q t PERFORATED STEEL ORIFICE PLATE WITH 5/8” DRILLED : .. HOLES SPACED ®4" O.C. E.W. y\ a SEE RCFC&WCD STD. DWG ,,\ -':\' _ • .. WQ501—E--� a ••d \ `\ \/\� x ELEV.=12 :DBS -4 ECFV.=1 " RCP AND ORIFICEIt PLATE WITH 6" ORIFICE ° ` DRAIN HOLE WITH - ° _ 31 4.: GEOTEXTILE FABRICS. ;;• SAND FILTER LAYER PER ` p •. i d 1� V$=`• •' . :,. ` RCFC&WCD LID BMP DESIGN -.:•:•� '�t" HANDBOOK SPECIFICATIONS ,r;• 1 I' ° • . 316. =.` - 4 ,• 3tt PEA GRAVEL': 1�= a-,•. / p _ : 1 CHOKING LAYER ELEV =1286.67 FG V: 1316.2 < p p FS °° •� <wlz °" d °6" PERFORATED PVC ° . ° to UNDERDRAIN 1 `° C Jr? U'/ \ �:vr,!t� inky f i \ i '� {�aF 4 l 1`/ '✓ k ° GRAVEL LAYER . / << ^ . /•�, ,\ OUTLET STRUCTURE THE RORIPAUGH RANCH COiUliM ASSOO Civil Engineering • Surveying • Planning 6879 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504 Tel:(951) 688-0241 • Fax:(951) 688-0599 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP MAP AND DETAILS Einem 131j PO I i l it LIT 'r �. - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- 4 I "ry 4 T --Q t ••d \ `\ \/\� x ELEV.=12 :DBS -4 ECFV.=1 " RCP AND ORIFICEIt PLATE WITH 6" ORIFICE ° ` DRAIN HOLE WITH - ° _ 31 4.: GEOTEXTILE FABRICS. ;;• SAND FILTER LAYER PER ` p •. i d 1� V$=`• •' . :,. ` RCFC&WCD LID BMP DESIGN -.:•:•� '�t" HANDBOOK SPECIFICATIONS ,r;• 1 I' ° • . 316. =.` - 4 ,• 3tt PEA GRAVEL': 1�= a-,•. / p _ : 1 CHOKING LAYER ELEV =1286.67 FG V: 1316.2 < p p FS °° •� <wlz °" d °6" PERFORATED PVC ° . ° to UNDERDRAIN 1 `° C Jr? U'/ \ �:vr,!t� inky f i \ i '� {�aF 4 l 1`/ '✓ k ° GRAVEL LAYER . / << ^ . /•�, ,\ OUTLET STRUCTURE THE RORIPAUGH RANCH COiUliM ASSOO Civil Engineering • Surveying • Planning 6879 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504 Tel:(951) 688-0241 • Fax:(951) 688-0599 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP MAP AND DETAILS Einem 131j PO EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN TRUE TRIBUTARY AREA DETAIL NORTH SCALE: 1"=200- RETAINING WALL PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN RSP B3 -3A 36" RCPJ HEADWALL PER CALTRANS STD. PLAN D89 :\\' 77 3:1 SLOPE 34 7' I NOTCH TYPE WEIR 15'-2" 2' T.O.W.=1300.50 6" tt to to » OUTLET STRUCTURE PLAN SCALE: V'= 5' ELEV. =1300.00 ELEV. =1298.50 ® 8' WEIR ELEV.=1297.00 ® 4' WEIR 6 X6 X6 X6 W.W.F. 3'X3' DROP INLET - r °3. ELEV.=1395.00 DFB=1' "00STEEL ORIFICE PLATE AND TRASH RACK PER DETAIL 3 49 ;t 18 - , ; SAND FILTER LAYE RCP AND ORIFICE/ \ DBS=4 /PLATE , WITH. 6", ORIFICE 3" PEA GRAVEL- ELEV. 138 6.67 RAVEL ELEV.=1386.67 1 CHOKING LAYER VSOLID PVC ® 0.5% MIN. PERFORATED PVC 7\ IN GRAVEL LAYER ELEV.= 1386.83/ ELEV. =1385.92 2 OUTLET STRUCTURE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 5' 1% MIN. SLOPE AT 1 % MIN. SLOPE AT I i l TRENCH BOTTOM 00 TRENCH BOTTOM FROM - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- FROM FOREBAY TO 0 LOW FLOW TRENCH TO 4 I "ry 4 BOTTOM STAGE TOE OF SLOPES T --Q t 1'-6" 1 % MIN. 4'� 1% MIN. 1% MIN. 1% MIN. f (r, ,. :..;c:<...�4Z. - .n ';°e' Yk , ,Ta .r,.; -s:" .y -k .T a:• t4p...., ,. ,<.. L HOLES SPACED ®4" O.C. E.W. y\ a 4 LOW -FLOW TRENCH TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 1" = 5' 5 COLLECTOR TRENCH TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: I"= 5' 48" RCP PER STORM DRAIN PLANS HEADWALL PER STORM DRAIN PLANS ---------_ ROCK BERM � �PPROX. 65' 20' RIP—RAP PAD PER STORM DRAIN PLANS --'*\ f. l \. Y LOW—FLOW TRENCH 6 FOREBAY STRUCTURE SECTION SCALE: 1"=5' LANDSCAPING NOTE: "LS" ON THE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED HATCH DENOTES AREAS AND SLOPES OF LANDSCAPING. BASIN VEGETATION PROVIDES EROSION PROTECTION, ENHANCES EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND INFILTRATION, AND IMPROVES POLLUTANT REMOVAL. THE UPPER STAGE BASIN SURFACE, BERMS AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE PLANTED WITH NATIVE GRASSES (CUTTINGS OR HYDROSEED IS ACCEPTABLE). PROPER LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THE VEGETATION DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO WATER POLLUTION THROUGH THE USE OF PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, OR FERTILIZERS. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THE "BASIN GUIDELINES" (APPENDIX C OF THE DESIGN HANDBOOK FOR LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PUBLISHED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) OR OTHER EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE GUIDELINES. c- E 0 E O 0 I i l 00 �. - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- N 0 4 I "ry 4 ,E E LLLV.= I JZ1 -A 117 f/�\j.\\ d •d d /DFB 18„ \, RCP AND \% /. — - °' —6 • •' , /.`\ \ d': d - ��. .ECFV. =121 ORIFICE PLATE \� j\j • : d _ �' yy . \^ \/%`i WITH 6 ORIFICE : •••: 'dpd, d.. ` d ' \ \\/\/�\\\ n.. . • d d \ d to .41 ` d44 / % °d d: \ / \ p' a e \ e t •. f / / ••d \ `\ \/\� x ELEV.=12 :DBS -4 ECFV.=1 " RCP AND ORIFICEIt PLATE WITH 6" ORIFICE ° ` DRAIN HOLE WITH - ° _ 31 4.: GEOTEXTILE FABRICS. ;;• SAND FILTER LAYER PER ` p •. i d 1� V$=`• •' . :,. ` RCFC&WCD LID BMP DESIGN -.:•:•� '�t" HANDBOOK SPECIFICATIONS ,r;• 1 I' ° • . 316. =.` - 4 ,• 3tt PEA GRAVEL': 1�= a-,•. / p _ : 1 CHOKING LAYER ELEV =1286.67 FG V: 1316.2 < p p FS °° •� <wlz °" d °6" PERFORATED PVC ° . ° to UNDERDRAIN 1 `° C Jr? U'/ \ �:vr,!t� inky f i \ i '� {�aF 4 l 1`/ '✓ k ° GRAVEL LAYER . / << ^ . /•�, ,\ OUTLET STRUCTURE THE RORIPAUGH RANCH COiUliM ASSOO Civil Engineering • Surveying • Planning 6879 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504 Tel:(951) 688-0241 • Fax:(951) 688-0599 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP MAP AND DETAILS Einem 131j PO I i l it LIT 'r �. - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- TRASH RACK PER RCFC&WCD 4 I "ry 4 STD. DWG. WQ501—E , T --Q t PERFORATED STEEL ORIFICE PLATE WITH 5/8” DRILLED : .. HOLES SPACED ®4" O.C. E.W. y\ a SEE RCFC&WCD STD. DWG ,,\ -':\' _ • .. WQ501—E--� a ••d \ `\ \/\� x ELEV.=12 :DBS -4 ECFV.=1 " RCP AND ORIFICEIt PLATE WITH 6" ORIFICE ° ` DRAIN HOLE WITH - ° _ 31 4.: GEOTEXTILE FABRICS. ;;• SAND FILTER LAYER PER ` p •. i d 1� V$=`• •' . :,. ` RCFC&WCD LID BMP DESIGN -.:•:•� '�t" HANDBOOK SPECIFICATIONS ,r;• 1 I' ° • . 316. =.` - 4 ,• 3tt PEA GRAVEL': 1�= a-,•. / p _ : 1 CHOKING LAYER ELEV =1286.67 FG V: 1316.2 < p p FS °° •� <wlz °" d °6" PERFORATED PVC ° . ° to UNDERDRAIN 1 `° C Jr? U'/ \ �:vr,!t� inky f i \ i '� {�aF 4 l 1`/ '✓ k ° GRAVEL LAYER . / << ^ . /•�, ,\ OUTLET STRUCTURE THE RORIPAUGH RANCH COiUliM ASSOO Civil Engineering • Surveying • Planning 6879 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504 Tel:(951) 688-0241 • Fax:(951) 688-0599 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP MAP AND DETAILS Einem 131j PO I i l it LIT 'r �. - 4' 1 ' -- ---- ---- -- 4 I "ry 4 T --Q t ••d \ `\ \/\� x ELEV.=12 :DBS -4 ECFV.=1 " RCP AND ORIFICEIt PLATE WITH 6" ORIFICE ° ` DRAIN HOLE WITH - ° _ 31 4.: GEOTEXTILE FABRICS. ;;• SAND FILTER LAYER PER ` p •. i d 1� V$=`• •' . :,. ` RCFC&WCD LID BMP DESIGN -.:•:•� '�t" HANDBOOK SPECIFICATIONS ,r;• 1 I' ° • . 316. =.` - 4 ,• 3tt PEA GRAVEL': 1�= a-,•. / p _ : 1 CHOKING LAYER ELEV =1286.67 FG V: 1316.2 < p p FS °° •� <wlz °" d °6" PERFORATED PVC ° . ° to UNDERDRAIN 1 `° C Jr? U'/ \ �:vr,!t� inky f i \ i '� {�aF 4 l 1`/ '✓ k ° GRAVEL LAYER . / << ^ . /•�, ,\ OUTLET STRUCTURE THE RORIPAUGH RANCH COiUliM ASSOO Civil Engineering • Surveying • Planning 6879 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504 Tel:(951) 688-0241 • Fax:(951) 688-0599 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP MAP AND DETAILS Einem 131j PO Santa Margarita Watershed Required Entries BMP Design Volume, VnMp (Rev. 03-2012) Legend: [— Calculated Cells (vote this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID RMP Design Handbook) Company Name ADKAN ENGINEERS Date 2.15.13 Designed by RICHARD D. REAVES, P.E. County/City Case No TRACT 2966 1 -1 Company Project Number/Name 8356 (KB HOMES) THE PINNACLE AT RORIPAUGH RANCH Drainage Area Number/Name BASIN 1 TRIBUTARY (EDB) Enter the Area Tributary to this Feature AT= 51.73 acres 85`h Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth, from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E Site Location Township 7 SOUTH Range 2 WEST Section 20 Enter the 85`h Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth D85 = 0.68 Determine the Effective Impervious Fraction Type of post -development surface cover Mixed Surface Types (use pull down menu) Effective Impervious Fraction If 0.64 Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient, C for the BMP Tributary Area Use the following equation based on the WEF/ASCE Method C = 0.858113 - 0.781E + 0.7741f+ 0.04 C = 0.44 j Determine Design Storage Volume, VBMP Calculate Vu, the 85% Unit Storage Volume Vo= D85 x C V„=) 0.30 l(in*ac)/ac Calculate the design storage volume of the BMP, VBMP. VBMP (ft3)= Vu (in-ac/ac) x At -(ac) x 43,560 (ft'/ac) VBMP 56,334 ft3 12 (in/ft) Notes: IMPERVIOUS FRACTION CALCULATION BY WIEGHTED AVERAGE Total Number of Lots= 254 Avg 100% Imp Area per Lot= 2,860 (1.0 roofs/conc & 0.25 landscpape) Total 100% Imp Area in Res.= 726,440 1.00 726,440.00 Total Ls in Residential= 917,024 0.25 229,255.96 IMP Residential Lot (Weighted Average)= 0.58 ID IMP AREA (SF) PRODUCT STREET IMPROVMENTS 1.00 444,258.13 444258.1 LANDSCAPING 0.25 165,690.25 41422.6 RESIDENTIAL LOT 0.58 1,643,463.84 955696.0 Total Tributary Area(sf)= 2,253,412.22 Weighted Avg.= 0.640 Total Tributary Area(Ac)= 51.73 BMP Subarea Re wired Entries Extended Detention Basin Design Procedure No. EDB Legend: Calculated Cells Company Name: ADKAN ENGINEERS Date: 2.15.13 Designed by: RICHARD D. REAVES P.E. County/City Case No.: 2966 1 -1 Design Volume Tributary Area (BMP Subarea) Ar = 51.73 acres Enter VBMR determined from Section 2.1 of this Handbook ✓BMP 56,334 ft3 Basin Footprint Overall Geometry Length at Basin Bottom Surface Length = 300 ft Width at Basin Bottom Surface Width = 100 ft Meets1.51.5 : 1 requirement? �✓ Side Slopes per "Basin Guidelines", Sccl. 1.2 z = 4 :l Proposed Basin Depth (with no freeboard) DB = 4.00 ft Depth of freeboard (if used) DFB = 1.00 ft Minimum Required Allowance for Total Depth (including proposed DREQ =' —7.7" 'tt basin depth, freeboard, minimum depth of bottom stage (DBS 0.33') and minimum filter depth (DFS 2.33')) Depth from design water surface elevation to lowest orifice Do =�— 4-.0 _ ft TOP OF SIDE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 4H:1V BASIN BOTTOM STAGE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE PER DISTRICT BASIN GUIDELINES OR OTHER GUIDELINES PERFORATED PIPE ISSUED BY THE ENGINEERING AUTHORITY SUBDRAIN ((EEAA)) OR PLANNING AUTHORITY (PA) V ACCESS TO OUTLET BASIN FLOOR WTTIi 1% MIN, SLOP/1/1E TO�LOW- V �i WITH TRASH RACKKPPER RAR W0,501 J.I.OW ;RE V // LOW A TRENCH FOREBAY �' FLOW W V A V �V \� V\\ `\ V 4rW X 2iviRENCH V V COI-LECTORNCHES AT 15'0.0 .C.MAX MAX Basin Design Basin Design Proposed Total Basin Depth (proposed depth plus freeboard) DTOT = _5.00 ft Basin Invert Longitudinal Slope Slope= ® 1.00 % Basin Invert Transverse Slope (I%min) Slope= ® 1 % Basin Volume VBA;,,=®73111 ft' FOREISAY VOLUME= 3%-5% OF V,, SURF SIZE NOTCH -TYPE WEIR INFLOW UTLETINDRAIN INFOSEKY MfTE INVERT OF "'%V X 24-D GRAVEL FILLED LOW FLOW MIN BOTTOM STAGE VOL�.6% V Dmr TOP OF BASIN TRENBERMIWALL e� INFLOW [ _ _ _. .—.._ WATER SURFACE�,� _.. �_.._.._.._..—. DIM a.= .._.._.. DR3 v e=1 % MIN TBASINORIFICE T PAVED BOTTOM ._. ._._ ._._. ._._._._ --.!• ` •ryy• ` •o, GRAVEL FILLED COLLECTOR TRENCH zu mw OUTLET WORKS (SEE W0501 DETAILS) Forebay Design Forebay Volume (3 - 5% V.M,) V FB = ® 2253 ft3 Forebay Depth (height of berm) DFBY — I ft Minimum Forebay Surface Area AFB =722533 2 Rectangular weir (notch) W = 024.00 in Low -Flow Trench (see graphic below) Depth (24 inches minimum, gravel filled) Depth = ® 24 Width (48 inches minimum) Width = ® 48 Trench Invert Longitudinal Slope Slope = ® 1 Collector Trenches (see graphic below) Depth (24 inches minimum) Depth = ® 24 Width (18 inches minimum) Width = ® 18 Trench Invert Longitudinal Slope Slope = ® 1 Spacing (25 feet on center maximum) S = ® 25 Transverse Slope (1% min) 24"(min)`-`— 24"(min) AASHTO No. 2 Coarse aggregate 48" (min) I- -I I 18 I ' (min) Low -Flow Trench Collector Trench Bottom Stage (Sand Filter) Design inches inches inches inches feet Depth of the Bottom Stage (4" minimum ponding) DBS = ® 4 in Surface Area of Bottom Stage ABS = 194 ft Dry Weather Ponded Volume (above sand layer) VBS =1 65 fts IS VBS no less than 0.5% VBMP? OK Depth of ASTM -03 sand (18 inch minimum) - DBS 6" dia. _J Ds = ® 18 inches pert. pipe Ds =18" min. 3" ASTM C 33 Diameter of Subdrains Subdrain Spacing _ ` sand T_ 10" min. ravel _ ® 6 in S= 10 ft. on center 6 gravel Outlet Design 4ssume an orifice area. Based on the nformation provided above, the spreadsheet 3rovides discharge vs. stage data. Enter the volume vs. stage data for each interval. This nformation is used to route the volume through he basin. The size of the orifice is acceptable when the data shows that less than 50% of VBMP has drained in 24 hours, and that 100% 3rawdown occurs within 72 hours. Flow Rate, Q (efs) Q=CA[2g(H-He)]0.5 Discharge Coefficient, Default, C = 0.66 -' Other, C = Orifice Area (ft) 'SIOESLOPES,NU SlEEPER THAN 41 PER DISTRICT BASIN DESIGN GUIDELINE OH OTHER GUIDELINES ISSUED By THE eMc;.JFIaod Control CO -PERMITTEE Trash Rack Basin Design Wafer Surface atoa �_C Pertoraled Dry Weather Water Pleto(1) Surtaoe in Bottom stage W.O. Trash Rack (2) J Sand Filter Layer J C n Gravel Layer (> mm subdrams () Orifice Diameter, d; number of orifices per row, n; and number of orifice rows, N (from the bottom up). or d = 0 0.625 inches n = 5 per row N = 4 rows Aeff =1' 0.011 �ftt per row Aeff =1.533 _ int per row From outflow hydrograph, the time where 50% of VBMP has drained from the basin (24 hour minimum): Time (50%) =; 25.96 -jhrs OK From outflow hydrograph, the time where 100% VBMP has drained from the basin(within 72 hours): Time (100 %) 71.00 1hrs OK Headwater Elev. Discharge Volume At (hrs.) Stage (ft) (cfs) (acre -ft) 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.33 0.0325 0.012 8.92 0.67 0.0786 0.034 4.79 I 1.00 0.1348 0.067 3.74 1.33 0.2000 0.130 4.55 I 1.67 0.2403 0.225 5.22 2.00 0.2740 0.352 5.98 I 2.33 0.3037 0.513 6.74 I 2.67 0.3308 0.708 7.44 I 3.00 0.3556 0.937 8.07 3.33 0.3788 1.176 7.88 3.67 0.4007 1.423 7.67 1 4.00 0.42/1 4.33 4.67 5.00 5.33 5.67 6.00 6.33 6.67 7.00 7.33 7.67 8.00 8.33 8.67 9.00 9.33 9.67 10.00 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: RORIPAUGH INVESTORS 111, LLC (Property Owner's Name) AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: 12340 EI Camino Real, Suite 250 (Property Owner's Mailing Address) San Diego California 92130. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE RECORDING OF A WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR Roripaugh Ranch (Name of Project) TR 29353-1 Lot 8 (Address or Tract Map/Lot No.) Page 1 Water Quality Management Plan Operation and Maintenance Agreement PrepeFly OwneFName: KB Home Coastal Inc. PrepeFty Owner Mailing Address: 36310 Inland Valley Drive Wildomar. Ca 92595. Project Address or Location: TR 29353-1 Lot S Located adjacent to TR 29661-1 in the City of Temecula south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd, West of Butterfield Stage Rd. Project's Assessor Parcel Number: 957-340-055 This Operation and Maintenance Agreement (Agreement) is made in The City of Temecula (City), a municipal agency, located in the County of Riverside, State of California, by (ins ewn^ ` KB HOME Coastal Inc. (BWReF), this (insert day) of (insert month and year) , with the consent of the Property Owner (insert Property owner) WHEREAS, d....'.ded 'n Exhibit ^Q^ nh ^{ ..h'eh exh'hit ' .#Mshed heFete and iReGFPeFated by nfeFennn and has ^a that the O.n eny be deyeleped iR aGGGFE ngGV8FRFReee—u:1h nlnl als ssued by the Gity Rd nlhn agenGies haviRg jwisd rA'n the PFOpeFty; `• WHEREAS, at the time of initial approval of the development project (Project) known as (insert name of project) Roripaugh Ranch within the Property, the City required the Project to generate a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP describes how the Project proposes to remove pollutants and minimize any adverse impacts from the discharge of storm water and non -storm water runoff generated as a result of the Project, and includes structural and non-structural treatment devices, also known as "Best Management Practices" (BMPs), that will be constructed, or installed, or implemented for this purpose. The precise location(s) of these BMPs are depicted in the WQMP, on file with the City; WHEREAS, the Owner signed and certified the WQMP and accepted the requirement to routinely inspect, clean, maintain, repair, reconstruct, and replace the BMPs associated with the Project in order to retain their original intent and effectiveness; WHEREAS, this Agreement is transferable onto subsequent owners, heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, and assigns (collectively "Successors") of this Property, Project, and all associated BMPs; WHEREAS, the 9wneF and Successors are aware that such operation and maintenance requirements are in accordance with, and enforceable under, the City's Municipal Code and State and Federal environmental laws regulating the discharge of pollutants in storm water and non-stormwater runoff, and may also require compliance with Local, State, and Federal laws and regulations pertaining to confined space entry and waste disposal methods in effect at the time such maintenance occurs; Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, the 9wReF and Successors shall be subject to the following conditions: This Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, California, at the expense of the OwReF and shall constitute notice to the 9wReF. and all Successors of the title to said Property of the obligations required by this Agreement. This Agreement shall also be accompanied by a copy of an 'Operation and Maintenance Manual', included in Exhibit "C", providing detailed instructions on how and when each treatment BMP proposed for construction, or installation, or implementation must be inspected, cleaned, maintained, repaired, reconstructed, and replaced, if necessary, (collectively "Maintained") in order to retain their original intent and effectiveness. 2. 9wneF shall, at their sole cost, expense, and liability, routinely maintain all BMPs in a manner assuring peak performance at all times without request or demand from the City or other agency. All reasonable precautions shall be exercised in the removal of any material(s) from the BMPs and the ultimate disposal of the material(s) in a manner consistent with all relevant laws and regulations in effect at the time of the recording of this Agreement. As may be requested from time to time by the City, the QWReF shall provide the City with documentation identifying the inspections, maintenance activities, material(s) and quantity(ies) removed, and disposal destinations. 3. 9wReF hereby provides the City complete access at any time and of any duration during business hours to the BMPs, their immediate vicinity, and all legally accessible areas draining to them upon reasonable notice, or in case of emergency as determined by the City without advance notice, for the purpose of inspecting the BMPs and/or sampling runoff into and/or from the BMPs. The City shall make every effort to minimize interference with the Owner's use of the Property during these inspections and sampling activities. 4. In the event the OwReF fails to accomplish the necessary operation and maintenance obligations required by this Agreement, the 9wReF hereby authorizes the City to perform any maintenance necessary to restore the BMPs to their original intent and effectiveness. OwneF shall reimburse all expenses associated with the City's maintenance activities to the City, including administrative costs, attorney fees, and interest thereon at the maximum rate authorized by the Civil Code. The City may also opt to use the proceeds from any securities posted for the project, or place a lien on the Property in such amount as will fully reimburse the City, to pay for such maintenance in order to guarantee the continued performance of the BMPs. 5. 9wReF shall notify any successor to title of all or part of the Property about the existence of this Agreement and provide such notice and a copy of this Agreement prior to such Successor obtaining an interest in all or part of the Property. Page 3 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Owner hereto affixes their signature as of the date first written above. .,�.,�4-- Name Signature Title Name Signature Title A notary acknowledgement is required for recordation (attach appropriate acknowledgement). Page 4 EXHIBIT A (legal Description of Propertvl BEING A PORTION OF LOT 8 OF TRACT 29353-1 AS SHOWN BY MAPS ON FILE BOOK 334 OF MAPS, PAGES 21 THROUGH 24, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Page 5 EXHIBIT B (Map/Illustration) Page 6 MURRIETA n IT V I C I N I T Y M A P N.T.S. ® EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN TRIBUTARY AREA DETAIL .� OUTLETSTRUCTURE PLAN 2 OUTLET STRUCTURE SECTION p g., 4 LOW -FLOW TRENCH TYPICAL SECTION COLLECTOR TRENCH 5 TYPICAL SECTION EXHIBIT C (Operation and Maintenance Manual) Page 7 BASIN W MAINTENANCE MANUAL I96 ;�10 RORIPAUGH RANCH COMM. ASSOC. Located in the City of Temecula, in the County of Riverside, Ca Prepared For: KB Home Coastal Inc. 36310 Inland Valley Drive Wildomar, CA 92595 Tel. (951) 691-5300 and Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Prepared by: ad�can ENGINEERS 6879 Airport Drive Riverside, CA 92504 Tel. 951.688.0241 Fax 95 1.688.0599 Job No. 8356 Prepared: February 1, 2013 = UVIL CNUIIVCCK/NUNUKVC711VU VLAIVIVINU ENGINEERS 6879AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com 1 Overview........................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Basin Maintenance Manual..............................................................................1-1 1.2 Storm Drain System...................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 General Description and Function of Facility............................................................................1-2 2 Maintenance and Responsibility......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Home Owner's Association Responsibility................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Maintenance Contractor Responsibility...................................................................................2-1 2.3 Safety Precautions..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Maintenance Indicators and Activities......................................................................................2-2 2.4.1 Aesthetic and Functional Maintenance.............................................................................2-2 2.4.2 Preventative Maintenance................................................................................................2-3 2.4.3 Corrective Maintenance....................................................................................................2-3 2.4.4 Maintenance Indicators.....................................................................................................2-4 2.5 Sediment Removal, Testing and Disposal.................................................................................2-5 2.5.1 Sediment Removal.............................................................................................................2-5 2.5.2 Sediment Testing...............................................................................................................2-5 2.5.3 Sediment Disposal..............................................................................................................2-5 3 The Extended Detention Basin.........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Basin Description.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Basin Access.............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Basin Operations.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.4 Basin Inspections.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.5 Basin Maintenance Indicators and Maintenance Activities...................................................... 3-2 3.6 Basin Vegetation and Replanting..............................................................................................3-2 3.7 Required Basin Documentation................................................................................................3-2 Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 Table of Contents ENGINEERS Appendix A: Basin Site Inspection Summary Form Appendix B: Basin Maintenance Summary Form Appendix C: Basin Maintenance Log Appendix D: Additional Information Roripaugh Ranch Community Association January 2013 CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual Table of Contents ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENG/VEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com 1.1 Purpose of the Basin Maintenance Manual The Roripaugh Ranch Community Asociation Extended Detention Basin (Basin W) Maintenance Manual was prepared to help facilitate proper maintenance and operation of the Extended Detention Basin located in a portion of lot 8 of tract 29353-1. The basin has been designed to serve two purposes. The original intent was to mitigate the increased storm water produced by the upstream developed community. More recently, the basin was redesigned to include an extended detention basin to capture and treat pollutants that might be contained in the water. It is important that the system operate efficiently and undergo regular maintenance to ensure the protection of the downstream habitats including the Santa Margarita River and Pacific Ocean. The Roripaugh Ranch Community Association (HOA) or its hired contractor is responsible for fulfilling this requirement. This manual serves as a reference guide and field manual to equip the HOA or its contractor with: • An overview of the basin and its function; • A description of the location of the basin within the City of Temecula; • A description of what types of conditions within the basin indicate or "trigger" the need for maintenance work; • An understanding of the steps required to effectively maintain the basin on a consistent basis; and • Provide reproducible versions of forms, logs, and guidance sheets necessary for recording information while performing inspection and maintenance activities.* 1.2 Storm Drain System Storm water is conveyed to the basin via a series of private property swales, concrete street gutters, catch basins and pipelines. Property swales collect runoff from homes and landscape areas and direct it to streets where it continues to the catch basins specifically placed in the street. Catch basins act as reservoirs for the surface drainage and provide the means for the water to enter the underground pipe network. The pipes eventually terminate in the detention basin where a headwall and rip -rap pad stabilize the basin slopes and reduce flow velocities in the paved extended detention basin forebay. The forebay ponds the runoff behind an earthen berm before allowing the water to flow out via notch type weir and into the low -flow trench at the basin bottom. Flows are dispersed in collector trenches and before terminating in the bottom stage sand filter bed. Flows are regulated using a series of orifice plates, weirs and pipes so as to allow the water sufficient contact time in the basin as designed. * Originals and copies of these completed forms must be kept and maintained by all parties involved in the maintenance oft he Roripaugh Ranch Community Association extended detention basin (Basin 'A') for at least five years. Regular use and secure storage of these documents will assure the City of Temecula, neighboring agencies, and members of the Roripaugh Ranch community that the basin is being properly maintained. Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 1-1 Overview ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com 1.3 General Description and Function of Facility The Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Extended Detention Basin is a water quality Best Management Practice (BMP) in the bottom of the larger detention basin for the community runoff. The infiltration surface lies about 4 feet below the adjacent basin bottom and consists of 4:1 side slopes. The basin is designed to capture the required 85`h percentile design storm using gravity. Storms that exceed this volume will fill the extended detention basin and then continue to utilize the detention basin and its flow control device. Prior to entering the biotreatment area, the flows will first be detained in the basin forebay. Its purpose is to act as a pre-treatment and capture the trash, debris, and sediment. Maintenance is integral because the extended detention basin will see the vast majority of the nuisance flows from resident's irrigation and home washing/maintenance activities. Pollution is mechanically separated from runoff using the following methods: • Forebay to settle out Trash, Debris and Sediment • Settling or Sedimentation • Infiltration into underlying soil -strata via collector trenches • Biofiltration • Evapotranspiration • Evaporation • Filtering via sand media in bottom stage The following figures provide information regarding the location of the project and device details. Additional details related to the function of the basin can be found in Section 3.1. For more information on maintenance activities, see Section 2 and Appendices A, B, and C. Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 1-2 Overview adkan ENGINEERS CML ENGINEERING• SURVEYING• PLANNING 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 . Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Roripaugh Ranch Community Association January 2013 Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual 1-3 Overview ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Figure 2: The Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Extended Detention Basin Water Quality Management Plan and BMP Details Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 1-4 Overview ad Ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com 2.1 Home Owner's Association Responsibility The HOA, or its hired contractor, is responsible for all portions of the storm drain system that is tributary to and that which connects the basin to the adjacent tract's storm drain system. The main basin tasks that are the responsibility of the HOA, or its hired contractor, include: • Signs of erosion • Proper drainage • Aesthetic Appearance A qualified HOA or contract employee should periodically inspect the basin at least twice a year: once before the rainy season (August/September) and once during the rainy season (February/March). For a list of inspection duties, see Appendix A. If the HOA or contract employee detects a problem, they should inform a supervisor as soon as possible to address the situation before the nest storm event occurs. Once the HOA or contract employee becomes aware of the problem, they should dispatch qualified maintenance personnel to correct the problem as soon as possible. The HOA or contract employee must perform routine maintenance activities, such as debris removal, vegetation maintenance, and erosion inspection at least twice a year. Sediment should be removed as needed, or typically every five to ten years. Sediment should be removed from the forebay and vegetated swale annually being that the pre-treatment will have captured more than the infiltration basin itself. 2.2 Maintenance Contractor Responsibility If a maintenance contractor assists with maintenance, some of the potential responsibilities to ensure the system is working efficiently may include, but are not limited to: • Performing engineered water flow functions • Performing detention functions • Protecting surrounding plant life • Maintaining acceptable basin functions Specific maintenance requirements for the maintenance contractor are presented in detail in Section 2.4 of this manual. 2.3 Safety Precautions While performing basin and system maintenance activities, all personnel must observe the following safety precautions at all times: • Minimize time spent on the roadway • Enter the facility via the access road, open the access gate, and park inside the facility • Wear an orange safety vest and appropriate shoes Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 2-1 Maintenance and Responsibility adkanCIVIL ENGINEERING• SURVEYING• PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com • Wear rain gear during a storm event • Be aware of slippery conditions, fast moving water, and unstable ground • Bring adequate lighting to compensate for poor visibility, especially at night • Avoid back strain by using your legs to lift heavy objects • Use care when operating power tools and machinery. Only use them if you are trained in their proper use • Always wear eye protection when working with tools • Maintain balance when working from heights • Avoid sharp edges, such as broken glass • Be aware of overhead dangers • Watch out for fogs and other animal hazards • Avoid edges of fast-moving bodies of water. These edges are usually slippery and unstable during rainy conditions • Do not leave materials, tools, and equipment unattended or blocking walkways • Keep a phone or other means of communication nearby at all times • Never leave open holes unattended or unbarricaded • Clean up your work area before exiting the basin 2.4 Maintenance Indicators and Activities This section provides a brief overview of the maintenance guidelines but it is to be considered in collaboration with the requirements of the Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices published by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. An excerpt regarding Extended Detention Basins as well as the manual's Basin Guidelines are included in Appendix E "Additional Information." 2.4.1 Aesthetic and Functional Maintenance The basin and its surrounding area should be routinely maintained as a clean, natural, and attractive part of the community. Some typical aesthetic maintenance activities are graffiti removal, grass trimming, and weed control. Before conducting maintenance in the basin, review the additional information in Appendix E for details on the landscape design. Regular functional maintenance is required to ensure the basin performs in a safe and effective manner. Functional maintenance consist of both preventative and corrective activities. Reproducible versions of forms, logs and guidance sheets (contained in Appendices A, B and C) necessary for recording vital information while performing operation, inspection, and other basin maintenance activities are included. Originals and copies of these completed forms must be kept and maintained by all parties involved in the maintenance of the Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Extended Detention basin for at least five years. Regular use and secure storage of these documents will assure Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 2-2 Maintenance and Responsibility ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com the City of Temecula, neighboring agencies, and members of the Roripaugh Ranch community that the basin is being properly maintained. As a result, polluted runoff is being properly reduced, treated, and eliminated wherever possible. 2.4.2 Preventative Maintenance Preventative maintenance should be performed on a regular basis, and the records maintenance performed shall be kept for five years. Appendices A and B contain checklists to help track and record preventative maintenance activities, which include: Trimming: Vegetation in the basin should be no higher than 18 inches to prevent establishment of marsh vegetation, stagnation of water, and development of faunal habitats. Trash and Debris Removal: During each inspection and maintenance visit to the site, debris and trash removal should be conducted to reduce the potential for the basin components from clogging and becoming inoperable during storm events. Sediment Management: If alluvial deposits at the inlet structures create zones of ponded water, the deposits should be removed, or graded in the basin to maintain its functionality. Sediment Removal: Surface sediments should be removed when sediment accumulation is either greater than 18 inches or 10 percent of the basin volume, whichever is less. Vegetation inadvertently removed during surface sediment excavation activities should be replaced through reseeding, or replanting. Elimination of Mosquito Breeding Habitats: The most effective mosquito control program is one that eliminates potential breeding habitats. Water standing for more than 72 hours should be drained. Perform vector treatment as needed. 2.4.3 Corrective Maintenance Corrective maintenance is required on an emergency or non -routine basis to correct problems and to restore the intended operation and safe function of the basin. It includes: Structural Repairs: Damage to any structural component of the basin should be promptly repaired. Embankment and Slope Repairs: Damage to the embankments and slopes should be repaired as quickly as possible. Erosion Repair: Where a reseeding, or replanting program has been ineffective, or where other factors have created erosive conditions, corrective steps should be taken to prevent loss of soil. There are a number of corrective measures that can be taken, which include erosion blankets, riprap, sodding, or reducing slow through the area. General Facility Maintenance: In addition to the above elements of corrective maintenance, general corrective maintenance addresses the overall facility and its associated components. If corrective maintenance is being done to one component, the other components should be inspected to see if maintenance is needed. Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 2-3 Maintenance and Responsibility ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com 2.4.4 Maintenance Indicators Maintenance indicators are signs or "triggers" that indicate that the HOA or contract employee needs to check the basin for maintenance needs. Some common triggers include warnings or accounts of: • Standing water • Excessive sediment accumulation • Excessive vegetation growth • Slope instability or erosion Table 1 shows conditions and criteria that trigger the need for specific routine basin maintenance activities. The maintenance activities shown are for those times when the field measurements exceed those of the maintenance indicator. While this table covers routine maintenance, emergencies occasionally arise that require a more urgent, critical response. Table 1: Basin Preventative Maintenance and Routine Inspection Schedule Design Criteria Inspection and Routine Maintenance Indicator Maintenance Activity Frequency Actions Erosion protection of Average plant height is over 18 inches Once during the Cut vegetation to an average planted basin side wet season and height of 6 inches, and remove slope and planted once during the trimmings; remove woody invert dry season vegetation Slope stability Evidence of erosion Annually prior to Reseed/replant barren spots and the wet season break up/loosen the surface if needed; perform preferable before the rainy season. If reseeding/replanting is not successful, install an erosion blanket along the barren spots Inspect for standing Presence of water that has been Annually (72 hours Drain the facility; check the water standing over 72 hours after a storm outlet, and unclog it if necessary event) Inspect for trash and Presence of trash or debris Once during the Remove and dispose of trash and debris wet season and debris once during the dry season Inspect for sediment Sediment depth exceeding the staff Annually Remove and properly dispose of management and the gauge marker sediment; re -grade, if necessary, characterization of and re -vegetate, if necessary sediment for removal Inspect for burrows Presence of ground squirrel holes, Annually and after Firmly backfill wherever burrows voles or gopher mounds vegetation cause seepage, erosion or trimming leakage General maintenance Evidence of damage to inlet Semi-annually: Take corrective action before the inspection structures, outlet structures, side once during the wet season slopes or other features and/or late wet season evidence of significant erosion, graffiti and once during or vandalism, fence damage, etc. the late dry season Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 2-4 Maintenance and Responsibility ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 . Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com 2.5 Sediment Removal, Testing and Disposal 2.5.1 Sediment Removal The types of storm water pollutants that accumulate in sediment vary, but may include contaminants such as heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other organic compounds such as pesticides or solvents (many of which may be considered hazardous wastes). When the sediment level reaches 10% of the total basin volume or 18 inches, the sediment must be removed. Depending on the conditions upstream, sediment removal should be performed once every five to ten years. 2.5.2 Sediment Testing Maintenance personnel should examine the appearance and odor of the solids and liquids removed from the basin to determine whether chemical analyses are necessary. They should also be alert for an especially oily appearance, coloration by antifreeze, or odors of gasoline, solvents, hydrogen sulfide, or other noxious substances. Contaminated material should be separated from other uncontaminated wastes. Mixing wastes of differing qualities could contaminate the entire load and encumber its disposal. The suspected hazardous waste should be analyzed to determine the appropriate disposal method. If basin contamination is suspected, the sediment should be removed from the basin and analyzed to determine its constituents, especially noting the presence of fats, oils, grease (FOG) total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and any other metals. 2.5.3 Sediment Disposal Disposal recommendations depend on the maintenance method used for the waste sediment excavation. For example, disposal methods requiring the use of vector truck which picks up wastewater in addition to sediment differ from those used for shoveling/bobcat sediment removal. Several methods for disposal are available depending on the concentrations of toxins in the waste. Methods can range from recycling the material, to depositing the sediment into appropriate landfills. Sediment removed from a basin is typically found relatively clean and can be disposed of at a local municipal landfill. At the time of disposal, if the wastes are deemed unfit for municipal landfill use, a full and comprehensive testing program should be run for all the constituents outlined under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, which lists concentrations of certain chemicals and their soluble threshold limit concentrations (STI -Cs) and total threshold limit concentrations (TTI -Cs). Chemicals that exceed these concentrations are considered hazardous waste and must be removed from the sediment. Table 2 lists STI -Cs and TTI -Cs for heavy metals according to CCR Title 22. Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 2-5 Maintenance and Responsibility ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Table 2: Soluble and TTLCs for Heavy Metals According to CCR Title 22 Substance Abbreviation STLCt mg/L TTLCZ Wet -Weight mg/kg Antimony Sb 15 500 Arsenic As 5 500 Barium Ba 100 10,000c Beryllium Be 0.75 75 Cadmium Cd 1 100 Chromium (VI) compounds Cr 5 500 Chromium and/or Chromium (III) compounds Cr 5 2,500 Cobalt Co 80 8,000 Copper Cu 25 2,500 Lead Pb 5 1,000 Mercury Hg 0.2 20 Molybdenum Mo 350 3,500e Nickel Ni 20 2,000 Selenium Se 1 100 Silver Ag 5 500 Thallium Ti 7 700 Vanadium V 24 2,400 Zinc Zn 250 5,000 'Soluble Threshold Limit Concetration (STLC) 2Total Threshold Limit Concetration (TTLC) Roripaugh Ranch Community Association January 2013 2-6 Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual Maintenance and Responsibility ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com 3.1 Basin Description The basin is located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the Northeastern portion of the City of Temecula within the community of Roripaugh Ranch. Being a portion of Lot 8 of Tract 29353-1 the basin lies west of Sundance Circle between Lazy K and Skyline Drives. The extended detention basin is situated in the northwest corner of the larger detention basin and extends 4 feet below the adjacent basin. It has been sized using the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. The basin collects and infiltrates the dry weather nuisance flows and first -flush runoff of the west portion of the Roripaugh Ranch community, approximately 50 acres. 3.2 Basin Access The basin is accessible from the southern end of the facility, via the sidewalk that comes off of Skyline Drive. A concrete access ramp provides access to the basin. Figure 2 shows the location of the basin, access, and ramp into the basin. 3.3 Basin Operations The basin collects and infiltrates the dry weather nuisance flows and first -flush runoff of the west portion of the Roripaugh Ranch community via a 42" RCP storm drain line that outlets into the detention basin. After being slowed by the 10' X 20' riprap pad, the flows the forebay and continues to the biotreatment area and sand filter bottom stage. When the storm event exceeds the volume of the extended detention basin, the upper detention basin is utilized as designed to mitigate the incremental increase of the development. 3.4 Basin Inspections The basin should be inspected a minimum of twice a year (before and after the rainy season) and after each significant rain event. Basins should be inspected for: • General aesthetics (graffiti, vandalism, etc.) • Vegetation Management (grass, shrubs, trees) • Erosion and slope stability • Basin performance (fouling, blockage, damage) • Equipement repair/maintenance • Differential settlement • Cracking • Leakage Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 3-1 The Extended Detention Basin ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com • Tree growth on embankment • Condition of riprap in inlet • Sediment accumulation (within basin and at inlet) • Storage of accumulated sediment or other wastes (must be removed before accumulated sediment reaches 10% of original depth) • Vector control • Clogging before and after rainy season, after large storms, and more frequently as needed Basin inspection checklists and logs (Appendices A, B and C) should be completed during each visit to the basin and kept in a field logbook for easy reference. 3.5 Basin Maintenance Indicators and Maintenance Activities General basin maintenance inspection and maintenance activities are described in Section 2.4. This section describes for this basin: • Routine maintenance • Preventative maintenance • Corrective maintenance • Maintenance indicators 3.6 Basin Vegetation and Replanting Basin vegetation provides erosion protection, enhances evapotranspiration and infiltration, and improves pollutant removal. The upper stage basin surface, berms and side slopes shall be planted with native grasses (cuttings or hydroseed is acceptable). Proper landscape management is also required to ensure that the vegetation does not contribute to water pollution through the use of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Landscaping shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the "Basin Guidelines" (Appendix C of the Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices published by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) or other equally acceptable guidelines. The basin vegetation shall be restored, if required, in response to: • Damage or disturbance • Sediment removal • Regrading 7 Required Basin Documentation Reproducible versions of forms, logs and guidance sheets (contained in Appendices A, B and C) necessary for recording vital information while performing operation, inspection, and other basin maintenance activities are included. Originals and copies of these completed forms must be kept and Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 3-2 The Extended Detention Basin adkanCIVIL ENGINEERING• SURVEYING• PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com maintained by all parties involved in the maintenance, including the HOA or its contractor, for at least five years. Regular use and secure storage of these documents will assure the City of Temecula, neighboring agencies, and perhaps most importantly members of the Roripaugh Ranch community that the basin is being properly maintained. As a result, polluted runoff is being properly reduced, treated, and eliminated wherever possible. Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin 'A' Maintenance Manual January 2013 3-3 The Extended Detention Basin ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Roripaugh Ranch Community Asociation Basin Site Inspection Summary Form Condition/informationPART I — General Site Document Review Inspection Date: Time In: Time Out:: Inspector: Estimated time since last Weather Conditions: storm: Estimated beginning of Rain Guage Reading (if storm event: applicable): Sediment and Erosion Control Information Yes No Maintenance Comments/Corrective Action$ Req'd What is the sediment depth, in inches? E:1 ❑ ElDoes this exceed 18 inches or 10% of the basin volume? What is the sediment type and location (where is the sediment accumulation located? (Inlet/Outlet?)) Is there standing water (more than 72 -hours after storm event)? ❑ 1:1 ElIf yes, immediate maintenance is required. Note location in comments. Is there any evidence of erosion? ❑ ❑ ❑ If yes, immediate maintenance is required. Note location in comments. Is there any evidence of embankment slumping or cracking? 1-1 El ElIf yes, immediate maintenance is required. Note location in comments. Location Comments/Corrective Actions Vegetation Information Yes No Maintenance ❑ Is there vegetation greater than 18 inches high? ❑ ❑ If yes, maintenance may be required. Does vegetation cover the entire floor on the lower basin and/or all slopes of ❑ ❑ ❑ the basin and swale? If no, revegetation may be required. Do the irrigation valves function properly and water adequately? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there dead or dying vegetation on the bottom of the basin? El ED ElIf yes, maintenance is required. Location Comments/Corrective Actions Structural Information Yes No Maintenance ❑ Are the rocks and riprap clear of sediment? This is located at the inlet of the ❑ ❑ basin (southwest corner). If no, maintenance is required. Is the standpipe and concrete apron clear of sediment? This is located at the ❑ ❑ ❑ outlet of the basin (southeast corner). If no, maintenance is required. Is there evidence of concrete scour or cracking of structural parts? El E] ElIf yes, and considered major, maintenance is required. Is the entire fence and all locks in safe operating condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ If no, maintenance is required. Is the basin access road accessible? If not, repair or maintenance is required. ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there any other general Maintenance concerns? Aesthetic Concerns Is there any non -trash debris? If so, maintenance may be required. Yes ❑ No ❑ Maintenance Location Comments/Corrective Actions I ❑ Is there any trash? If so, maintenance may be required. ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there any graffiti? If so, maintenance may be required. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Maintenance Location Comments/Corrective Actions Aesthetic Concerns Are there any non -storm water discharges to the basin? If persistent, investigate upstream of the basinif repairs are needed (I.e., broken ❑ ❑ ❑ sprinklers). Additional Notes/Comments: ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 . Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin Site Maintenance Summary Form PART I - General Site Condition/information and Document Review Inspection Date: Time In: Time Out: Inspector: Weather Conditions: Estimated time since last storm: Estimated beginning of Rain Guage Reading (if storm event: Sediment Erosion Control Information Yes No appli<able�: Comments/Corrective Actions and Was sediment removal or sediment management performed? ❑ ❑ Was erosion repair (including vegetative stabilization performed)? ❑ ❑ Was embankment/slope repair performed? ❑ ❑ Was any other Maintenance performed? (Describe) Vegetation Information ❑ ❑ Yes No Comments/Corrective Actions Was basin grass mowing/trimming performed? ❑ ❑ Was vegetation trimming/tree pruning performed? ❑ ❑ Was basin vegetation replanting performed? ❑ ❑ Was weed control performed? Structural Information ❑ ❑ Yes No Comments/Corrective Actions Were any structural repairs performed? (Describe) ❑ ❑ Was any additional general maintenance performed? (Describe) ❑ ❑ Aesthetic Concerns Yes No Maintenance Location Comments/Corrective Actions Was debris and trash removal performed? ❑ ❑ I❑ Was graffiti removal performed? ❑ ❑ ❑ Additional Notes/Comments: ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fax: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Roripaugh Ranch Community Association Basin Site Maintenance Summary Form Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: Date: Inspector Name: Basin: Maintenance Performed: ad ka n CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6879 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 Tel: 951.688.0241 • Fox: 951.688.0599 www.adkan.com Appendix 1Information Extended Detention Basin Description Dry extended detention ponds (a.ka. dry ponds, extended detention basins, detention ponds, extended detention ponds) are basins whose outlets have been designed to detain the stormwater runoff from a water quality design storm for some minimum time (e.g., 48 hours) to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle. Unlike wet ponds, these facilities do not have a large permanent pool. They can also be used to provide flood control by including additional flood detention storage. California Experience Caltrans constructed and monitored g extended detention basins in southern California with design drain times Of 72 hours. Four of the basins were earthen, less costly and had substantially better load reduction because of infiltration that occurred, than the concrete basin. The Caltrans study reaffirmed the flexibility and performance of this conventional technology. The small headloss and few siting constraints suggest that these devices are one of the most applicable technologies for stormwater treatment. Advantages ■ Due to the simplicity of design, extended detention basins are relatively easy and inexpensive to construct and operate. ■ Extended detention basins can provide substantial capture of sediment and the toxics fraction associated with particulates. ■ Widespread application with sufficient capture volume can provide significant control of channel erosion and enlargement caused by changes to flow frequency TC -22 Design Considerations ■ TributaryArea ■ Area Required ■ Hydraulic Head Targeted Constituents 2 Sediment Z Nutrients Rl Trash 2 Metals 0 Bacteria Rl Oil and Grease 2 Organics Legend (Removal Effectiveness) • Low ■ High Medium January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 10 Errata 5-06 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com TC -22 Extended Detention Basin relationships resulting from the increase of impervious cover in a watershed. Limitations ■ Limitation of the diameter of the orifice may not allow use of extended detention in watersheds of less than 5 acres (would require an orifice with a diameter of less than 0.5 inches that would be prone to clogging). Dry extended detention ponds have only moderate pollutant removal when compared to some other structural stormwater practices, and they are relatively ineffective at removing soluble pollutants. ■ Although wet ponds can increase property values, dry ponds can actually detract from the value of a home due to the adverse aesthetics of dry, bare areas and inlet and outlet structures. Design and Sizing Guidelines ■ Capture volume determined by local requirements or sized to treat 85% of the annual runoff volume. ■ Outlet designed to discharge the capture volume over a period of hours. ■ Length to width ratio of at least 1.5:1 where feasible. ■ Basin depths optimally range from z to 5 feet. ■ Include energy dissipation in the inlet design to reduce resuspension of accumulated sediment. ■ A maintenance ramp and perimeter access should be included in the design to facilitate access to the basin for maintenance activities and for vector surveillance and control. ■ Use a draw down time of 48 hours in most areas of California. Draw down times in excess of 48 hours may result in vector breeding, and should be used only after coordination with local vector control authorities. Draw down times of less than 48 hours should be limited to BMP drainage areas with coarse soils that readily settle and to watersheds where warming may be determined to downstream fisheries. Construction/ Inspection Considerations ■ Inspect facility after first large to storm to determine whether the desired residence time has been achieved. ■ When constructed with small tributary area, orifice sizing is critical and inspection should verify that flow through additional openings such as bolt holes does not occur. Performance One objective of stormwater management practices can be to reduce the flood hazard associated with large storm events by reducing the peak flow associated with these storms. Dry extended detention basins can easily be designed for flood control, and this is actually the primary purpose of most detention ponds. 2 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment Errata 5-06 www.cabmphandbooks.com Extended Detention Basin TC -22 Dry extended detention basins provide moderate pollutant removal, provided that the recommended design features are incorporated. Although they can be effective at removing some pollutants through settling, they are less effective at removing soluble pollutants because of the absence of a permanent pool. Several studies are available on the effectiveness of dry extended detention ponds including one recently concluded by Caltrans (2002). The load reduction is greater than the concentration reduction because of the substantial infiltration that occurs. Although the infiltration of stormwater is clearly beneficial to surface receiving waters, there is the potential for groundwater contamination. Previous research on the effects of incidental infiltration on groundwater quality indicated that the risk of contamination is minimal. There were substantial differences in the amount of infiltration that were observed in the earthen basins during the Caltrans study. On average, approximately 40 percent of the runoff entering the unlined basins infiltrated and was not discharged. The percentage ranged from a high of about 6o percent to a low of only about 8 percent for the different facilities. Climatic conditions and local water table elevation are likely the principal causes of this difference. The least infiltration occurred at a site located on the coast where humidity is higher and the basin invert is within a few meters of sea level. Conversely, the most infiltration occurred at a facility located well inland in Los Angeles County where the climate is much warmer and the humidity is less, resulting in lower soil moisture content in the basin floor at the beginning of storms. Vegetated detention basins appear to have greater pollutant removal than concrete basins. In the Caltrans study, the concrete basin exported sediment and associated pollutants during a number of storms. Export was not as common in the earthen basins, where the vegetation appeared to help stabilize the retained sediment. Siting Criteria Dry extended detention ponds are among the most widely applicable stormwater management practices and are especially useful in retrofit situations where their low hydraulic head requirements allow them to be sited within the constraints of the existing storm drain system. In addition, many communities have detention basins designed for flood control. It is possible to modify these facilities to incorporate features that provide water quality treatment and/or channel protection. Although dry extended detention ponds can be applied rather broadly, designers need to ensure that they are feasible at the site in question. This section provides basic guidelines for siting dry extended detention ponds. In general, dry extended detention ponds should be used on sites with a minimum area of 5 acres. With this size catchment area, the orifice size can be on the order of 0.5 inches. On smaller sites, it can be challenging to provide channel or water quality control because the orifice diameter at the outlet needed to control relatively small storms becomes very small and thus prone to clogging. In addition, it is generally more cost-effective to control larger drainage areas due to the economies of scale. Extended detention basins can be used with almost all soils and geology, with minor design adjustments for regions of rapidly percolating soils such as sand. In these areas, extended detention ponds may need an impermeable liner to prevent ground water contamination. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 10 Errata 5-06 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com TC -22 Extended Detention Basin The base of the extended detention facility should not intersect the water table. A permanently wet bottom may become a mosquito breeding ground. Research in Southwest Florida (Santana et al., 1994) demonstrated that intermittently flooded systems, such as dry extended detention ponds, produce more mosquitoes than other pond systems, particularly when the facilities remained wet for more than 3 days following heavy rainfall. A study in Prince George's County, Maryland, found that stormwater management practices can increase stream temperatures (Galli, 199o). Overall, dry extended detention ponds increased temperature by about 5°F. In cold water streams, dry ponds should be designed to detain stormwater for a relatively short time (i.e., 24 hours) to minimize the amount of warming that occurs in the basin. Additional Design Guidelines In order to enhance the effectiveness of extended detention basins, the dimensions of the basin must be sized appropriately. Merely providing the required storage volume will not ensure maximum constituent removal. By effectively configuring the basin, the designer will create a long flow path, promote the establishment of low velocities, and avoid having stagnant areas of the basin. To promote settling and to attain an appealing environment, the design of the basin should consider the length to width ratio, cross-sectional areas, basin slopes and pond configuration, and aesthetics (Young et al., 1996). Energy dissipation structures should be included for the basin inlet to prevent resuspension of accumulated sediment. The use of stilling basins for this purpose should be avoided because the standing water provides a breeding area for mosquitoes. Extended detention facilities should be sized to completely capture the water quality volume. A micropool is often recommended for inclusion in the design and one is shown in the schematic diagram. These small permanent pools greatly increase the potential for mosquito breeding and complicate maintenance activities; consequently, they are not recommended for use in California. A large aspect ratio may improve the performance of detention basins; consequently, the outlets should be placed to maximize the flowpath through the facility. The ratio of flowpath length to width from the inlet to the outlet should be at least 1.5:1(L: W)!""'^�: where feasible. Basin depths optimally range from 2 to 5 feet. ,� a The facility's drawdown time should be regulated by an orifice or weir. In general, the outflow structure should have a trash rack or other acceptable means of preventing clogging at the entrance to the outflow pipes. The outlet design implemented by Caltrans in the facilities constructed in San Diego County used an outlet riser with orifices ar� Figure 1 Example of Extended Detention Outlet Structure 4 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment Errata 5-06 www.cabmphandbooks.com Extended Detention Basin TC -22 sized to discharge the water quality volume, and the riser overflow height was set to the design storm elevation. A stainless steel screen was placed around the outlet riser to ensure that the orifices would not become clogged with debris. Sites either used a separate riser or broad crested weir for overflow of runoff for the 25 and greater year storms. A picture of a typical outlet is presented in Figure 1. The outflow structure should be sized to allow for complete drawdown of the water quality volume in 72 hours. No more than 50% of the water quality volume should drain from the facility within the first 24 hours. The outflow structure can be fitted with a valve so that discharge from the basin can be halted in case of an accidental spill in the watershed. Summary of Design Recommendations (1) Facility Sizing - The required water quality volume is determined by local regulations or the basin should be sized to capture and treat 85% of the annual runoff volume. See Section 5.5.1 of the handbook for a discussion of volume -based design. Basin Configuration — A high aspect ratio may improve the performance of detention basins; consequently, the outlets should be placed to maximize the flowpath through the facility. The ratio of flowpath length to width from the inlet to the outlet should be at least 1.5:1 (L: W). The flowpath length is defined as the distance from the inlet to the outlet as measured at the surface. The width is defined as the mean width of the basin. Basin depths optimally range from 2 to 5 feet. The basin may include a sediment forebay to provide the opportunity for larger particles to settle out. A micropool should not be incorporated in the design because of vector concerns. For online facilities, the principal and emergency spillways must be sized to provide I.o foot of freeboard during the 25 -year event and to safely pass the flow from loo -year storm. (2) Pond Side Slopes - Side slopes of the pond should be 3:1(H:V) or flatter for grass stabilized slopes. Slopes steeper than 3:1 (H:V) must be stabilized with an appropriate slope stabilization practice. (3) Basin Lining — Basins must be constructed to prevent possible contamination of groundwater below the facility. (4) Basin Inlet — Energy dissipation is required at the basin inlet to reduce resuspension of accumulated sediment and to reduce the tendency for short-circuiting. (5) Outflow Structure - The facility's drawdown time should be regulated by a gate valve or orifice plate. In general, the outflow structure should have a trash rack or other acceptable means of preventing clogging at the entrance to the outflow pipes. The outflow structure should be sized to allow for complete drawdown of the water quality volume in 72 hours. No more than 50% of the water quality volume should drain from the facility within the first 24 hours. The outflow structure should be fitted with a valve so that discharge from the basin can be halted in case of an accidental spill in the watershed. This same valve also can be used to regulate the rate of discharge from the basin. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 10 Errata 5-06 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com TC -22 Extended Detention Basin The discharge through a control orifice is calculated from: Q = CA(2g(H-Ho))° 5 where: Q = discharge (ft3/s) C = orifice coefficient A = area of the orifice (ft2) g = gravitational constant (32.2) H = water surface elevation (ft) Ho= orifice elevation (ft) Recommended values for C are o.66 for thin materials and o.8o when the material is thicker than the orifice diameter. This equation can be implemented in spreadsheet form with the pond stage/volume relationship to calculate drain time. To do this, use the initial height of the water above the orifice for the water quality volume. Calculate the discharge and assume that it remains constant for approximately 10 minutes. Based on that discharge, estimate the total discharge during that interval and the new elevation based on the stage volume relationship. Continue to iterate until H is approximately equal to Ho. When using multiple orifices the discharge from each is summed. (6) Splitter Box - When the pond is designed as an offline facility, a splitter structure is used to isolate the water quality volume. The splitter box, or other flow diverting approach, should be designed to convey the 25 -year storm event while providing at least 1.o foot of freeboard along pond side slopes. (7) Erosion Protection at the Outfall - For online facilities, special consideration should be given to the facility's outfall location. Flared pipe end sections that discharge at or near the stream invert are preferred. The channel immediately below the pond outfall should be modified to conform to natural dimensions, and lined with large stone riprap placed over filter cloth. Energy dissipation may be required to reduce flow velocities from the primary spillway to non-erosive velocities. (8) Safety Considerations - Safety is provided either by fencing of the facility or by managing the contours of the pond to eliminate dropoffs and other hazards. Earthen side slopes should not exceed 3:1 (H:V) and should terminate on a flat safety bench area. landscaping can be used to impede access to the facility. The primary spillway opening must not permit access by small children. Outfall pipes above 48 inches in diameter should be fenced. Maintenance Routine maintenance activity is often thought to consist mostly of sediment and trash and debris removal; however, these activities often constitute only a small fraction of the maintenance hours. During a recent study by Caltrans, 72 hours of maintenance was performed annually, but only a little over 7 hours was spent on sediment and trash removal. The largest recurring activity was vegetation management, routine mowing. The largest absolute number of hours was associated with vector control because of mosquito breeding that occurred in the stilling basins (example of standing water to be avoided) installed as energy dissipaters. In most cases, basic housekeeping practices such as removal of debris accumulations and vegetation 6 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment Errata 5-06 www.cabmphandbooks.com Extended Detention Basin TC -22 management to ensure that the basin dewaters completely in 48-72 hours is sufficient to prevent creating mosquito and other vector habitats. Consequently, maintenance costs should be estimated based primarily on the mowing frequency and the time required. Mowing should be done at least annually to avoid establishment of woody vegetation, but may need to be performed much more frequently if aesthetics are an important consideration. Typical activities and frequencies include: ■ Schedule semiannual inspection for the beginning and end of the wet season for standing water, slope stability, sediment accumulation, trash and debris, and presence of burrows. ■ Remove accumulated trash and debris in the basin and around the riser pipe during the semiannual inspections. The frequency of this activity maybe altered to meet specific site conditions. ■ Trim vegetation at the beginning and end of the wet season and inspect monthly to prevent establishment of woody vegetation and for aesthetic and vector reasons. ■ Remove accumulated sediment and re -grade about every 10 years or when the accumulated sediment volume exceeds 10 percent of the basin volume. Inspect the basin each year for accumulated sediment volume. Cost Construction Cost The construction costs associated with extended detention basins vary considerably. One recent study evaluated the cost of all pond systems (Brown and Schueler, 1997). Adjusting for inflation, the cost of dry extended detention ponds can be estimated with the equation: C = 12.4V°76o where: C = Construction, design, and permitting cost, and V = Volume (ft3). Using this equation, typical construction costs are: $ 41,60o for a 1 acre-foot pond $ 239,000 for a 10 acre-foot pond $ 1,380,000 for a loo acre-foot pond Interestingly, these costs are generally slightly higher than the predicted cost of wet ponds (according to Brown and Schueler, 1997) on a cost per total volume basis, which highlights the difficulty of developing reasonably accurate construction estimates. In addition, a typical facility constructed by Caltrans cost about $160,00o with a capture volume of only 0.3 ac -ft. An economic concern associated with dry ponds is that they might detract slightly from the value of adjacent properties. One study found that dry ponds can actually detract from the January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 10 Errata 5-06 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com TC -22 Extended Detention Basin perceived value of homes adjacent to a dry pond by between 3 and 10 percent (Emmerling- Dinovo, 1995). Maintenance Cost For ponds, the annual cost of routine maintenance is typically estimated at about 3 to 5 percent of the construction cost (EPA website). Alternatively, a community can estimate the cost of the maintenance activities outlined in the maintenance section. Table 1 presents the maintenance costs estimated by Caltrans based on their experience with five basins located in southern California. Again, it should be emphasized that the vast majority of hours are related to vegetation management (mowing). Table 1 Estimated Average Annual Maintenance Effort Activity Labor Hours Equipment & Cost Material ($) Inspections 183 Maintenance 49 126 2282 Vector Control Administration Materials 132 535 535 Total 56 $668 $3,132 References and Sources of Additional Information Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Storm water BMPs in the Mid -Atlantic Region. Prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium. Edgewater, MD. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 1992. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual—Volume 3: Best Management Practices. Denver, CO. Emmerling-Dinovo, C. 1995. Stormwater Detention Basins and Residential Locational Decisions. Water Resources Bulletin 31(3): 515-521 Galli, J. 19go. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. GKY, 1989, Outlet Hydraulics of Extended Detention Facilities for the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. MacRae, C. 1996. Experience from Morphological Research on Canadian Streams: Is Control of the Two -Year Frequency Runoff Event the Best Basis for Stream Channel Protection? In Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. American Society of Civil Engineers. Edited by L. Roesner. Snowbird, UT. pp. 144-162. 8 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment Errata 5-06 www.cabmphandbooks.com Extended Detention Basin TC -22 Maryland Dept of the Environment, 2000, Maryland Stormwater Design Manual: Volumes 1 & 2, prepared by MDE and Center for Watershed Protection. httu: / /www.mde.state.md.us/environment/wma/stormwatermanual/index.html Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer. 2002. The Dark Side Of Stormwater Runoff Management: Disease Vectors Associated With Structural BMPs. Stormwater 3(2): 24-39• Santana, F., J. Wood, R. Parsons, and S. Chamberlain. 1994 Control of Mosquito Breeding in Permitted Stormwater Systems. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL. Schueler, T. 1997. Influence of Ground Water on Performance of Stormwater Ponds in Florida. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4)525-528• Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. Young, G.K., et al., 1996, Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality, Publication No. FHWA-PD-96-032, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. Information Resources Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), Environmental Quality Resources, and Loiederman Associates. 1997. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. Draft. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1997. Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993• Guidance Specifying Management Measuresfor Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA -84o -B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 9 of 10 Errata 5-06 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com TC -22 Extended Detention Basin OF SAFETY STORM "lam j'.J•SPILLWAY EMERGENCY {\�. OUTFALL 1 PLAN VIEW FILTER DIAPHRAGM Schematic of an Extended Detention Basin (MDE, 2000) 10 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment Errata 5-06 www.cabmphandbooks.com 3.6 Extended Detention Basin Type of BMP LID - Biotreatment Treatment Mechanisms Sedimentation, Infiltration, Biofiltration, Evapotranspiration, and Evaporation Minimum Tributary Drainage Area S acres Other Names Enhanced Water Quality Basin Overview The Extended Detention Basin (EDB) is designed to detain the design volume of stormwater, VBMP, and maximize opportunities for volume losses through infiltration, evaporation, evapotranspiration and surface wetting. Additional pollutant removal is provided through sedimentation, in which pollutants can attach to sediment accumulated in the basin through the process of settling. Stormwater enters the EDB through a foreboy where any trash, debris, and sediment accumulate for easy removal. Flows from the forebay enter the basin which is vegetated with native grasses that enhance infiltration and evapotranspiration, and which is interspersed with gravel -filled trenches that help further enhance infiltration. Water that does not get infiltrated or evapotranspired is conveyed to the bottom stage of the basin. At the bottom stage of the basin, low or incidental dry weather flows willbe treated through a sand filter and collected in a subdrain structure. Any additional flows will be detained in the basin for an extended period by incorporating an outlet structure that is more restrictive than a traditional detention basin outlet. The restrictive outlet structure extends the drawdown time of the basin which further allows particles and associated pollutants to settle out before exiting the basin, while maximizing opportunities for additional incidental volume losses. Riverside Counn - Lou, Impact Development BhiP Design Handbook Page 1 rev. 9120// EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN BMP FACT SHEET TOP OF BOTTOM SIDE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 4H:1V BASIN STAGE UNLESS NOTED EULISBSN GUIINS OR OTHER GIDEIINEPERFORATED PIPE ISSUED BY THE ENGINEERING AUTHORITY SUBDRAIN `EAA) DR PLANNING AUTHORITY ,/ IIPP i) I/ BpgV V 'ell V ACCESS TO OUTLET V �[/V SLOPETOLOW- OW TRENCH v V OUTLET WITH TRASH V LOW A V . V // T RACK PER W0501 'OREBAY Y FLOW V SIZE NOTCH -TYPE WEIR VOLUME O SGR NUTE9 FOR�Y. INFUU.)_ PAVED BOTTOM � r LCp GRAVEJ GRAVEL FILLED COLLECTOR TRENCH MIN SECTION COLLECTOR TRENCH V V V V TRENCH V V\\ V V PLAN MIN --.I PRS 24' MIN .. SECTION A+A LOW FLOW TRENCH RT /— 48'W 21'D GRAVEL FILLEDLOW MIN BOTTOM STAGE TRENCH W VOL -0.5%V " TER SURFACE Gle Do ON� _..Y........ . _.. _.. _.. _.. _. .. _. . =1%MIN rBASIN VOWME� kTS 1C SAND (MIN) Es SECTION FILTER DRAIN Figure 1 — Extended Detention Basin OUTLET WORKS (SEE W0501 DETAILS) LOWEST ORIFICE DRAWING NOTES 1O AASHTO NO, 37 OR 67 COARSE AGGREGATE LAYER FINE AGGREGATE PER ASTM C -M. 3 PASHTO NO. 2 GRAVEL LAYER GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX B.'UNDERDRAINS' FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING UNDERORAWS 2. SEE RIVERSIDE COVNIY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX C •'BASIN GUIDELINES' FOR ADDITIONAL GENERAL BASIN INFORMATION Riverside CountY - Low Impact Development BAfP Design Handbook rev. 9/2011 Page 2 EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN BMP FACT SHEET Siting Considerations Soils: EDBs can be used with almost all soils and geology. However, pollutant removal effectiveness is greatly improved when the underlying soil permits at least some infiltration. Tributary Area: EDBs should only be used where the tributary drainage area is at least 5 acres, since meeting the draw -down requirements (discussed below) for smaller areas would result in very small outlet orifice diameters which would be prone to clogging. Proximity to Receiving Waters: All site runoff must be treated to the MEP with appropriate BMPs before being discharged into Receiving Waters; as such the EDB cannot be constructed in-line within Receiving Waters. Setbacks: Due to the infiltration characteristics incorporated into the EDB design, the lowest pervious point (beneath the filter drain) of the extended detention facility should be a minimum of 10' above the seasonal high groundwater table. All other setbacks shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the "Basin Guidelines" (Appendix C) or other guidelines issued by the Engineering Authority (EA). Basin Guidelines: See Section 1 of the "Basin Guidelines" (Appendix C) for additional requirements (i.e., fencing, maintenance access, etc.) that may be required by the Engineering Authority (EA). Landscaping Requirements Basin vegetation provides erosion protection, enhances evapotranspiration and infiltration, and improves pollutant removal. The upper stage basin surface, berms and side slopes shall be planted with native grasses. Proper landscape management is also required to ensure that the vegetation does not contribute to water pollution through the use of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Landscaping shall be in accordance with applicable standards of the "Basin Guidelines" (Appendix C) or other guidelines issued by the EA. Riverside Conn,- Low Gnpnct Development BMP Dcsign Handbook Page 3 rev. 912011 EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN BMP FACT SHEET Maintenance Guidelines Riverside Connor- Low Impact Development BMP Design landbook Page 4 rev. 912011 Schedule Inspection and Maintenance Activity During every scheduled • Maintain vegetation as needed. Use of fertilizers, pesticides and maintenance check (per below), herbicides should be strongly avoided to ensure they don't contribute and as needed at other times to water pollution. If appropriate native plant selections and other IPM methods are used, such products shouldn't be needed. If such projects are used: o Care should be taken to avoid contact with the low - flow or other trenches, and the media filter in the bottom stage. o Products shall be applied in accordance with their labeling, especially in relation to application to water, and in areas subjected to flooding. o Fertilizers should not be applied within 15 days before, after, or during the rainy season. • No ponded water should be present for more than 72 hours to avoid nuisance or vector problems. No algae formation should be visible. Correct problems as needed. Annually. If possible, schedule • Remove debris and litter from the entire basin these inspections before the • Inspect hydraulic and structural facilities. Examine the outlet for beginning of the rain season to clogging, the embankment and spillway integrity, as well as damage allow for any repairs to occur to any structural element. before rains occur. . Check for erosion, slumping and overgrowth. Repair as needed. . Inspect sand media at the filter drain to verify it is allowing acceptable infiltration. Scarify top 3 inches by raking the filter drain's sand surface annually. • Check the media filter underdrains (via the cleanout) for damage or clogging. Repair as needed. . Remove accumulated sediment and debris from the forebay, and ensure that the notch weir is clear and will allow proper drainage. • Check gravel filled low flow and collector trenches for sediment buildup and repair as needed. Every 5 years or sooner . Remove the top 3 inches of sand from the filter drain and backfill with (depending on whether observed 3 inches of new sand to return the sand layer to its original depth. drain times to empty the basin When scarification or removal of the top 3 inches of sand is no longer are less than 72 hours). effective, remove and replace sand filter layer. Whenever substantial sediment • Remove accumulated sediment from the bottom of the basin. accumulation has occurred. Removal should extend to original basin depth. Riverside Connor- Low Impact Development BMP Design landbook Page 4 rev. 912011 APPENDIX C — BASIN GUIDELINES This appendix is broken up into two sections. Section I presents guidelines and standards for the design and maintenance of water quality and increased runoff basins used within Riverside County. Applicable water quality basins include infiltration, sand filter and extended detention basins but do not include Bioretention BMPs. Section 2 is devoted to guidelines and standards for debris basins. Regional Basins are only loosely governed by this document and are largely considered on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines are intended to be used on both private and public facilities throughout Riverside County and shall be adhered to for all facilities to be maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District). It is anticipated that County Transportation, Coachella Valley Water District and the City Engineer for incorporated cities within the County may choose to alter these guidelines and may have different/additional requirements. These entities, along with the District, will be referred to as the Engineering Authority (EA). Similarly, County or City Planning Departments, Parks Departments and Parks Districts may also have different/additional requirements. These entities will be referred to as the Planning Authority (PA). Both the EA and PA should be consulted regarding their specific requirements. Section 1- Detention and Water Quality Basins 1.1 General Criteria Off-line versus In -stream Mitigation — All water quality mitigation basins must be flow- through. In -stream mitigation is extremely difficult to accomplish unless the basin is designed to accommodate all upstream tributary area and to mitigate for all impacts due to upstream development. Therefore most EAs will not allow in -stream water quality mitigation basins. It shall be noted that while flow mitigation BMPs may be allowed to be constructed within `jurisdictional waters", water quality mitigation BMPs will not be permitted. Dam Safety Compliance — Basin designs that would be considered "jurisdictional" and fall under the Division of Safety of Dams (DSoD) review are not recommended. Standard Details - Most EAs would prefer standardization of elements of outlet structures that are likely to wear (e.g., trash racks). Outflow control structures shall be designed in accordance with the EA's standards unless site-specific conditions preclude it. The District requires the use of Standard Drawing WQ501 for most basins. However a modified District CBI10 overflow outlet is recommended for infiltration and sand filter basins. Minor modifications to provide supplemental hydraulic routing characteristics above the water quality storage volume are acceptable. General Sizing Criteria — These guidelines relate to the basic features to be included in the various types of basins and the general geometries of the basins design criteria. This Ri,owide Counlr- Low lmpacl Development BMP Design llpnd&rznk rev. 912011 Page I appendix does not include the volumetric sizing of facilities. Follow the appropriate increased runoff guidelines or BMP fact sheet sizing. Geotechnical Reports — A geotechnical report prepared by either a licensed geotechnical engineer, civil engineer or certified engineering geologist is required for all basins. The minimum content of the Geotechnical report shall include the following: • Slope stability - Discussion shall include the affect the basin may have on the stability of adjacent slopes as a result of the basin's proposed location. • Compaction, cut and fill - Issues due to soil compaction and/or cut and fill conditions with regards to the safety and effectives of the basin shall be discussed. • Setbacks from buildings, slopes, wells - The report shall include recommendations for the minimum setback required from buildings, onsite walls, and slopes. In addition, the report shall determine the location of any pre-existing wells (onsite or offsite) and clarify that the minimum 100 foot horizontal setback has been maintained. • Embankment design - For embankments over 5 feet in height, the geotechnical report shall include recommendations as to its construction and clarify that the embankment meets the requirements herein. • Boring logs - Boring logs shall be provided within the report and a discussion of their findings included. Any subsurface conditions which may be pertinent to the safety and effectiveness of the basin shall be discussed. • High Groundwater Level - The historic high groundwater level shall be determined. It shall be clarified that a minimum 10 foot vertical separation from the bottom of the basin to the top of the historic high groundwater level will be maintained. In addition, where infiltration basins are to be utilized on the site the following topics shall be discussed: • Existing Conditions (i.e., legacy pollutants) - Where existing soil contains unusually high levels of pollutants, the report shall clarify the extent of the pollution, mitigation efforts and the viability of using an infiltration BMP effectively as a result. • Infiltration Testing - The use of infiltration BMPs may require an infiltration rate be established as described in Appendix A, "Infiltration Testing Guidelines". An infiltration testing report may be required and documented as described therein Parking Lot Detention - Parking lots shall not be used to provide additional surface (above ground) storage for either water quality BM Ps or to address HCOCs. Bive side Conon• - L,, v Impact Development BNP Design Handbook rev. 9/2011 Page 2 Seeps and Springs- Intermittent seeps along cut slopes are typically fed by a shallow groundwater source (interflow) flowing along a relatively impermeable soil stratum. These flows are precipitation driven and should discontinue after a few weeks of dry weather. No special provisions are needed when directing these flows through the basin. However, more continuous seeps and springs, which extend through longer dry periods, are likely from a deeper groundwater source. When continuous flows are intercepted and directed through basins, adjustments to the approved facility design may be required to account for the additional base flow (unless already considered in design). Privately Owned Basins - All of the criteria herein apply to privately maintained basins except that retaining walls may be used for a portion of interior slopes. Privately owned basins are only acceptable for commercial projects, multi -family residential projects and single family residential communities with a viable maintenance mechanism. Retaining walls may not be used to support water impounding embankments. Retaining walls shall not exceed one third of the outside perimeter of the basin. Detailed structural design calculations must be submitted with every retaining wall proposal. A fence shall be provided along the top of the wall. The use of retaining walls in a basin requires approval prior to tentative project approval. The EA or PA may reject the proposed use of retaining walls due to aesthetic and maintenance concerns relating to nuisance and graffiti abatement. 1.2 - Basin Grading Parameters Basins must meet the following requirements for side slopes, fencing, and embankments: Interior Side Slopes - At least 50 percent of the facility perimeter shall have interior sides no steeper than 4H: IV and in no case steeper than 2H: IV (even if fenced) to minimize safety risks. Side slopes shall be no steeper than 4H:1 V whenever adjacent to down -gradient external property lines, roadways, sidewalks and trails. Embankments - Embankment fill slopes (external and internal) may be no steeper than 4:1 with no exceptions. Basin embankment height will be based on the vertical distance from the design overflow water surface (typically the spillway invert elevation) to the lowest downstream toe of embankment fill. Basin embankments higher than 5 feet shall require design by a geotechnical engineer and shall have a top width not less than 20 feet. For embankments 5 feet or less in height, the minimum top width shall be 6 feet. Embankments for water quality basins may not exceed 3 feet in height. Setbacks - All basin grading impacts shall be set back a minimum of 6 feet from down - gradient external property lines. This requirement applies to both the top of a cut -slope and the toe of any exterior slope embankment, along with rip -rap energy dissipaters relative to the property line (excluding road right of way). The cut -slope setback requirement is intended to avoid situations where future offsite grading/cut-slopes could turn an incised Riverside Counir - Law Impact Development HMP Design Handbook rev. 912011 Page 3 basin into an embankment -impounded reservoir. For all cases, depending on the amount of discharge and site characteristics, additional setback may be required unless appropriate easements are secured from the affected property owner(s). There shall be a minimum 6 foot setback between a basin and an adjacent slope 4:1 or steeper measured horizontally from the basin hinge to the toe of the slope. 6'minimum bench/setback Basin / Hinge Adjacent side slope 4:1 or steeper Riverside Cmallr- [tea /mp.0 Derelopmem RMP D,ngn Hmrdbuuk rev. 9/2011 Page 4 Forebay - A forebay shall be placed at each inlet to the basin to allow for the settlement and collection of larger particles. A relatively smooth concrete bottom surface should be provided to facilitate mechanical removal of accumulated sediment, trash and debris. A rock or concrete berm separates the forebay from the remainder of the basin. The forebay's design volume must be from 3 to 5% of the design volume, with the exception of infiltration and sand filter basins whose forebays should be 0.5% of the design volume. A full height notch -type weir shall be made through the berm to convey water to the main body of the basin. This notch shall be offset from the inflow streamline to prevent low -flows from short circuiting. Basin Floor Slopes - Surface slopes should be kept at a minimum to allow for as much infiltration/groundwater recharge as is possible while still meeting vector concerns. All detention and extended detention basins shall have transverse and longitudinal bottom surface slopes of 1% minimum. For infiltration and sand filter basins, the basin floor should be level. Gravel filled low -flow trench Dry Weather Flow Management — All increased runoff or extended detention basins (excluding infiltration or sand filter basins) shall be designed to accommodate dry weather flows without impairing wet weather function or creating potential nuisance or maintenance issues. The basin shall have a network of gravel filled low -flow and collector trenches covering the entire basin floor area along with a sand filter drain adjacent to the outlet structure. See Figure 1 on following page. A 48 -inch wide by 24 -inch deep low -flow trench conveys flow from the forebay to the filter drain. With a mild longitudinal slope of at least I% to promote infiltration, the unlined low - flow trench shall be filled with 2" gravel (ASTM No. 2 or similar) to the finished surface and shall not use perforated subdrains. Collector trenches beneath the top stage shall be arranged in accordance with Figure 1 with a maximum slope of 0.5% to promote infiltration and must extend from the low -flow channel to the toe of the basin side slopes. They shall be 18 -inches wide by 24 -inches deep and filled with 2" gravel (ASTM No. 2 or similar) to the finished surface. The collector trenches shall not have perforated subdrains and shall be constructed with a maximum spacing of 25 feet on center. See Figure 1 on following page. A sand filter drain shall be constructed at the low point (or bottom -stage) of the basin adjacent to the outlet structure. To avoid clogging at the lowest orifice of the outlet structure, the top of the filter drain is offset below the lowest orifice of the outlet structure by 0.33 feet (4 inches). The sand filter drain shall include an 18 inch layer of sand (fine aggregate per Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 9/7011 Page 5 ASTM C-33) over a 10 -inch gravel subdrain system and shall line the entire bottom stage. The total depth of the sand filter drain, DFD, shall therefore not be less than 2.33 feet. See Appendix B for standard subdrain construction. The filter drain's design volume must be a minimum of 0.5% of VBMP and the minimum bottom stage area is ABs= VBMP/ DRS V /TOPSTAGE FLOOR WI SLOPE TO LOW OW THE CHIN. v, �" v LO A V Y TRENCH V FLOW -A\A�r FORESAY VOLUME= 3%-5% OF Ve 0.5%Vbj FOR AND FILTER AND INFILTRATION BASIN) SIZE NOTCH -TYPE WEIR VVOUMLEINDUESEBAY 5MINT INFLOW L = PAVED BOTTOM -f J GRAVEL FILLED COLLECTOR TRENCH 24' MIN 1 SECTION COLLECTOR TRENCH BOTTOM STAGE PERFORATED PIPE SUBDRAIN ACCESS TO OUTLET OUTLET WITH TRASH RACK PER W0501 PI n NF�08'MIN 7 NTS I T 2A' MIN 3 SECTION A -A LOW FLOW TRENCH INVERT OF 48" % 24.0 GRAVEL FILLED MIN BOTTOM STAGE TRENCCHH LOW VOL=0.5%Va WATER SURFACE Des Q MIN- _ PROFILE NTS I IS- SA SECTION FILTER DRAIN Riverside Country - Low Impact Development HMP Design Handbook Page 6 LOWEST ORIFICE OUTLET WORKS — (SEE W0501 DETAILS) DRAWING NOTES O AASHTO NO 57 OR 67 COARSE AGGREGATE LAYER O FINE AGGREGATE PER ASTM C-33. OS PASHTO NO. 2 GRAVEL LAVER rev. 912011 Figure 1 —Dry Weather Management Features Outlet Structure and Spillway - Outlet structures shall conform to District Standard Drawing WQ501 unless approved in advance by the EA. This standardization is important in order to provide for efficient maintenance. a. Water Quality Outlet Trash Rack/Screen - The outlet's orifice plate shall be protected with a conforming trash rack with at least six square feet of open surface area or 25 times the total orifice area, whichever is greater. The rack shall be adequately secured to prevent it from being removed or opened when maintenance is not occurring. b. Overflow Outlet - In all basins, a primary overflow (usually integrated into the control structure) must be provided to pass flows greater than the design volume - up to the 100 -year event. The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system or an acceptable discharge point. c. Emergency Overflow - In addition to the above overflow requirements, basins must have an emergency overflow escape path sized to safely pass the 100 -year tributary developed peak flow in the event of total control structure failure (e.g., blockage of the control structure outlet pipe) or extreme inflows. Emergency overflow pathways are intended to control the location of basin overtopping and direct overflows back into the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point. d. Emergency Overflow Spillway - Basins with constructed embankment over 3 feet in height and for BMP embankments of any height, or located on grades in excess of 5% must provide an emergency overflow spillway structure. The - ap4pa emergency overflow spillway must be designed to $pil".'Y pass the 100 -year developed peak flow, with a minimum 12 inches of freeboard, directly to the downstream conveyance system or an acceptable discharge point. The emergency overflow spillway shall be armored full width, beginning at a point midway across the berm embankment and extending downstream to an adequate outlet point. Design of emergency overflow spillways generally requires the analysis of a broad -crested trapezoidal weir. Riverside Conan— LouImpact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 912011 Page 7 Access Roads and Ramps - Maintenance access road(s) shall be provided to the top of the control structure and other drainage structures associated with the basin (e.g., inlet/forebay, emergency overflow or bypass structures). All basins shall have unobstructed access from a public street (see Section 1.4, "Right -of -Way") with commercial size curb cut-outs and driveway approaches. Flood control basins designed to attenuate the 100 year flood event shall have an access road around the entire basin. Manhole and catch basin lids should be within or at the edge of the access road and shall be at least three feet from a property line. Rims shall be set at the access road grade. On large, deep basins (at least 1500 square feet bottom area, measured without the ramp, and over 4 feet deep), an access ramp must extend to the basin bottom at the forebay for removal of sediment with a trackhoe and truck. This is necessary so truck loading can be done in the basin bottom. However, on small deep basins (less than 1500 square feet, but over 4 feet deep), the truck can remain on the ramp for loading. As such, the ramp may end at an elevation up to 4 feet above the basin bottom provided the basin side slopes are 4:1 or flatter. On small shallow basins (less than 1500 square feet bottom area, and 4 feet deep or less), a ramp to the bottom is not required if the trackhoe can load a truck parked at the basin edge (trackhoes can negotiate mild interior basin side slopes). No ramp is required for any basin 4 -feet or less in depth if vehicular access is provided to the top of slope at the forebay and the side slopes are 4:1 or flatter. (Depth trigger for ramp is measured from top of slope adjacent to forebay invert.) Design of access roads and ramps shall meet the following design criteria: a. Maximum grade (measured along ramp centerline) shall be 15% for asphalt or concrete paving and 10% for soft surface or modular grid paving. b. Inside turning radius shall be 35 feet, minimum. c. Fence gates shall be located only on straight sections of road. d. Access roads shall be constructed with an asphalt, concrete, 3 -inch layer of compacted Class 2 aggregate road base material, decomposed granite or modular grid pavement. e. Access roads and ramps shall be 15 feet in width on curves, 12 feet on straight sections. A paved apron shall be provided where access roads connect to paved public roadways. Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 912011 Page 8 1.3 - Landscaping Landscaping will likely be required by the Planning Authority. Landscaping requirements shall be in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance 859 or equivalent agency ordinance. Care must be taken to ensure that landscaping does not hinder maintenance operations. a. Facilities shall be designed so that they do not require mowing. Where mowing cannot be avoided, facilities shall be designed to require mowing no more than once or twice annually. A 6 -foot minimum width must be provided to allow a mower to pass (see Figure 2). LAW For mowing maintenance, plantings should be kept six feet apart. Scattered plantings prevent mowing maintenance. Figure 2- Landscaping setbacks (Source: King County WLR) b. Turf and lawn areas are not allowed for publicly maintained basins unless an appropriate landscape maintenance entity is identified. c. Planting is restricted on embankments that impound water either permanently or temporarily during storms (see figure 3). This reduces the likelihood of blown down trees, or the possibility of channeling or piping of water through the root system, which may contribute to dam failure on embankments that retain water. Riverside County - Low Import Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 9/1011 Page 9 cut slope B►owdowns on cut slopes pose little threat. berm or dam Blowdowns to plantings on berms can lead to failure of the dam and disaster. "Piping" of water along living or dead roots to the embankment surface can potentially cause dam failure. Berms planted with thick, shrubby ground cover can mask rodent activity that could weaken the berm and lead to dam failure. In this case, planting with grasses is preferrable. (Planting on cut slopes poses no such threat - see diagram above.) Figure 3 - Hazardous Landscaping Practices (Source: King County WLR) Note. This restriction does not apply to cut slopes that form basin banks, only to embanlanents. d. No trees or shrubs may be planted within 10 feet of inlet or outlet pipes or from manmade drainage structures such as spillways or flow spreaders. e. Trees with roots that seek water, such as willow or poplar, should be avoided within 50 feet of pipes or manmade structures. f. Evergreen trees and others that produce relatively little leaf -fall (such as locust) are preferred in areas draining to the basin. Trees should be set back so branches do not extend over the outlet structure area of the basin (to help prevent clogging). Drought tolerant species are recommended. Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 9/7011 Page 10 g. Trees or shrubs may not be planted on portions of water -impounding embankments taller than four feet high. Only grasses may be planted on embankments taller than four feet. 1.4 - Additional Requirements Fencing Criteria - The requirements for slopes and fencing are intended to discourage access to portions of a basin where steep side slopes (steeper than 4:l) increase the potential for slipping into the basin, and to allow easy egress for those who have fallen with slopes that are mild enough (flatter than 4:1 and unfenced) to allow for easy escape. If the basin will hold water deeper than 2 feet, a physical barrier as demarcation of the basin limits is required: a. Where interior slopes are steeper than 4:1, the barrier shall be a fence 6 feet in height (see District Standard Drawing M-801 for chain link fence details). In joint use ventures where a special district or agency has agreed to maintain landscape facilities, tubular steel fencing such as that meeting Valley Wide Recreation and Parks District landscape standard LC -10 is also acceptable. Functionally equivalent designs maybe acceptable on a case by case basis. b. Where interior slopes are 4:1 or milder, the physical demarcation shall be (3 -foot minimum height) vinyl or PVC rail fence, post -and -cable, masonry wall, or densely planted hedges. Functionally equivalent designs may be acceptable on a case by case basis. c. If the side slopes undulate, and segments of the slope are steeper than 4:1, the barrier standard from "b." above may be used in place of the 6 -foot fence for the short lengths of slope as specified here: The barriers described in "b." may be used for sections of 2:1 slope not to exceed 20 lineal feet and sections of 3:1 slope not exceeding 50 lineal feet. d. If required, fencing shall be placed at or above the overflow water surface. Side slope and attendant fencing requirements are not applicable to slopes above the overflow water surface. Gates - Vehicular access shall be limited by a double -posted gate if a fence is required, or by bollards. Access road gates shall be 14 feet in width consisting of two swinging sections 7 feet in width (see the District's Standard Drawing M-801 for details). Alternately, two fixed bollards on each side of the access road and two removable bollards equally located between the fixed bollards may be used. Additional vehicular access gates may be required as needed to facilitate maintenance access. Pedestrian access gates (if needed) shall be 4 feet in width. Signage - All basins to be maintained by the District shall have a sign placed for maximum visibility from adjacent streets, sidewalks, and paths. The sign shall meet the design and installation requirements illustrated in Figure 4. Riverside CountY - Law Impact Deve(opmenl HMP Design Handbook rev. 9120/ Page I I Right -of -Way - Basins shall not be located in a dedicated public road right-of-way. Publicly maintained basins shall be in a lot dedicated to the public. Any lot not abutting the public right - Permanent Woter Quolity Informotionol Sign 48" SPECIFICATIONS Size: 48 inches by 24 inches Moteriol: 0.125 -gauge aluminum Face: Non -reflective vinylor 3 coats outdoor enamel (sprayed). Lettering: Silk screen enomelwhere possible, or vinylletters. Colors: Beige background, navy blue letters. Type face: Electrical condensed. Title3 inch: Sub -Title: 1 1/2 -inch: Text: 1 inch: Outer border: 1/inch border distance from edge: 1/4 -inch; all text 13/4 -inch from border. Posts: Pressure treated, beveled tops, 1/2 -inch higher than sign. Installation Secure to fence if available. Otherwise, install two 4'14" post, pressure treated, mounted atop a gravelbed, installed in 30 -inch concrete filled post holes (8-inah minimum diameter), with the lop of sign no higher than 42 inches from ground surface. Placement Face sign in direction of primary visualor physicalaccess. Do not block any access road. Do not place within 6 feet of structural facilities (e.g. manholes, spillways, pipe inlets). Note: If the facility has a liner to restrict infiltration of slormwater, the following note must be added to the face of the sign "This facility is lined to protect groundwater quality." I Figure 4- Typical Basin Signage SUBJECT TO REVI-"M-U_D "'"""""""- 050 o.,.STANOARO DRAWING NUMBER W0502 of -way will require a 16.5 -foot wide extension of the lot to an acceptable access location. Riverside County - Luw' lmpacl Developr l BMP Design Hundhoak rev. 912011 Page 12 This basin in our care. + StormwaterRunoff is held here after storms. 11 is released slowly or stored until the next storm when it is Bash replaced by incoming flows. This allows - infiltration, helps prevent downstream flooding ry and erosion and helps clean the water. For re-( more information or to report littering, vandalism or other problems, toll Riverside County Flood Control& Water Conservation District Facilities Maintenance at (951) 955-1200. Basin name, Basin number VIII I IIII IIIV I SPECIFICATIONS Size: 48 inches by 24 inches Moteriol: 0.125 -gauge aluminum Face: Non -reflective vinylor 3 coats outdoor enamel (sprayed). Lettering: Silk screen enomelwhere possible, or vinylletters. Colors: Beige background, navy blue letters. Type face: Electrical condensed. Title3 inch: Sub -Title: 1 1/2 -inch: Text: 1 inch: Outer border: 1/inch border distance from edge: 1/4 -inch; all text 13/4 -inch from border. Posts: Pressure treated, beveled tops, 1/2 -inch higher than sign. Installation Secure to fence if available. Otherwise, install two 4'14" post, pressure treated, mounted atop a gravelbed, installed in 30 -inch concrete filled post holes (8-inah minimum diameter), with the lop of sign no higher than 42 inches from ground surface. Placement Face sign in direction of primary visualor physicalaccess. Do not block any access road. Do not place within 6 feet of structural facilities (e.g. manholes, spillways, pipe inlets). Note: If the facility has a liner to restrict infiltration of slormwater, the following note must be added to the face of the sign "This facility is lined to protect groundwater quality." I Figure 4- Typical Basin Signage SUBJECT TO REVI-"M-U_D "'"""""""- 050 o.,.STANOARO DRAWING NUMBER W0502 of -way will require a 16.5 -foot wide extension of the lot to an acceptable access location. Riverside County - Luw' lmpacl Developr l BMP Design Hundhoak rev. 912011 Page 12 Private Lot Dedicated Lot ED— Private Lot Case 1 - Access available to public road right-of-way. 1.5 - Basins in Recreational Spaces Any basin site with a bottom surface area larger than one acre will likely be required to incorporate active use area and shall be designed only after consultation with the PA to establish site-specific guidance which may increase the total facility footprint. If multiple uses are being contemplated, consider the following: • Place the active use areas such as ballparks, playing fields, and picnic areas above the water quality design volume (VBMP) ponding limit. • Use a multiple -stage detention basin to limit inundation of passive recreational areas to one or two occurrences a year. • Side slopes shall not exceed 25% (4:1) unless they are existing, natural, and covered with vegetation. • Locate the basin in a separate lot. • Incorporate a bypass system or emergency overflow pathway that does not present a safety hazard or discharge into active recreation areas. • The basin shall be landscaped in a manner to enhance passive recreational opportunities such as trails and aesthetic viewing. Inquire with the PA whether the basin can be compatible with the open space value and functions. If the criteria above are met, projects may be able to receive some reduction in required onsite recreational space if approved in advance of tentative project approval by the PA. Section 2 - Debris Basins Debris basins differ from stormwater detention and water quality basins in that they are not intended to detain flows or to mitigate pollutants (other than debris). They are simply utilized to collect large debris from storm flows for later removal. The guidelines in this section apply to debris basins only. Site access — Debris basins shall have unobstructed access from a public street (see Section 1.4. "Right -of -Way") with commercial size curb cut-outs and driveway approaches. Nlverside Cannn• - Low /mpacl Developmew BMP Dcwgn Handbook rev. 912011 Page 13 Private Lot 16.5 ft access must Dedicated Lot Basin be provided Private Lot Street Case 2 - Access must be acquired through adjacent lot to public road right-of-way. Any basin site with a bottom surface area larger than one acre will likely be required to incorporate active use area and shall be designed only after consultation with the PA to establish site-specific guidance which may increase the total facility footprint. If multiple uses are being contemplated, consider the following: • Place the active use areas such as ballparks, playing fields, and picnic areas above the water quality design volume (VBMP) ponding limit. • Use a multiple -stage detention basin to limit inundation of passive recreational areas to one or two occurrences a year. • Side slopes shall not exceed 25% (4:1) unless they are existing, natural, and covered with vegetation. • Locate the basin in a separate lot. • Incorporate a bypass system or emergency overflow pathway that does not present a safety hazard or discharge into active recreation areas. • The basin shall be landscaped in a manner to enhance passive recreational opportunities such as trails and aesthetic viewing. Inquire with the PA whether the basin can be compatible with the open space value and functions. If the criteria above are met, projects may be able to receive some reduction in required onsite recreational space if approved in advance of tentative project approval by the PA. Section 2 - Debris Basins Debris basins differ from stormwater detention and water quality basins in that they are not intended to detain flows or to mitigate pollutants (other than debris). They are simply utilized to collect large debris from storm flows for later removal. The guidelines in this section apply to debris basins only. Site access — Debris basins shall have unobstructed access from a public street (see Section 1.4. "Right -of -Way") with commercial size curb cut-outs and driveway approaches. Nlverside Cannn• - Low /mpacl Developmew BMP Dcwgn Handbook rev. 912011 Page 13 Fencing — The entire facility shall be enclosed with 6 -foot high chain link fencing and 14 - foot high double drive gates. Where the perimeter fencing crosses a streambed, cable or barbed wire fencing across streambed will be provided. Maintenance access - Maintenance access shall extend around the entire perimeter of the facility. Roads shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide (20 feet wide if on an embankment of 3 feet or higher). The minimum design turning radius shall be 35 feet. Ramps shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide with a maximum longitudinal slope of 10%. Both roads and ramps shall be surfaced (full width) with 3" of compacted Class 2 base material. Basin Cut/Fill slopes — All basin slopes shall not be steeper than 3:1. Stockpile/Staging Area — Shall be situated immediately adjacent to the basin. The minimum acreage shall be sufficient to temporarily store 20% of volume of debris accumulated in the 100 -yr -frequency design event. Surface acreage shall be calculated assuming a stockpile of 10 feet high with 2:1 fill slopes. A minimum 15 -foot wide access road with a 35 -foot wide turning radius shall be provided to accommodate equipment access. In addition, a 70 -foot long by 15 -foot wide strip is required for equipment loading and unloading within an area of sufficient size to maneuver heavy construction equipment. Minimum Basin Floor Surface Area — Basin floors 1,400 square or greater must be provided with a minimum width of 30 feet. Outlet Structure — A tower -type outlet is not permitted. Use outlet structure design similar to that used in designs for Tahquitz Creek and Oak Street Debris Basins (slotted/slanted grate). All structures and ramps to structures shall include safety rails/belly bars at all stairways and wherever appropriate. A minimum of two (2) visible depth (paddle) gauges shall be provided. Riverside Cwmty - Low Impact Development HMP Deaign Handbook rev. 9/2011 Page 14