Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRough Grade Plan Area 13 - Permit# BGR021052A On MAN !6v SIR OF A, 8A l8ty COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING'AND SAFETY APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT WORKSHEET OER7 PROJECT INFORMATION Permit # b-R a `a 1 d S Job ite dress No. Street Name Rd/St/Etc. Space # Deer Hollow Way Thomas Guide Page # Grid Location 979 F5 /G5 City/Community State Zip Code Assessors Parcel Number CA O1 Temecula 92592 00-LL�a 180 Property Owner's Last Name First Garrett Group LLC FOR OFFICE, USE ONLY':, t .: Pla►inin Case ParceUT�act Ma # Legal Z ne_ Lot Size. F/A p, Fronta e_ - FSB_- Lf �:. SB Rt SB R, 5.1� APPLICANT /AGENT INFORMATION Note: The applicant will receive ALL billings, correspondence and refunds for deposit -based fee p�rmits. Applicant/Agent's Last Name: First RBF Consulting Mailing Address No. IStreetName Road/Street Space # 27555 Ynez Road 400 City/Community State Zip Code Phone Number Temecula CA 92591 909 676 -8042 Permit Use: a Am zais j� _ Rough Grading — � I` �30& —oZ Has or will grading exceed 50 cubic yards? (Circle OnE YES NO Has or will fill be greater than 1 foot? Circle One YES NO CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/BUILDER INFORMATION (Circle One) Calif. Contractor EXP. Type Firm Name License # Date 734094 3/03 B Centex Homes Mailing Address No. Street Name Road/Street/Etc. Space # 2280 Wardlow Circle 1150 City/Community State Zip Code Phone Number: Corona CA 92880 909 273 -2100 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - APPLICATION FOR VASTE WATER DISPOSAL APPROVAL APPLICANT: Submit this form with four copies of a SCALED plot plan (1 - =20' to 1' =40' SCALE) drawn to County specifications as indicated on the attached check list A non - refundable fling fee is required when Ne application is submitted Check m, ist be made payable to the County of Riverside. Approval of this application shall remain valid far a period not to exceed one year from date of payment - /(' �t /15 �,' t - LMS a -' v _ ,. •;.:, Agent, Contractor, Contact Person. Addres City State Zip Telephone RtPnr�rll v Eb,nhrlhl ( Owner Address City State Zip Telephone ac C rY {6 71 t, OJob Property Address City / 'I Zip , U Lot Sae Water Agency/Well Use of Permit PIP, SUP, PUP, etc u•gal Uescriptmr, D LU Dwelling, MH Site Prep., etc Sig nJatnuyrepf Applic Date L' FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CHECK BOX IF REQUIRED If any box Is checked, this application shall be considered rejected until the D Detailed Contour Plot Plans Required (1 to 5 foot interval) information Is provided and the fee paid Resubmittals later than 90 days after date noted below may require repayment of fees O Other O Staff Specialist Lot Inspection Required CO Z D Holding Tank Agreements Completed 0 D Certification of Existing S.D. System Required Thomas Bros Page Gnd_ P WD WQCB Clearance Required D Date Lot Inspection Completed. Initials U) (Albion for DOH- SAN -007, Santa Ana Region Only) Remarks' D Soils Percolation Report Required D Maintenance Booklet Provided D Special Feasibility Boring Report Required D Final Inspection by Department of Environmental Health is required D Rereview Required Initials Date Please call 24 hours PRIOR to inspection. C/42 / Soils Percolation Boring Report By LidProlecl p Date Soils Map Page Sall Type Approved By Date No. of Systems Type of System(s) No. Dwelling Units (1) Septic Tank Soil Rate Greasel5and D Holding Tank D Replacement Bedrooms, Fixture Units Grease InicplLmt Trap D New D Addition D Existing D Connect to Sewer Gal Gal Sq Fl. Total Linear Sidewall Allowance Leach Bed sq L Bottom Area Ft. If rock/ sq If running It Install_Linels)_ft long_ If wide of Bottom Area Inlet Tested Depth CJ N/A with min _ Inches rock below dramlmes U Proposed Bottom Tested Depth or Z Leach lineslbed special design for slope (3) Pit Diameter No Pits Rt Below Inlet (81) Seepage Pit Maximum that O Applicable Total Depth Allowable Depth WN /A_Overburden Factor ❑ 5' ❑ 6' TD Well Review Approved' _ Date Well Drilling Permit# SIOiNiV�j /7 J. Grading Plan Approved Date. Plan Check Only Approved Dalo' REMARKS: This application is APPROVEDIDENIED for the category checked in SECTION B above, regarding the design of a disposal system as indicated on the accompanied plot plan, using the requirements sggtt46im in SECTION C above. A building permit Is necessary for the In allatlon of the above. Revenue Code Fee If designed system. No constru than Is aermitteg the required reserved 100% expansion area. Check i (1) Septic Tank must be 100' mmimunyfram any wells Z(2) Leach lines must be 10 mum from any wells, including expansion Date Initial 0 area (~j (3) Sewer lines must be'50' minimum from any wells. LU N (4) Seepage pits ust be 150' minimum from any wells, including expansion RIVERSIDE: 909 - 955.8980 area. INDIO: 760. 863.7000 SOUTHWEST: 909 - 600.6180 Sigrrdture Date rl.�SxN.4] ai.. 8101) D,•.Inbutlep' WH11r — 101i,v, 1n Yi ?ILOW— Appi,oant. PINK —Hbq fi.gn GOI DENROD —Phriu Rneartlt . o CONSULTING LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: County of Riverside Building and Safety Department 39493 Los Alamos Rd. Murrieta, CA 92563 ATTN: AbdulBehnawa DATE: 9/13/02 RBF JOB NO: 15- 100312 REFERENCE: Redhawk /BGR No. of No. of 010525 DESCRIPTION: School Site Rough Grading Plan SENT To You VIA: Mail Your Pick -Up 8 HX Overnight Delivery (Carrier) Email RBF Messenger Messenger (Other Courier) No. of No. of DESCRIPTION Copies Originals 5 TR 23065 -2 School Site Rough Grading Plan 1 Sewer and Water Plans 1 Street Improvement Plans 1 Hydrology Study 1 Soils Report 1 Application SENT FOR YOUR: Approval Review Comments Per Your Request e Signature Use Information B e REMARKS: RBF CO LTING �\� BY: U lizabeth Lovsted Q� Design Engineer Q Riverside Region COPIES TO: RNERS�Ot� GOON NG fit\ SAGE H WDATA1151oo3121adminlTransmitUI21ms421 doc eVtt -t) PLANNING 0 DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400, Temecula, CA 92591 -4679 • 909.676 8042 • Fax 909 676 7240 Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada • www RBFcom m,m a,..aw ' , , , •.., . COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATIONAND LAND MANAGEMENT Building and Safety Department MEMORANDUM T.H. Ingram Director Date: September 24, 2002 TO: Stuart E. Mckibbin Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stop #2990 From: Paul Zolfaghari Building and Safety, Engineering Services Division Stop #5155 RE: REFERENCE COPY OF GRADING PLAN LOG NO. 021052 TRACT 23065 -2 The AS -BUILT grading plan for the above project is submitted for plan review to this department. Clearance from Flood Control District is required prior to approval of as -built grading plan. Please send us the clearance or comments for the project. 39493 Los Alamos Rd, Murtieta, CA 92563 PH (909)600 -6118 FAX (909)600 -6145 All TO THE APPLICANT: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OF Rl yf ? Ae TRANSPORTATIONAND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY _ e< ..r .r a•�•,Q � 9�FETY D Building and Safety Department T. H. Ingram Director DATE: September 24, 2002 The following list of corrections needs your attention and follow -up. Please revise the plans and supporting calculations, if any, and resubmit these recheck including a correction response. Indicate on the corrected plan where the corrections are made and clearly distinguish all revisions using clouds, revision triangles, etc. so plan check can be accomplished in a timely manner. BUILDING AND SAFETY, GRADING DIVISION >> PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS << • SITE: Tract 23065 -2 Mass Grade (AS- BUILT) • P/C LOG #: BGR 021052 • PREPARED BY: Paul Zolfaghari, P.E. Phone: (909) 600 -6194 Fax: (909) 600 -6145 002 Obtain Flood Control approval before AS -BUILT grading plans can be approved. <CONDITION> 049 Obtain written notarized permission or easement, including assignment of maintenance responsibility, for the offsite temporary grading (including grading for temporary slopes and temporary drainage) shown on the plan. Obtain recorded easements with maintenance agreement for all offsite graded permanent slopes and show all easements on the plans. Comply at: <B3309> Offsite slopes shown on the golf course area, sheet 4. Refer to easterly and northeasterly of Planning Area 13. Please provide a copy of recorded documents with maintenance responsibility agreements and EXHIBITS for the permanent offsite slopes. County of Riverside, South County Office 0 39493 Los Alamos Road, Suite A 0 Murrieta, California 92563 0 Phone: (909)600 -6100 00017ax: (909) 600 -6145 RevPlanCheckTemplatel doc 045 Minimum setback for top of cut slope to boundary line is H/5 but 2' minimum and 10' maximum. Minimum setback for toe of fill slope to boundary line is H/2 but 2' minimum and 20' maximum. Comply at: Toe of fill slope to southerly tract property line, sheet 3. Please call out the property line setback approximately 150' east of Pala Road. 022 Correct FG elevations 56.80 FG and 56.10 FG at westerly corner for Planning Area 13 adjacent to the cross - section of Peach Tree Street and Deer Hollow Way with respect to TC elevations. Also clarify the existing (graded) contour elevations at this location. <B3309> 051 Please corrector remove "MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 4" on sheet 4. 021 Show original ground contours and contour elevations legibly on the plan prior to approval. <B3309> 010 Prior to approval of AS -BUILT grading plans, five blue line sets of the approved grading plans shall be submitted to this department. All sets, including all sheets of plans, shall be wet signed and stamped by the engineer of record. County of Riverside, South County Office U 39493 Los Alamos Road, Suite A 0 Murrieta, California 92563 0 Phone: (909) 600 -6100 DUUFax: (909) 600 -6145 Rev PlanCheckTemplate l .doc ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit No EGR010525 DATA SHEET Page: 1 BGR010525 09/24/02 10:31 Data: Addresses ------------------------------------- 46500 PALA RD TEM 06/06/01 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Data: Parcels 962020002 00 /00 /0000 Data: Comments PVO 10/22/01 60 PVO 10/22/01 6/01. Geoteck Report w /plans to MH. MHAKAKIA 06/19/01 PRELIMINARY REPORT & GRADING PLAN TO KUPFERMAN FOR REVIEW. MHAKAKIA 06/19/01 LEFT MESSAGE FOR BILL GREEN TO SUBMIT WET SIGNED REPORT. RDELPINO 06/22/01 6/22/01. This is a rough grade for Temecula Valley High RDELPINO 06/22/01 School -to be built by developer. MHAKAKIA 07/05/01 RECEIVED CORRECTIONS FROM KUPERMAN & MILED TO RBF AND NINYO MHAKAKIA 07/05/01 & MOORE ON 7/5/01. MHAKAKIA 07/16/01 RECEIVED UPDATED GEO REPORT BY DIFFERENT GEOTECHNICAL MHAKAKIA 07/16/01 CONSULTANT ( PETRA) THAN ORIGINALLY SUBMITED ( NINYO & MOORE) MHAKAKIA 07/16/01 CALLED RBF & SPOKE WITH MS.THIROS & REQUESTED TO CLEARIFY MHAKAKIA 07/16/01 REPORTS & PROVIDE CORRECT GRADING PLANS MATCHING REPORTS. MHAKAKIA 08/01/01 RECEIVED 2ND CORRECTIONS FROM KUPFERMAN & MAILED TO RBF & MHAKAKIA 08/01/01 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL. PVO O8 /01 /01 FAXED CORRECTIONS TO ENGINEER. SBDUFFIE 08/21/01 RECD LTR FROM RBF TO MACK. 8/21/01 SBD SBDUFFIE 09/20/01 RECD AND FILED FLOOD CORRECTIONS LTR. 9/20/01 SBD MHAKAKIA 09/25/01 RECEIVED RESPONSE TO KUPFERMAN -S CORRECTIONS & PUT IN BIN. PVO 10/09/01 WRITTEN CORRECTIONS AND REDLINED PLANS PLACED IN FRONT PVO 10/09/01 COUNTER PICKUP BIN - 2ND CHECK. PVO 10/22/01 FAXED CORRECTIONS TO ENGINEER - 3RD CHECK. GKSMITH 10/24/01 PLANNING CONDITIONS BEING CLEARED. RBF SUBMITTED QUINO AND GKSMITH 10/24/01 GNATCATCHER SURVEYS. MINOR PLOT PLAN FOR LANDSCAPTING, ETC. GKSMITH 10/24/01 MOVED TO 80- SERIES CONDITION ON TR23065 FROM 60- SERIES. MHAKAKIA 10/24/01 RECEIVED 3RD CORRECTIONS FROM KUPFERMAN, MAILED TO PETRA & MHAKAKIA 10/24/01 GARRET GROUP(MR. STEVE FORD). MHAKAKIA 11/05/01 RECEIVED RESPONSE TO KUPFERMAN -S CORRECTIONS, PUT IN BIN. SBDUFFIE 11 /05 /01 RECD AND FILED FLOOD CORRECTIONS. 11/5/01 SBD SGONZALE 11/08/01 RECD FLOOD CONTROL CORRECTIONS FROM MURRIETA SGONZALE 11/08/01 OFFICE - CORRECTIONS PREVIOUSLY RECD- 11/08/01 SDG. MHAKAKIA 11/13/01 RECEIVED CLEARANCE LETTER & APPROVED PRELIM REPORT FROM MHAKAKIA 11/13/01 KUPFERMAN DATED 11/9/01, MAILED COPY TO PETRA & APPLICANT. NWILLIAM 11/19/01 (11/13/01) GRADING PROJECT SECURITY APPROVED BY COUNTY NWILLIAM 11/19/01 COUNSEL & IN PLACE THIS DATE. PVO 11/20/01 LEFT ENGINEER A PHONE MESSAGE TO DISSCUSS 3RD PLAN CHECK PVO 11/20/01 COMMENTS - NPDES & PLANNING CLEARANCE. PVO 12/12/01 PLAN APP'D. PLACED FILE ON MURR. RACK FOR PICKUP. NWILLIAM 12/14/01 (12/10/01) EC /L SECURITY APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNSEL & IN NWILLIAM 12/14/01 PLACE THIS DATE. RDELPINO 12/17/01 12/17/01. File in Murrieta Office. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit No BGR010525 DATA SHEET Page: 2 BGR010525 09/24/02 10:31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Data: Comments Continued... RDELPINO 08/02/02 8/2/02. Revised plans to PZ. RDELPINO 08/12/02 8/12/02. File w /revised plans (submitted 8/2) sent to RIV. PVO 08/16/02 FAXED CORRECTIONS TO ENGINEER. TRAMSAMO 08/21/02 File to Murietta via Ulf. UFAGERBO 08/22/02 Reviewed project issues UFAGERBO 08/26/02 Reviewed project issues RDELPINO 08/28/02 8/28/02. Rev. 1 Plans, eliminating school grading, are in RDELPINO 08/28/02 file w /their 1st corrections. No grading has been done on RDELPINO 08/28/02 site to date. School site may be submitted under a new BGR RDELPINO 08/28/02 number in future. LMS status returned to plancheck status. RDELPINO 08/28/02 File is in Murrieta Office. Permit No BGR021052 DATA SHEET Page: 1 04/21/05 09:59 Data: Addresses ------------------------------------- 46500 PALA RD TEM 09/13/02 Data: Parcels ------------------------------------- 962020002 00 /00 /0000 - - - - - - -- Data: Process Tables Screen No: 01 ...................... General Information Parcel No: 962 - 020 -002 Owner: RH ACQUISITION CO Status: EXPIRED Entered By: DMHI Process App Type: GOTH GRADING: GOLF CRSE /FLOOD ETC Description: ROUGH GRADING /PLAN AREA 13 IN TR23065 -2 Location: 2002 TG 979 F5 /GS Cubic Yards: 139300 Number of Lots: 1 Insp Area: TGO1 Area of disturbance: SQ FT Applied: 09/13/2002 Approved: 00 /00 /0000 Issued: 00 /00 /0000 Finaled: 00 100 10000 Screen No: 02 ...................... Geographic Information Tract /Lot ..................: PM24387 LOT 19 Zoning Code (Ord. 348).....: Supervisorial District.....: Development Agreement......: R.S.A. (Ord 659)...........: School District ............: SKR Fee Area (Ord. 663)....: SKR Core Area (Ord. 457)...: SKR Habitat ................: Gnatcatcher Habitat........: FTL Fee Area (Ord. 457 &460): QC Butterfly Habitat.......: Fault Zone .................: High Fire Area (Ord. 546)... Lighting (Ord. 655)........: Start GIS Fee Exempt(Y /N): N Plan Ck Exp: 00/00 /0000 Permit Expires: 10/12/2004 Renewed: 00 /00 /0000 Orig Exp Date: 00 /00 /0000 POR Process(Y /N): N Get Fields(Y /N): N SP ZONE 1 12A1 Fee per DU 49 Fee per DU TEMECULA VALLEY INSIDE FEE AREA - N Flood Review.: N is $3000 is $2767 check map RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub N Y Not in fault area Y Zone A 14.57 miles. Screen No: 03 ...................... Grading Fees & Totals Processing Fee ... :Y 13.75 Microfilm @.10(Qty) .00 Prmt Deposit(Hrs) .0 .00 @.50(Qty) .00 Oth Prmt Dep(Hrs)10.0 1,370.00 Transfer Fee (Qty) .00 RIVERSIDE OFFICE: 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor P.O. Box 1527 Riverside, CA 92502 -1527 (909) 955 -1010 Fay(909)955 -1019 David P. Stahos9ch Maria Broos Robert Caliva November 26, 2002 ♦ t s a SUPERVISOR BOB BUSTER FIRST DISTRICT Mr. David Allmen, Superintendent Temecula Valley Unified School District 31350 Rancho Vista Road Temecula, CA 92592 Dear Mr. Allmen: TEMECULAIMURRHTA OFFICE: 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 205 Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 600-6250 Fax (909) 600 -6260 Jane Bouchard Wendy Kolk RECEIVED County of Riverside Building & Safety DEC 0 5 2002 MURRIETA I am writing in response to your voice mail message of Friday, November 22, 2002 and recent letters from Jeff Okun of your staff. I share your frustration on this complex matter. I believe, however, that it is our common goal to provide a safe school, ensuring that the necessary improvements are installed in a timely manner. It is unfortunate that the issues have not yet been resolved. To put things in perspective, the District was put on notice of several of the challenges facing this project for over two years (See attachment). As it stands, the primary issues remain to be posting performance and erosion control bonds and agreements enforceable by the County and the District, obtaining the necessary right -of -way, drainage and construction easements for on and off site improvements. In regards to the bonds and agreements you have provided, according to County Counsel, the bonds the District has in place are not enforceable by the County as we are not a party to your agreements. Additionally, it appears that the bonds the County had in place via Centex Homes may not be enforceable by the County because a subsequent buyer (the District) acquired the land and the land is not being developed as originally approved. The road improvements of concern are on Pala, Deer Hollow, Peach, Primrose and Pechanga and include drainage improvements and signalization. Additionally, the Pala Road master drainage facility is of regional significance. The Flood Control District has also informed your engineer of record, RBF, that FEMA re- mapping is required at the southwesterly portion of your site. These improvements are identified in conditions of. the approved underlying tract map. In an effort to articulate the County's concerns, it is the opinion of County staff, that the following issues need to be resolved by the District prior to issuance of a grading permit: INTERNET: districtl a7co.riverside.ca.us I . Performance Bonds for frontage roads and signalization including Pala, Deer Hollow, Peach, Primrose and Pechanga must name the County as "an obligee" in a form acceptable to County Counsel so that the County can enforce the bonds if necessary. 2. Amend the purchase agreement of the site to name the County of Riverside as a third party beneficiary in a form acceptable to County Counsel so that the County can enforce the bonds or provide a mechanism to achieve the same result. 3. Improvement plans for the aforementioned frontage roads must include necessary drainage and /or construction easements and right -of -way dedications. 4. Drainage acceptance letter(s) must be in place to address on and off site drainage including road drainage, if necessary. Lastly, a traffic study was completed for the Redhawk Towne Center (WalMart) that identified cumulative impacts at various intersections in the general vicinity from a proposed high school site. This traffic study was not done specifically for your site, however, it is the newest and best information available to the County. Should you have better and more up to date information, please provide me with a copy of such a traffic study. If not, we would be interested in any comments your traffic engineer might have about traffic impacts your site would have on the surrounding area. I truly hope that we can work through these issues and immediately move forward on your badly needed project. We all believe that the requisite improvements must be installed prior to occupancy of the site. If it would be helpful to you, I would be happy to set up a meeting with County staff, the District, the City of Temecula, the Garrett Group, Centex Homes and the Wolf Creek Developer so we can all work through who will be installing the improvements and when. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if I should set up such a meeting. erely, David P. ovich Senior Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Bob Buster Cc: Karin Watts - Bazan, Deputy County Counsel David Huff, Deputy County Counsel George Johnson, Transportation Director Stuart McKibben, Flood Control Abdul Belmawa, Grading Department TVUSD Board Members w /attachments Shawn Nelson, Temecula City Manager December 16, 2002 County of Riverside City of Temecula Public Works Department 43200 Business Park Dnve•Temecula. CA 92590-Mailing Address' PO. Box 9033 -Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 (9091 694 -G41 I •Fax (9091 G94 -6475 RECEIVED County of Riverside Building & Safety DEC 19 2002 Department of Building & Safety MURRIETA Grading Section P. O. Box 1440 Riverside, CA 92502 Re: Deer Hollow — High School Site Grading Permit To Whom It May Concern: At the request of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, we have reviewed the Grading Plans and Hydrology Report prepared for the District's High School #3 project as it relates to any potential affects on the drainage system through downstream properties located within the City of Temecula. The grading project includes a three -acre by two feet deep on -site retention basin. The Hydrology Report prepared by the District's Civil Engineers, Cornerstone Group, demonstrates that when the school site is fully developed and all buildings and hardscape areas have been completed, the retention basin is sufficiently sized to ensure that there will be no incremental increase in runoff leaving the school site versus the current undeveloped site. Although the City has not completed it's review and several minor items need to be addressed, as a result of this conceptual design and analysis, the City of Temecula has no objections to the commencement of site grading for the High School #3 project. If you have any questions or need further clarification, you may contact the at (909) 694 -6411. Very truly yours, 4a / "_Z i Ronald J. Parks Deputy Director of Public Works RJP:aa R:\PARKSR \2002 \letters \COR_DeerHollow HS doc ® R�rne� an Rery[Ied Pzpn The Power to Change The Power to Build June 24, 2004 Mr. Khaled Othman Senior Managing Engineer Riverside County Transportation Department PO Box 1090 County Administrative Center Riverside, California 92502 -1090 Dear Mr. Othman: (DG RECEIVED County of Riverside Building & Safety GRADING DEPT. Re: Tract 23065 -2 Account No. 137 - 030- 086dUL 01 2004 Final Plan Check RIVERSIDE As requested by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Berryman and Henigar has completed the final plan check for the subject project. Pechanga Creek Levee Protection Plan - mylars, Drawing No. 7 -388, consisting of 2 sheets. The plans have been reviewed and appear to meet those conditions for development imposed by the County. The Flood Control District has no objection to the recordation of the Final Map or issuance of appropriate permits. The County Department of Building and Safety must ensure that the developer has obtained a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Questions regarding this matter may be directed to Lori Berryman Wolfe at (714)402 -9645. Sincerely Berryman & Henigar Inc, No.65131 Ep. 09/30M Lori Berryman Wolfe, P.E 2001 East First Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 -4020 (714) 568 -7300 • Fax (714) 836 -5906 • www.bhiinc.com An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Khaled Othman, P.E. Senior Managing Engineer Riverside County 06/24/04 Page 2 of 2 KENT ALLEN, SENIOR CIVIL ENIGNEER RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Cc RBF Consulting w /encls. Attention: Bill Green Department of Building and Safety w/o encls. Attention: Tony Ramsamooj Garatt Group w/o encls. Attention: John Leway D9/24/02 Riverside County LMS Page: 1 10:14 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3RADING PERMIT Permit No: BGR010525 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE B &S DEPARTMENT Parcel: 962- 020 -002 60.B &S. 1 GP* - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an assessment of the site and /or a payment of a mitigation fee for an environmentally sensitive area is required. The requirements are indicated below: Stephens Kangaroo Rat [X] Mitigation fee [ ) Assessment and /or Biological report California Gnatcatcher Bird [X ] Assessment and /or Biological report Quino Checkerspot Butterfly [X] Assessment and /or Biological report Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard [ ] Mitigation fee Other: MET )9/24/02 Riverside County LMS Page: 8 10:14 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRADING PERMIT Permit No: BGR010525 10. GENERAL CONDITIONS 10.TRANS. 3 SP -ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Parcel: 962- 020 -002 All road improvements within the project boundaries shall be constructed to ultimate County Standards in accordance with Ordinance No. 460 and 461 as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan, subject to approval by the Road Commissioner. 10.TRANS. 4 SP - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MITIGATION The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the Board of Supervisors. 10.TRANS. 5 SP - LANDSCAPING W /ROAD RIGHTS Any landscaping within public road rights of way will require approval by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing maintenance through the establishment of a landscape maintenance district or similar mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. 10.TRANS. 6 SP -NEW HIGHWAY CORRIDORS Caltrans has expressed concerns relative to cumulative impacts and the need to implement demand management strategies or provide for the development of additional highway corridors. It is our understanding that Caltrans is requesting a study of new highway corridors to address increasing demands. This project shall participate in such study in a manner as prescribed by Caltrans. 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE B &S DEPARTMENT 60.B &S. 1 GP* - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an assessment of the site and /or a payment of a mitigation fee for an environmentally sensitive area is required. The requirements are indicated below: Stephens Kangaroo Rat [X] Mitigation fee INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT MET 39/24/02 10:14 Riverside County LMS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3RADING PERMIT Permit No: BGR010525 Parcel: 962- 020 -002 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE 60.B &S. 1 GP* - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (cont.) [ ] Assessment and /or Biological report California Gnatcatcher Bird [X ] Assessment and /or Biological report Quino Checkerspot Butterfly [X] Assessment and /or Biological report Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard [ ] Mitigation fee Other: 60.B &S. 2 GP* - PLANNING CLEARANCES -GP'S rior to the issuance of this grading permit, clearance from Riverside County Planning Department is required. Before the Planning Department will authorize the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant is required to submit and /or receive approval for the items indicated below: [ ] Archeological report [ ] Conceptual Grading Plan [ ] Environmental Assessment [ ] Exhibits: [ ] Final Plan of Development [ ] Geotechnical Report /Geologist clearance [X] Landscape /Irrig /Shading /Parking Plan [ ] Paleontologist retainer [X] Slope easements (recorded) [ ] Specific Plan area clearance Page: 9 MET MET 09/24/02 10:14 Riverside County LMS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Page: 10 3RADING PERMIT Permit No: BGR010525 Parcel: 962 - 020 -002 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE 60.B &S. 2 GP* - PLANNING CLEARANCES -GP'S (cont.) MET ( ] Other: 60.3 &S. 3 GP - OAK TREE PRESERVATION SEE PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE CONDITIONS 31 AND 32 FOR TRACT 23065. 60.B &S. 4 GP - NATURAL FEATURE NATURAL FEATURES SUCH AS WATER COURSES, SPECIMEN TREES AND SIGNIFICANT ROCK OUTCROPS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN THE SITING OF BUILDING PADS. ALL EXISTING SPECIMEN TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED WHERE FEASIBLE. WHERE THEY CANNOT BE PRESERVED, THEY SHALL BE REPLACED OR RELOCATED. 60.B &S. 5 GP - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STAN GRADING PLANS SHALL CONFROM TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS STATED IN THE PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE CONDITION #35 FOR TRACT 23065. GP - CUT SLOPES ALL CUT SLOPES LOCATED ADJACENT TO UNGRADED NATURAL TERRAIN AND EXCEEDING TEN (10) FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT SHALL INCORPORATE THE GRADING TECHNIQUES AS DESCRIBED IN THE PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE CONDITION #36 FOR TRACT 23065 FLOOD RI DEPARTMENT 60.FLOOD RI. 1 GP - RIV FLOOD CLEARANCE REQD Prior to the issuance must obtain clearance and Water Conservatio speak directly with a in order to determine clearance. of this grading permit, the applicant from Riverside County Flood Control a District. It may be necessary to Flood Control District representative the exact requirements for their MET MET Ib1:6% MET MET 09/24/02 10:14 Riverside County LMS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL :GRADING PERMIT Permit No: BGR010525 90. PRIOR TO BLDG FINAL INSPECTION B &S DEPARTMENT 90.B &S. 1 Parcel: 962 - 020 -002 BP* - WALL /FENCE LOCATION Wall and /or fence locations shall conform to the approved wall and fence treatment program for Specific Plan No. 217. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 90.PLANNING. 2 BP* - LANDSCAPE /IRRIG INSTALL All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. 90.PLANNING. 2 BP* - LANDSCAPE /IRRIG INSPECT All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. 90.PLANNING. 2 BP* - ACOUSTICAL STUDY Not withstanding pother conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Page: 11 INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 1! APPENDIX B ,I NINYO AND MOORE REPORT DATED MARCH 3, 2000 �1 at PETRA II &n . 'n 1ironmcntal Sciences Con>ultty> -r GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 PALA ROAD AND PECHANGA ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ' PREPARED FOR: Ms. Janet Dixon Temecula Valley Unified School District 40516 Roripaugh Road Temecula, California 92592 1 ' PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants ' 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 ' March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 LJ ' - -_ 5710 Ruffin Road San Dieao -California 92123 - Phone (858 576.1000_ Fax (858) 576-9600 San Diego , Irvine • Ontario > Los Angeles Oakland - Las Vegas . Salt Lake City - Phoenix I r-, Lei I i `Geote.hncal and ErnirDnmmel SGBnc_s C,rsultdn_ March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 Ms. Janet Dixon Temecula Valley Unified School District 40516 Roripaugh Road Temecula, California 92592 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Report Temecula Middle School No. 5 Temecula, California Dear Ms. Dixon In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the pro- posed Temecula Middle School No 5 in Temecula, California This report presents our geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed project. Our report was pre- pared in accordance with our proposal dated January 28, 2000. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or com- ments regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact our office Sincerely, CC ` NINYO & MOORE I o �jY�tt C�a Francis O. Moreland, C.E.G. Senior Project Geologist op Randal L. Irwin, C.E.G. Chief Engineering Geologist FOM/RI /MRR/rlm 0og' `U� Distribution: (6) Addressee {r �r,� _ �\P 'C / Michael R. Rahilly, G� Chief Geotechnical Engineer r tea, � /a:•- '� \ -` ; w (f No. e=ras n D2.3 UC �J Cr 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 Phone (858) 576 -1000 Fax (858) 576 -9600 ' San Diego - Irvine , Ontario - Los Angeles - Oakland - Las Vegas - Salt Lake City Phoenix Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134-01 I I'13 01GR9dx I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I INTRODUCTION .. ... . . ... .. . .. .............. . . . . ... .... .. .... . ......... 1 1 2- SCOPE OF SERVICES ..... ........ ....... ... . ... .. ... ..... ........... 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........... ............... ............. ............... .................................... 2 2 4. SITE DESCRIPTION ....... - - .................................. ............... ................... .......... 5- FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...... ........... ............................. 5.1. Exploratory Borings .... ............... ......................... ...... .. ... 3 . ....... . .... 3 5.2. Laboratory Testing ......................................... ..... . .. . .... .. . ..... ... 3 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..... __ ......... ..... ...... .............. ......... 3 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting..... ......... .................... .. ................ ............................... 4 6.2. Site Geology ......... .... _ ... _ .. .. .... .. .. .. . ... . .... ... A 6.2.1. Fill ......... . ... ... . .... .. ............ . ..... ...................... ......... ... 5 6.2.2. Alluvium.... ...... . ...... .... .... . ...... ........ 5 1.3. Rippability ........ ... ............... ... . .. ... - 5 6.4. Groundwater............ .. ........... .. ........... ................. 5 6.5, Flood Hazards .. ..... . ...... .. ....... ..... .. ... . . . ..... . ...... ... ............. 5 6.6. Faulting and Seismicity ........ . ........ ........6 66.1. UBC Seismic Design Parameters . ........ . . . ..... .6 6.6.1 Strong Ground Motion and Ground Surface Rupture ................ ................. .. 7 6.6.3. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement . . ..... 6.6.4. Tsunamis ... ....... ...... ..... ... .... ........... . 9 ......... ....... 8 6.7- Landsliding ........................ _ ................ ....8 7. CONCLUSIONS ............ .......... ... ................. ... . ... . ..... _ 8 8. RECOMMENDATIONS .... ........... ... ... - .. .... ......... . .. .. . .... . .. ..... . .......... --- 9 8A. Earthwork ........ - ............ ............. ..... ... ...... 9 8.1.1 Pre-Construction Conference......... ... . .. . ..... .. .. . ......... 9 8.1.2. Construction Observation . ... .. .. ... ... .. .. . ... ....... _.. 10 8.1.3. Site Preparation ..... ..... ..... .. .... _ __ . ... ... ...... .... .... 10 8.1.4. Treatment of Existing Alluvial Soils ............ ... ... .... ........... .... . . .. ... 10 8.1.5. Excavation Characteristics. ...... ... . ...... .... 11 8.1.6. Materials for Fill . .. ....... ...... ..... .... ... . .... _ .. - - ... .. . 11 8.1.7. Compacted Fill ...... .... ............... .... ..... ......... _ ..... . ...... .. ....... 11 81.8. Slopes ............. ............................... ....... .. ...... . . ....... 13 8.1.9. Temporary Slope Stability .... .. . ... ........................... 13 8.1 10. Trench Backfill .. . ... ............. ...... . .. . .. ... . ............... ........ 14 8.1.11. Drainage ..... . .. .. ..... . _ .... .. .. ... ......... ..... 14 8.2. Foundations .............. .... .............. ..... .. .. ... . . . ... ...... . .......... ..15 8.2 1. Shallow Foundations........ . . ..... __ .... ...... _ .... ... .. 15 I I'13 01GR9dx I Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134-01 I I I I I I I I -7;e S 8.2.2. Shallow Foundation Lateral Resistance... _ . ............ ........ .............................. 16 8.23. Settlement .............. ......................... ................................................. .......... 16 8.3. Slabs-on-Grade ........................................................... ................ ........... .............. 16 8.4. Pavements .................................................................................... ......................... 17 8.5. Corrosion .............. ... ......... ......... ... ..... . . . ..... .. ... . .......... .......... ... ... 18 9. LMTATIONS ............... .................. ............. - .... . .... ......... .. ............. 19 10. SELECTED REFERENCES ...... .............. ..... ... ............ ..... .. ...... . ............................ 21 Tables Table I — Seismic Design Parameters.. ... ........ ..................................... .... ..... ...... . 7 Table 2 — Recommended Pavement Sections ....... ..... ...... .............. - ..... ...... . ....18 Fij!ures Figure I — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Geoteclinical Map Figure 3 — Fault Location Map Appendices Appendix A — Boring Logs Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Appendix C — Typical Earthwork Guidelines I I I I I I I I -7;e S Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and our proposal dated January 28, 2000, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the design of the proposed Temecula Middle School No. 5 at the "Redhawk" site in the Temecula area, California. Our geotechnical evaluation was in conformance with Chapter 18A of Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of the 1998 California Building Code This report presents the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing, our conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the subject site, and our recommendations for the design and earthwork construction of this project. We have also performed a fault hazard study for the site, the results of which are presented in a separate report. In addition, we concurrently performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Temecula High School No. 3, which will be located northwest of and adjacent to, the subject site. The results of our geotechnical evaluation for Temecula High School No. 3 are also presented in a separate report. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Ninyo & Moore's scope of services for this phase of the project included review of pertinent ' background data, performance of a geologic reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis with regard to the proposed middle school construction. Specifi- cally, we performed the following tasks- * Review of background data listed in the Selected References section of this report. The data ' reviewed included topographic maps, geologic data, stereoscopic aerial photographs, fault maps, Special Studies Zones maps, and a conceptual site plan for the project. • Performance of a geologic reconnaissance of the proposed site, including the observation and mapping of geologic conditions and the evaluation of possible geologic hazards which may ' impact the proposed project. • Subsurface exploration consisting of 32 exploratory borings. The boring depths ranged from -' 10 to 75 feet below the ground surface. • Laboratory testing consisting of in -situ dry density and moisture content, expansion index, ' sieve analysis, direct shear, consolidation, R- value, maximum density /optimum moisture con- tent, and soil corrosivity tests. 41 xuwae a« t ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' • Compilation and engineering analysis of the data obtained. • Preparation of this geotechnical design and data report presenting our findings and conclu- sions regarding the proposed middle school site. The report also includes geotechnical recommendations for the design and earthwork construction of the subject project. ' 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on current conceptual plans, the Temecula Middle School No 5 is to be constructed on the southern portion of the Redhawk site, separated from the future high school to the north by the ' planned Peach Tree Road. The middle school will consist of eight buildings, including classrooms and administration. Paved parking will be provided adjacent to Peach Tree Road to the north, and ' Pechanga Road to the south. Athletic fields will also be provided on the eastern side of the middle school site. We anticipate that the new buildings will be one -story, slab -on -grade structures of ' wood - frame, steel- frame, or reinforced concrete construction. Building loads are expected to be typical of this type of relatively light construction. ' 4. SITE DESCRIPTION The Redhawk school site is an irregularly shaped parcel located to the northeast of the intersec- ttion of Pala Road and Pechanga Road in Temecula, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The middle school portion of the site is generally flat with several minor drainage channels ap- proximately 2 to 3 feet deep along the southwestern side of the site adjacent to Pechanga Road. The property is bordered to the northwest by agricultural fields, to the northeast by a golf course, ' to the southeast by scattered residential properties, and to the southwest by Pechanga Road. The southern side of the site, adjacent to Pechanga Road, appears to be in a natural state with the re- ' mainder of the site previously used for agricultural purposes. Site elevations range from approximately 1,170 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the southeastern corner of the site to ' approximately 1,150 feet MSL at the northwestern corner of the site. Vegetation consists of me- dium to large sized trees, brush, and weeds in the southern portion of the site. t41+Oicaaa« Z z09f/®& -A� �c"'mGN 17 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 5. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration of the subject site included a geologic reconnaissance and subsurface ex- ploratory work conducted on February 8 through 14, 2000. The subsurface evaluation consisted of drilling 32, 8 -inch diameter continuous flight, hollow -stem auger borings The boring locations were selected based on the results of our background geotechnical review, field reconnaissance, and the currently proposed building layout. Prior to commencing the subsurface exploration, Underground ' Service Alert was notified for mark -out of the existing utilities. 5.1. Exploratory Borings ' A total of 32 exploratory borings were excavated at the site on February 8 through 14, 2000 at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 2. The borings were drilled with a truck ' mounted, continuous flight hollow -stem auger drill. Boring depths ranged from 10 to 75 feet. Detailed logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A 5.2. Laboratory Testing Samples were obtained during our subsurface evaluation for laboratory analysis. Testing in- cluded in -situ dry density and moisture content, expansion index, sieve analysis, direct shear, consolidation, R- value, maximum density /optimum moisture content, and soil corrosivity tests. The results of the in -situ dry density and moisture testing are presented on the boring ' logs presented in Appendix A. Other laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. 1 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our findings regarding regional and local geology, including faulting and seismicity, landslides, rippability (excavatibility), and groundwater conditions at the subject site are provided in the following sections. 411-OIcRB d. 3 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1 ' 6.2. Site Geology 1 Geologic units encountered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation include minor amounts of artificial fill and alluvium. Generalized descriptions of the earth units en- countered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections. More detailed descriptions are provided on the boring logs in Appen- dix A. 1 41b11GReda 4 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting The project area is situated in the coastal section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. ' This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California (Norris ' and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimen- ' tary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith The portion of the province in Riverside County that includes the project area consists generally of uplifted and dis- sected Cretaceous granitic basement rocks and late Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary units. The subject site is underlain by relatively deep alluvial soils. ' The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub - parallel faults and fault zones trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults, which are shown on Figure 3, Fault Lo- cation Map, are considered active faults The San Jacinto and San Andreas faults are active fault ' systems located northeast of the project area and the Agua Blanca— Coronado Bank, San Clemente, and Newport- Inglewood faults are active faults located west of the project area. ' The Wildomar Fault segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone has been mapped near the eastern limits of the project site. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right- lateral, strike -slip movement. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in the Faulting and Seismicity section of ' this report and in the separate fault hazard evaluation report ' 6.2. Site Geology 1 Geologic units encountered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation include minor amounts of artificial fill and alluvium. Generalized descriptions of the earth units en- countered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections. More detailed descriptions are provided on the boring logs in Appen- dix A. 1 41b11GReda 4 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 6.2.1. Fill Scattered fill materials were encountered during our evaluation of the subject site associ- ated with past agricultural activities. In general, the fills are shallow and of limited extent. The fill materials are similar to the alluvial soils underlying the site and consist of silty sand and sandy silt. Scattered concrete debris, pieces of steel, and wood are also present in some of these soils. 6.2.2. Alluvium ' Alluvium was encountered in our exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 85 feet. In general, the alluvial materials encountered consisted of light yellowish brown, damp, ' interbedded silty fine- grained sand, poorly graded sand, and silt. ' 6.3. Rippability Based on our subsurface exploration of the site, the on -site fill and alluvium are expected to be nppable with normal heavy -duty earthmoving equipment. 6.4. Groundwater ' Groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory borings Based on our subsur- face exploration of the site, we anticipate that the actual groundwater table is at a depth in ' excess of 90 feet. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors ' 6.5. Flood Hazards According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map, ' the majority of the site is considered to be outside of a 100 -year floodplain. The map indi- cates the 100 -year flood would be contained in a low area along the southwestern and southern sides of the site adjacent to Pala and Pachanga Roads. We anticipate that these low aixowaed« jLfn30og��oOOGQ /V ' Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula Middle School No. 5 [1 l__J March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 areas will be raised above the 100 year flood level during grading of the site. Based on review of topographic maps, the site is not located downstream of a dam or within a dam inundation area. Based on this review and our site reconnaissance, the potential for significant flooding of the site is considered low. 6.6. Faulting and Seismicity The project area is considered to be seismically active, as is most of southern California Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as on our geologic field mapping, the subject site, where structures are currently planned, is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults (i.e , faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively). The eastern portion of the site, however, is within the Alquist- Priolo earthquake fault zone for the Wildomar Fault, which is part of the Elsinore (Temecula segment) Fault Zone. The easterly most portion of the site, where school buildings are currently planned, is within the Special Studies Zone and is the subject of our fault hazard study, the results of which are provided in a separate report. According to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), the proposed project site is within a UBC Near- Source Zone and is within Seismic Zone 4. In general, hazards associated with seismic activity include, strong ground motion, ground surface rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and tsunamis. These hazards are discussed in the following sections 6.6.1.UBC Seismic Design Parameters Table 1 includes the seismic design parameters for the site as defined in, and for use with, the 1997 edition of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). I<ua 011;U &1 6 MlJ SO" &— 1'Rmu m I/ tTemecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 7 [1 I I 1 Table 1 — Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Value 1997 UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16-1 Soil Profile Type SE Table 16 — J Seismic Coefficient C. 0.36N, Table 16 — Q Seismic Coefficient C„ 0.96N Table 16 — R Near - Source Factor, N, 1.3 Table 16—S Near- Source Factor, N, 1.6 Table 16 — T Seismic Source Type B Table 16 — U 6.6.2.Strong Ground Motion and Ground Surface Rupture Based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Western United States, issued by the United States Geological Survey (1999), the project site is located in a zone where the horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is 0.54g Based on the California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48 (1999), the horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is between 0.50g and 0.608. The requirements of the governing jurisdictions and ap- plicable building codes should be considered in the project design. The closest known active fault is the Wildomar Fault of the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula segment) located approxi- mately 250 feet northeast of the proposed school buildings. The Elsinore Fault (Temecula segment) has an assigned maximum earthquake magnitude of 6.8 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). Based on our review of the referenced literature, no active faults have been mapped across the project site where school buildings are currently planned. Based on background informa- tion and our fault hazard study (provided in a separate report), the potential for ground rupture due to faulting is considered low in areas where school buildings are currently planned. However, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible. I'IN- OIGRBdO 7 %Z ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 6.6.3. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to ' earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils and non - plastic silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are susceptible to ' liquefaction. ' Based on the absence of a shallow groundwater table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement at the subject site is low. It should be noted, ' however, that fluctuations in the groundwater level might occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irriga- tion, and other factors However, the likelihood that the water table would rise from its present depth to the shallow depths needed to produce liquefiable conditions, is also considered low. ' 6.6.4. Tsunamis Tsunamis are long seismic sea waves (long compared to the ocean depth) generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. Based on the inland location of the site, the potential for damage due to tsunami is considered nil. ' 6.7. Landsliding Based on our review of published geologic literature and aerial photographs, and our geo- logic reconnaissance, no landslides or related features underlie the subject site. 7. CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the referenced background data, geologic field reconnaissance, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed middle ' school is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on our review of published geologic maps and our field evaluation, the project site, where school buildings are planned, does not appear to ' 41 IG0.B e« �r /�/,� OIMTM �/2 02 ao 65 -� NJ " 4 13 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula Middle School No. 5 1 I 1 1 I 1 LJ 1 1 1 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 be underlain by faults or landslides. In our opinion, however, the following geotechnical factors will be significant in the planning of the proposed middle school design and construction • The upper portions of the alluvial soils underlying the subject site are in a loose condition. In order to mitigate the potential for future differential settlement of these soils, we recommend that they be removed to a depth of 8 feet below finish grade and replaced with compacted fill. • The subject site is underlain by loose sandy soils. Although no groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth explored of 85 feet (on the adjacent high school site), there is a poten- tial for the groundwater level to rise during extremely wet years. Liquefaction is possible if the groundwater level rises above a depth of roughly 20 to 30 feet. However, such a significant rise in the water table at the site is considered unlikely. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the design and construction of the proposed middle school. 8.1. Earthwork Details of proposed site earthwork are not known at ttis time, however, it is anticipated that cuts and fills needed to bring the site from its current grade to its finish grade will be minor, on the or- der of 5 feet or less. We recommend that the upper 8 feet of soil below finished grade underlying the site consist of a compacted fill mat to reduce the potential for differential settlement. The re- moval and recompaction of loose soils should extend 10 feet or more beyond proposed building limits. The following sections present our recommendations regarding earthwork for the project. In addition, Typical Earthwork Guidelines for the project are included as Appendix C. 8.1.I.Pre- Construction Conference We recommend that a pre - construction conference be held Owner representatives, the civil engineer, geotechnical consultant, and contractor should be in attendance to discuss the plans and the project. aiia.oicae a« q 1� ' Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula Middle School No 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 8.1.2. Construction Observation The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed project and on our evaluation of the data collected. The interpolated subsur- face conditions should be evaluated in the field during construction. Final project drawings and specifications should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the commencement of construction. The project geotechnical consultant should observe the grading and backfilling operations Compacted fill and backfill soils should be tested for specified compaction by the geotechnical consultant. 8.1.3. Site Preparation The project site should be cleared and grubbed prior to grading. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the substantial removal of vegetation and other deleterious materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. The debris generated during clearing and grubbing should be re- moved from areas to be graded and disposed of off site at a legal dumpsite. 8.1.4.7freatment of Existing Alluvial Soils We recommend that existing alluvial soils in structural areas on the site, including parking ar- eas, be removed to a depth of 8 feet below proposed finish grades and replaced with compacted fill. The exposed surface of the remedial excavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted and the suitable removed materials, or imported materials, re- placed as compacted structural fill. The areal extent of, and depths to which the alluvium should be removed, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant's representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Any unsuitable materials such as organic matter or over- sized material should be selectively removed and disposed of off site. 1 e13 IGRB dm 10 ff/ J9B9D&4 10S TG /5 I C [1 1 I I Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 8.1.5. Excavation Characteristics The results of our field exploration program indicate that the project site, as presently proposed, is underlain by alluvium. The on -site materials should generally be excavatable by heavy -duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. 8.1.6. Materials for Fill On -site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are suitable for use as fill. Fill material should not contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in largest dimension, and not more than 40 percent larger than 1 -1/2 inches Utility trench backfill material should not contain rocks or lumps over 3 inches in largest dimension and not more than 40 percent larger than 1 -1/2 inches. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or disposed of off site. Any imported fill material should be a low or very low- expansion potential (UBC. Expansion Index of 50 or less) granular soil with a plasticity index of 12 or less Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant's representative prior to filling or importing 8.1.7.Compacted Fill Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a generally uniform moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials should then be compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum density in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 -91 The evaluation of compaction by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies It is the contractor's responsibility to no- tify the geotechnical consultant and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. 411 01GRR dx 11 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula Middle School No. 5 41M4 IGRB d. March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 Excavated on -site materials which are in general compliance with the recommendations presented in Section 8.1.6 may be utilized as compacted fill provided they are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and do not contain rock fragments greater than 6 inches in dimension. Oversize material should be disposed of off site. During grading, the contractor may encounter soil types other than those analyzed during the preliminary geotechnical study. The geotechnical consultant should be consulted to evaluate the suitability of any such soils for use as compacted fill. Where imported materials are to be used on site, the geotechnical consultant should be notified three working days or more in advance of importation in order that it may evalu- ate, sample and /or test the materials from the proposed borrow sites. No imported materials should be delivered for use on site without prior sampling, testing, and evalua- tion by the geotechnical consultant. Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally uniform throughout the soil mass. We note that as encountered in our borings, the shallow alluvial soils are currently dry of optimum. Accordingly, significant moisture conditioning during grading should be antici- pated. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to re- ceive fill Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve near optimum moisture condition, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other appropriate compacting rollers, to a relative compaction of 90 or more percent of the maximum dry 12 �llG17��I0� � ©DOG'S' /7 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula Middle School No. 5 1 1 r I March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 density as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 -91. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 8.1.8. Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulat- ing agencies, permanent cut and fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal vertical). Compaction of the face of fill slopes should be performed by backrolling at intervals of 4 feet or less in vertical slope height, or as dictated by the capability of the available equipment, whichever is less. Fill slopes should be backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoot -type roller. Care should be taken to maintain the desired moisture conditions and /or reestablish the same, as needed, prior to backrolling Upon achieving final grade, the slope should again be moisture conditioned and backrolled. The placement, moisture conditioning and compaction of fill slope materials should be done in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.1.7, "Compacted Fill." Site runoff should not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes. Positive drainage should be established away from the top of slopes. This may be accomplished by utilizing brow ditches placed at the top of cut slopes to redirect surface runoff away from the slope face where drainage devices are not otherwise available. The on -site soils are likely to be susceptible to erosion, therefore, the project plans and specifications should contain design features and construction requirements to mitigate erosion of on -site soils during and after construction. Slopes and other exposed ground surfaces should be appropriately planted with protective ground cover. 8.1.9.Temporary Slope Stability We recommend that trenches and excavations be designed and constructed in accordance with OSHA regulations These regulations provide trench sloping and shoring design pa- rameters for trenches up to 20 feet deep based on a description of the soil types d[ F01GRH6oe 13 s,PRvo, &moo © ,Ya IT ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1 ' encountered. Trenches over 20 feet deep should be designed by the Contractor's engi- neer based on site - specific geotechnical analyses. For planning purposes, we recommend ' that the following OSHA soil classifications be used: Alluvium Type C ' Compacted Fill T}pe B Upon making the excavations, the soil /rock classifications and excavation performance should be evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with OSHA regulations. Recommendations for temporary shoring can be provided, if requested. ' In general, temporary slopes above the water table and excavated in competent alluvium ' should be inclined no steeper than 1 -1/2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Temporary excavations in compacted fill should be inclined no steeper than 1 1 Temporary excavations that en- ' counter seepage may need shoring or may be stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along the base of the seepage zone. Excavations encountering seepage should be evalu- ated on a case -by -case basis t8.1.10. Trench Backfill Backfill for utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent or more relative compac- tion as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 -91. Lifts should be of appropriate thickness to allow compaction to be achieved with the equipment used 8.1.11. Drainage ' Roof, pad, and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e g , gutters, downspouts, concrete swales, etc.). Positive drainage adjacent to structures should be established and maintained. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more outside the building perimeter, and further maintained by a graded swale leading to an appropriate 4 1 xmcRB4« 14 #J1VY/0 & #0VQM@ 1W 9 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula Middle School No. 5 1 I 1 1 [l 1 1 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and /or land- scape architect. Surface drainage on the site should be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the pad area and drainage patterns should be established to direct and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets. Care should be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drain- age terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final grading should be maintained for the life of the project. The property operators should be made very clearly aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance 8.2. Foundations Details of the future construction on the site are unknown at this time. Based on our under- standing that the future middle school buildings will be one -story, wood- frame, steel - frame, and /or reinforced concrete structures, we are providing the following preliminary foundation recommendations. Additional geotechnical evaluation studies may need to be performed once details of construction are known. 8.2.1. Shallow Foundations Continuous and /or spread footings should be founded in compacted fill. Footings founded as recommended may be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (pso. The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one - third when considering loading of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Rec- ommendations for lateral resistance for footings are presented in Section 8.2.2. Foundations should have an embedment depth of 18 inches or more below the lowest adjacent grade into granular, very low or low expansive compacted fill. Continuous ' '134OIGRBdo 15 /•9 IONos/{ 9 NO Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' footings should be 12 or more inches wide and spread foundations should be 18 or more inches square. Footings should be reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's ' recommendations. From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend that footings founded in non - expansive granular materials be reinforced with two No. 4 or larger reinforcing ' bars, one placed near the top and one near the bottom of the footings. ' 8.2.2. Shallow Foundation Lateral Resistance For resistance of foundations to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive Ares- , sure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used with a maximum of 3,000 psf. This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet or more, or three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recommend that the upper one -foot of soil not protected by ' pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used between soil and concrete. If passive and frictional resistance are to be used in ' combination, we recommend that the friction coefficient be reduced by two- thirds. The passive resistance values may be increased by one -third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. ' 8.2.3. Settlement We estimate that the proposed structures, designed and constructed as recommended herein, will undergo total settlements of less than approximately one inch. Differential settlements are typically less than about one -half of the total settlement. 1 8.3. Slabs -on -Grade We recommend that conventional, slab -on -grade floors, underlain by very low to low expan- sive compacted fill, be 4 or more inches in thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 or larger 1 ' xoicnsa« 16 /lY 04 a ?r�202 3060* 5 CD �� Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center each way. The reinforcing bars should be placed near the mid -point of the slabs As a means to help reduce shrinkage cracks, we recommend ' that the slabs be provided with expansion joints at intervals of approximately 15 to 20 feet, each way or as recommended by the structural engineer. The slab reinforcement and expan- ' sion joint spacing should be designed by the structural engineer. If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a vapor barrier and capillary break system consisting of a 6 -mil polyethylene (or equivalent) membrane placed over 4 inches of clean sand and overlain by an additional 2 inches of sand to help protect the membrane from puncture during placement and to aid in concrete curing. The exposed subgrade should be moistened just prior to the placement of concrete. Exterior concrete flatwork should be 4 inches or more in thickness and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on- center both ways. The vapor barrier may be deleted for exterior flatwork. ' 8.4. Pavements Based on the results of our subsurface evaluation, laboratory tests, and our experience with soils similar to those encountered at and near the site, we have assumed an R -value of 70 for the preliminary basis for design of flexible pavements at the project site. Actual pavement ' recommendations should be based on R -value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils that are exposed at the finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the ' mass grading operations. ' We understand that traffic will consist primarily of automobiles, light trucks and occasional heavy trucks. For design we have used a Traffic Index (TI) of 9 5 for access drives and 6.0 ' for parking. We recommend that the geotechnical consultant re- evaluate the pavement de- sign, based on the R -value of the subgrade material exposed at the time of construction. The preliminary recommended pavement sections are as follows: [1 ' iU�OIGRB doc t% o�7oZ 1 [] [1 Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula Middle School No. 5 Table 2 — Recommended Pavement Sections March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 As indicated, these values assume a traffic index of 9.5 for site access roads and 6.0 for parking areas where very little truck traffic is anticipated. In addition, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent. The above pavement sections should provide an approximate pavement life of 20 years. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re- evaluated We suggest that consideration be given to using portland cement concrete pavements in areas where dumpsters will be stored and picked up. Our experience indicates that refuse truck traffic can significantly shorten the useful life of asphalt concrete sections We recommend that in these areas, 6- inches of 600 psi flexural strength portland cement concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars, 18- inches on center, be placed over 3 or more feet of very low to low ex- pansive soil compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 8.1.7. 8.5. Corrosion Laboratory testing was performed on samples of the on -site soils to evaluate pH and mini- mum electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and minimum electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method 643, and the sulfate and chloride tests were performed in accordance with California "rest Methods 416 and 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. The results of the corrosivity testing indicated a minimum electrical resistivity of the samples tested of 4,400 to 15,700 ohm -cm The soil pH of the samples was 6.2 to 6.8, and the chlo- 4;2,3 Traffic Asphalt Class 2 Aggregate Area R -Value Concrete Base Index inches inches Access Roads 70 9.5 5 8 Parking 70 6.0 3 8 As indicated, these values assume a traffic index of 9.5 for site access roads and 6.0 for parking areas where very little truck traffic is anticipated. In addition, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent. The above pavement sections should provide an approximate pavement life of 20 years. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re- evaluated We suggest that consideration be given to using portland cement concrete pavements in areas where dumpsters will be stored and picked up. Our experience indicates that refuse truck traffic can significantly shorten the useful life of asphalt concrete sections We recommend that in these areas, 6- inches of 600 psi flexural strength portland cement concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars, 18- inches on center, be placed over 3 or more feet of very low to low ex- pansive soil compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 8.1.7. 8.5. Corrosion Laboratory testing was performed on samples of the on -site soils to evaluate pH and mini- mum electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and minimum electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method 643, and the sulfate and chloride tests were performed in accordance with California "rest Methods 416 and 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. The results of the corrosivity testing indicated a minimum electrical resistivity of the samples tested of 4,400 to 15,700 ohm -cm The soil pH of the samples was 6.2 to 6.8, and the chlo- 4;2,3 1 1 I Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ride content was 15 to 30 ppm. Based on results of our corrosivity tests, the on -site soils may be considered to have a low to moderate potential for corrosion of ferrous metals Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration. Laboratory testing indicated a sulfate content of the samples tested of 0 to 30 ppm, which is considered slight for sulfate attack. We recommend that 2 inches or more of concrete cover be provided over reinforcing steel for structures in contact with the soil. Although the results of the sulfate tests were not significantly high, due to the variability in the on -site soils and the potential for import soils, to be prudent we also recommend that Type V modified cement be used for concrete structures in contact with soil and that the water to cement ratio not exceed 0.45. 9. LIAIITATIONS The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No other war- ranty, express or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condi- tion. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, flood potential, or the presence of hazardous materials. This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document ' 41NOIGR8d« 19 *Vr&Al/�Q'SoG d ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I This report is intended for design purposes only and may not provide sufficient data to prepare an ac- curate bid by some contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing. Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site condi- tions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo d Moore has no control. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu- sions, and /or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said - parties' sole risk. all 01 GRB da 20 4AS0g *OMTS 00 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1 10. SELECTED REFERENCES American Public Works Association and Associated General Contractors of California (APWA), 1991, t Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Los Angeles, California. t Anderson, J.G., M. ERRI, Rockwell, T.K. and Agnew, D.0 , 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2. ' California Building Standards Commission, 1998, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Vol- umes I and 2. ' California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: dated February. ' California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, State of California Special Studies Zone, Pechanga 7 5 Quadrangle. ' California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazards Maps of California Map Sheet 48. ' Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County, Community Panel Number 060245 3355 D: dated November 20, 1 1 1 1 1 ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code Standards: International Conference of Building Officials, Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000 Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Geologic Map of the Elsinore Fault Zone Southern Riverside County, California. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131 Norris, R M. and Webb, R. W, 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual. United States Geological Survey, 1968 (photo- revised 1988), Pechanga Quadrangle, California, Riverside County, 7.5- Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 1:24,000. United States Geological Survey, 1999, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, World Wide Web, http. / /geohazards.cr.usgs gov /eq AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Source Date Flight Numbers Scale USDA 8 -27 -53 AXM -1K 171 and 172 1:20,000 311110�:TM 21 02 lA I 1 1 1 1 1 m N 1 N 2000 0 2000 4000 Approximate Scale in Feet U S G S PECHANGA QUADRANGLE. ] 5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC). DATED 1969, PHOTOREVISED 1982 ^/inya &*oore SITE LOCATION MAP TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NO.5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 1 97 I N ` L -J SITE J. Temecula Middle SRE UMITS ' _: _ -. % �• School N0.5 APPROXIMATE _ N 2000 0 2000 4000 Approximate Scale in Feet U S G S PECHANGA QUADRANGLE. ] 5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC). DATED 1969, PHOTOREVISED 1982 ^/inya &*oore SITE LOCATION MAP TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NO.5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 1 97 I N N 2000 0 2000 4000 Approximate Scale in Feet U S G S PECHANGA QUADRANGLE. ] 5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC). DATED 1969, PHOTOREVISED 1982 ^/inya &*oore SITE LOCATION MAP TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NO.5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 1 97 ` L -J N 2000 0 2000 4000 Approximate Scale in Feet U S G S PECHANGA QUADRANGLE. ] 5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC). DATED 1969, PHOTOREVISED 1982 ^/inya &*oore SITE LOCATION MAP TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NO.5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 1 97 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1._ m m 0 TR INN RO I D r D r� Ef F PR MIDDLE 0 250 500 scale feet LEGEND GEOTECHNICAL MAP Qaj Alluvium ,AECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 13-328 -�, Approximate location of explora to TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA BASIC SITE PIFN PRWIDED By FENEC VALLEY UNIFIED SCHWL uGTRICT.r NO. N 0 PLAN PLAN PREPARED DURING ON-SITE RECONNAISSANCE AHD SHOULD NOi 0� ALL DIMENSION$ ARE APPROXIMATE 01 DATE FIGURE si00 2 C Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 is 1� 1 1 1 ip tAY t[ttuY /Yt ct. - — [Of IYC[llf o- s �CF C t■1 -A6U[f \ YICIMYIIIF AAWOY �° �aAru•/ ND � n fIY lftl sAN _ tt�' tir[tfro[ ca .:'. \A. AnG5f1E5� . sAwrA A G 'SITE s o e,t C 0' SAN C1dO/TF fAY D /[CD Co. CF,1C4 r4 A� ? OCEANSOE \� •ESCONOOO \ \ O SotwNA eeALy+ CLEACWE SAM deco A. U.S. ' ■A. .� ■vn�■�'NEVC \ ° i 0 30 60 �Aq scale miles pyi p7 V & r cef--- ._�'o' /AII[I /A[ CD. SAL70H � SE1 \\; j r � \ ■ ■er�'� 4c FAULT LOCATION MAP TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NO- 5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA was PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 3 so Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No 104134 -01 APPENDIX A ' BORING LOGS Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples ' Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory excava- tions. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing ' The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Spoon Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetration Test spoon sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 ' inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1 -3/8 inches. The spoon was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140 -pound hammer free - falling from a height of 30 inches In general accordance with ASTM D 1586 -84. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of ' penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetra- tion. Soil samples were observed and removed from the spoon, bagged, sealed and ' transported to the laboratory for testing Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. ' The Modified Split - Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3 0 inches, was lined with 1 -inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ' ground with the weight of a 140 -pound hammer, in general accordance with ASTM D 3550 -84. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on I 1 the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the labo- ratory for testing. 4IN -01Gn dm t R,v 10197 3/ 1 1 i t U.S.C.S. IIIETHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES CLASSIFICATION U.S. Standard Gram Stu in Well graded gavels or gavel -sand mixtures little or no Slerc she Nfinimelern GIN Above 12" Above 305 COBBLES 12" to 3" fines GRAVEL - Poorly gaded gravels or gavel -sand mixtures, little or 761 to 4.76 GRAVELS a (More than 1/2 of coarse GP no fines GM Silty gavels, gavel -sand -silt mixtures C) ^ $ fraction q o '� > No. 4 sieve size) 4.76 to 200 Medlonr No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 U ~ o No. 40 to No. 200 GC Clayey gavels, gavel -sand-clay mixtures 0 � N Below 0.074 SW Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines u p € ^ SANDS SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines (More than 1/2 of coarse SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures U fraction <No. 4 sieve size) SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or ML clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity a .o SILTS & CLAYS CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly O " . to O Liquid Limit X50 clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays U > OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity o Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or C7 MH silty soils elastic silts d ua ° 7q zL € v &CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Liquid Limit >50 Organic clays of mediums to high plasticity, organic silty OH Iclays, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils CLASSIFICATION CHART (Unified Soil Classification System) GRAIN SIZE CHART U S C S CL SmcnnON CHART doe m 50 CH S + z u_ 2ML CL S 0 a MH OH 10 M AOL 0 10 m 30 a so m 7o eu LIOUIOLJMR(LL).% PLASTICITY CHART U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION r102 RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES CLASSIFICATION U.S. Standard Gram Stu in Slerc she Nfinimelern BOULDERS Above 12" Above 305 COBBLES 12" to 3" 305 to 76 2 GRAVEL - 3 "to No.4 761 to 4.76 Coa c 3"W3/4'* 76 2 to 19.1 Fine 3/4" to No. 4 19.1 to 4.76 SAND No 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.074 Coa No.4 to No. 10 4.76 to 200 Medlonr No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 Fine No. 40 to No. 200 0.420 to 0.074 SILT & CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.074 GRAIN SIZE CHART U S C S CL SmcnnON CHART doe m 50 CH S + z u_ 2ML CL S 0 a MH OH 10 M AOL 0 10 m 30 a so m 7o eu LIOUIOLJMR(LL).% PLASTICITY CHART U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION r102 ti 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 DATE DRILLED BORING NO. SYMBOL SAMPLES GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING DRIVE WEIGHT DROP SAMPLED BY LOGGED BY REVIEWED BY DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION d d = w J Q n O O I to 3 m ^ w ¢ Z) uF—i U a o w ¢ o p m 2 >_ Z o QtA c>6 LLri N:� v 0 Solid line denotes unit change. Dashed line denotes material change. Modified split - barrel drive sampler. No recovery with modified split- barrel drive sampler. Q Seepage. 5 i a Groundwater encountered during drilling. ?� Groundwater measured after drilling. Standard Penetration Test (SPT). No recovery with a SPT. XX/ XX Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches /length of sample recovered to inches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. 10 Bulk sample. Attitudes: Strike /Dip b: Bedding c: Contact j: Joint f: Fracture F: Fault 15 cs: Clay Seam s: Shear bss: Basal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs: Sheared Bedding Surface The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring. 20 1 17-1 V BORING LOG EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS PROJECT NO. SYMSAMP DATE Rcv. 1/99 FIGURE A-I 33 lip ,II III 5 'I I 'I ,I 10 �I �I IS �I ,I i20 I_ 0 W K 1- In U o_ i J I to � to W W EC O D 11 1 1.6 1 106.9 Z O U) LL N U) J U day DATE DRILLED 02 /14100 BORING NO. BAR GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DFSC RI PTION /INTERPRETATION ALLUVIUM: Brown and grayish brown, dry to damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - -- SP Grayish brown, damp, loose, poorly graded fine to medium SAND; trace silt. 11 2.3 87.6 ,: - - ---- -- - - -- -- ----- -- -- - -- -- -- --- --- - -- -- - --- -- - - -- -- - ---- -- ------------------------------- � � SM Grayish brown, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel. 17 1 1.6 1 90.1 14 17.9 1 114.1 1111[jil I Little clay; slightly micaceous. ------- --- — - ------ - ML Brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sandy clayey SILT; slightly micaceous. El BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT N37-7 DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -1 Sq w a 0 d Q O N u- 2 � a. U W III c J m lip ,II III 5 'I I 'I ,I 10 �I �I IS �I ,I i20 I_ 0 W K 1- In U o_ i J I to � to W W EC O D 11 1 1.6 1 106.9 Z O U) LL N U) J U day DATE DRILLED 02 /14100 BORING NO. BAR GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DFSC RI PTION /INTERPRETATION ALLUVIUM: Brown and grayish brown, dry to damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - -- SP Grayish brown, damp, loose, poorly graded fine to medium SAND; trace silt. 11 2.3 87.6 ,: - - ---- -- - - -- -- ----- -- -- - -- -- -- --- --- - -- -- - --- -- - - -- -- - ---- -- ------------------------------- � � SM Grayish brown, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel. 17 1 1.6 1 90.1 14 17.9 1 114.1 1111[jil I Little clay; slightly micaceous. ------- --- — - ------ - ML Brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sandy clayey SILT; slightly micaceous. El BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT N37-7 DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -1 Sq 1 LL U Z DATE DRILLED 02 114/00 BORING NO. B -1B CL 2 F 00 .Q w O GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 U) tr >- F to Q* _O U METHOD OF DRILLING S" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger w30 F O z 0 1m Nj DRIVE WEIGHT 14016s. DROP 30" O to SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI O v DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 ML ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 14 5.9 117.4 Brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sandy clayey SILT; slightly �I micaceous. 25 ------- — --- - - --- - --- ----- - - --- SM ----------------------- Brown, moist, loose, silty fine to medium SAND; little clay. 'i ,I 30 E �I 22 12.3 116.1 III II 35 II �I 40 BORING LOG ;) MIDDLE N S I� WN7TEM1ECULA TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE _ 104134 -01 03100 A -2 1 3S — IIt1 F- Wc w J g Q N LL O m o — ¢ i-- N U U } F- Z to N Z O H Q r/i U w N (n U DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -IB GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 40 �II I' II 45 II (I 50 t 27 24 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Grayish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND. II 55 I� II II otal Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000. 60 07 U& ®®re BORING LOG TEt,1ECULA LA, CAL FORNIA qS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -3 '46 I N Z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. 13-2B a F a O 00 w J F- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 w _ Q U- (n } F O m Q /I U— 6 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger _ 30 Imo- Z LLtn 0- c 0 y y DRIVE WEIGHT 140tbs. DROP 30" om 2 SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI cc U O DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium �I SAND. �I 5 �I 9 3.7 97.5 ` EE 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. I �I Backfilled on 02/11/2000. �I 15 III �II 20 BORING LOG TEbfE MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TEM MEC ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -4 -721fo�2066 -c2 97 I I Ii I I i i 11 II II w g Q O LL c c 00 w ¢ to � a Y 1= Z W cc M 2 N Z o Q� U u. Vii (n:3 U DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING N0. 13-313 GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 II II II 5 IE 14 1.9 103.6 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty Pme to medium SAND. 10 IS Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000. 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEp1ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -5 I V) U z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B4B d O o a O F- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 d tai] O w � > atn 03 Y U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Di=eter Hollow-Stem Auger t~_n U) w vi DRIVE N WEIGHT 14016s. DROP 30" ° '- no U SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTIONANTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: �I Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND. �II t ;I 5 II9 6.2 101.3 'll 'll 10 Total Depth = IO feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/11/2000. I 15 'I 20 BORING LOG �®AV®& ®®re TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NS TEMECUTA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE ■ 104134 -01 03100 A -6 I 1 � I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I a ° a 2 Q F 00 LL m a w cc N 2 LL a } F- a O Z O_ F- to U U) U DATE DRILLED 02 114100 BORING N0. B -IB GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION C 0 SM ALLUVIUDI: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 6 4.7 97.8 S 7 4.5 106.9 E EEE 10 EE Ij 20 EEE[, E Few coarse sand. SP Light brown to brown, damp to moist, medium dense, poorly graded fine to medium SAND; trace silt. 15 24 1.9 6 107.6 124 - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- SM ---------------- P------------------...----------- ----- ------ ----- - - - - - -. . -- Brown, dam to moist, loose, sit -- fine to medium SAND. 20 ���ppp ,j7 ®®r� BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 ,y®& TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -7 .qD �_ a w g tQ/> %24 cc cc co I- N _U U N �j v DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -SB GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 0 20 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) �I Brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. �I 25 .I 'II -- ------ ------- - ------ ------------ ML ---------------- -----'---'----- -- ------- ------ -- ----- -------- -- -- -- Brown, moist, medium dense, fine sandy SILT; few clay. �II 'l 30 'l 12 Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000. II ' 35 'll 'II 'l 40 BORING LOG TEfECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL pS & ® ® TEMECULA, CALIF ORNLA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -8 1 u/ — d m ~ O w 0_ 2 V) 1 O O 3 m °- w u LL a } w cc D M Z O F-- Qtn LL U �� v DATE DRILLED 02 /11/00 BORING NO. B-6B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION O SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, darnp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 0 'll III 5 ,II 9 1.7 104.5 I ' 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 'I 11 ' 1 IS 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL q5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE . 104134 -01 03/00 A -9 iA II CL g Nc LL 30 10 W m LL U } F- 0 Cc m Z O QN U yj v DATE DRILLED 02!11 /00 BOOING NO. B -7B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF I METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION O 0 SP ALLUVIUM: Light brown, damp, very loose, poorly graded fine and medium SAND; trace silt. �I 1 II 5 7 6.0 94.7 ML Brown, damp, firm, clayey SILT; scattered rootlets and roots up to approximately 3/4" in diameter. ;I 'I 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. ;I 15 II 'II �I 20 BORING LOG T[M ECUTA MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03!00 A -10 jiff r 1 I [l 1 Cl 1 1 _ i Ch- 0 n' g U) ~ 0 0 30 m ° `—L cc U) a Y o Ir 0 m N z <(n 0 U LL Yi �j tali DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -8B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140Ibs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY Rl DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION C 0 5 I 6 SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 IS Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 20 BORING LOG TEh1ECULA LE SCHOOL p5 TEECULA, LA, C CALIFORNIA �I PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -11 _ d _ F- ° N U) O p 01 _ LL a o m N Z O H aU) Y6 �j u DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -9B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION C ° 0 '5 II 11 2.5 104.8 ( SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fore to medium SAND; scattered rootlets. � ' 'I 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 20 ■ M BORING LOG TEMECUL-AMIDDLE SCHOOL NS TEMECUL A, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -12 ��5065 -C;?. 115 I F I 1 i I I I I 1 m O IIa O O w to w m LL a- r E_ o CC O >- z O Qvi U Nj U SAMPLED DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING N0. B -10B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION D 0 II II7 i II 5 II16 10 it I �I 15 11 14 5.7 3.7 6.0 6.1 88.6 111.3 105.2 109.3 E E [[jf €E E E E SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, dry to damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND; slight pinhole porosity. Light brown to brown; moist; loose. Brown; micaceous; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers. 20 ^+ BORING LOG TEMEMEC MIDDLE SCHOOL NS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -13 �v a 0 Q 00 p 0 o� W U)_ O LL } w JO z Qtri Q v DATE DRILLED 02 /I1 /00 BORING N0. B -lOB GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY R1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 20 I II �I 25 III III III III 30 II III 11 35 I it IiI I 40 25 18 3.9 116.6 t SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered charcoal fragments. Loose. � BORING LOG TEME MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 TEM MEC ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03!00 FIGURE A -I4 I 1/7 I [1 I 1 [] [] I I i 11 1 a O Ja U F O w LL m o cc U) LL a } F- W O m V) z O_ F Q to U U �j v DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -10B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 40 I 45 50 17 22 j� E I SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND. Moist to wet. 55 Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Back Pilled on 02/11/2000. 60 ���qqq %yjrv& ®®re BORING LOG TEMEMECULA, CALIF RNLA HS TEt.tECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A -15 CJ 1 I 1 C' 1 1 I wc O U a Q U f 0 n Co w cr F- to :E LL a >- F- Z 0 cc O JO m 2 z O Q� O V LLN Nj v DATE DRILLED 02/11100 BORING NO. B -11B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 II II 5 II II 9 5.2 95.1 E SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; scattered pinhole size pore spaces. 10 15 i Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 20 6 BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE CALIF RNLA qS' TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -16 49 '- CL O Ja Q H LL m o w 2 LL a } ~ 0 cc o JO m N z O <I"- U- ) Y6 �j U DATE DRILLED 02 /11/00 BORING N0. B- 12B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION C 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 'll ,II 5 'II 7 6.1 103.0 ,I E f 'I 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/11/2000. �I tl 15 t t 20 BORING LOG TEAfECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL HS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE - 104134 -01 03/00 A -17 5d 1 / N w LL U Z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -13B _ CL 2 O o GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 2 .... Q (n u- w ¢ �- ~ O Q ui U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diamder Hollow-Stem Auger _ wc 0 to Z y U_ �j DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" 0 m O 2 Q u SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI p DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered layers of light brownish gray; poorly graded fine to 1 f medium sand. �1 11 1.4 106.9 �I 5 1 12 2.2 106.7 Brown; incrase in clay content. I 111 111 E 111 to f 11� 11 7.2 112.5 Layer of light brown; fine to coarse sand. - Ii� 1 15 € 18 4.5 113.4 €E[ E [ tttt�E 1 I1 1 11 Ej I' 20 BORING LOG T5 TEM6C CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DA, DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03100 A -18 1 / o i m o w dam t i t l t f t medium SAND little clay �I �I �I 25 ,I �II �I 30 �I 35 1� 40 15 7.7 107.8 , p moss , nose, s ty e , 20 WA Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000. BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 1 03/00 1 A -19 .5 OIL IL Z D DATE DRILLED 02 /11/00 BORING NO. B-13B J0- F F 0 _ I 0- O O_ JO 1 1-- G GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 O w w } } J Q N to m m U U U M METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger a O O N N t tj � �j D DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" O m m v v S SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 S SM A ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown o �I �I �I 25 ,I �II �I 30 �I 35 1� 40 15 7.7 107.8 , p moss , nose, s ty e , 20 WA Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000. BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 1 03/00 1 A -19 .5 OIL d = 0 o DATE DRILLED 02/14/00 BORING NO. B -14B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION w a � tail C3 O v1 m W cc ti u a } w O � 03 N z O QN U N� U < > 0 II 1 1 II 5 �I II 1 10 2.7 103.1 � I SM ALLUVIUIs1: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; few gravel. 1 r� 15 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/1412000. 20 &M® ®reTEMECULA BORING LOG MIDDLE N S TEMECU[A. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -20 —7?�f o2 c? (L15) (IV"" S — t=;2 .53 U c/ L LL Z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -15B a OF GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 N 03 tr Q i yd METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger = N H Z W N u_ to y � DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" m > v SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI O DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; little clay. f l �I '5 II 12 3.8 107.0 I II 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/11/2000. II 15 I �I 20 BORING LOG ■O TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03 /00 A -21 U c/ L ■ S/ 5! U Z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING N0. B -16B H o_ p < o a O H GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 d O cA U- w W >' J <U) O U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Aueer = 3 v~i v~-1 w M >' (n� DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" p m v SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI o cc 0 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM e ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. II �II r5 II 11 15 4.0 96.7 II II ,I 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. II �I 15 r' I . 20 BORING LOG ' ® ® mire /e/1 & TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL k5 - ® a TEM ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE ® I 104134 -01 03/00 A -22 ■ S/ 5! 0 LL Z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING N0. B -17B a F a O ,I d g 00 } 1— GROUND ELEVATION SHEET l OF 1 N LL cc F- m U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger �I CL c N N Nj DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" O Q m u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI �I DESC1 CRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. ,II III 5 tll10 1.6 103.9 'll 'I ' 110 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. lip 'l ,II IS �I 'l II t 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -23 56 I w' �I: ti 0 W cc F to O a U CL } F- z Z Ocw D } Q 11 1 2.8 1 98.9 10 1 1.5 1 101.6 14 1 6.3 1 105.4 21 J L) m } Z O QN U Li �1-Ui U O Q U AUT DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -18B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Brown; damp to moist. Fine to coarse sand. 20 . BORING LOG TEMECULAMIDDLE NS TEMEC ULA, CAL IFORNLA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -24 S-7 w _ a ~O d Q O F- N a W W c O J w' �I: ti 0 W cc F to O a U CL } F- z Z Ocw D } Q 11 1 2.8 1 98.9 10 1 1.5 1 101.6 14 1 6.3 1 105.4 21 J L) m } Z O QN U Li �1-Ui U O Q U AUT DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -18B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Brown; damp to moist. Fine to coarse sand. 20 . BORING LOG TEMECULAMIDDLE NS TEMEC ULA, CAL IFORNLA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -24 S-7 3t] ,I �I ,I LL Z o w O_ W a H I� U) O I � c 0 U) 2 p 0 �I W W �> c O J m 3t] ,I �I ,I 25 1 2.1 1 108.7 0 I DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -18B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown to grayish brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND. _ -- --- - -- --- - - -- ---- --- -- - - ----' ML Brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sandy clayey SILT; a few scattered light brown stringers. Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000. 7. • q BORING LOG TEMEMIDDLE KS TEMECULA, CALIF ORNLA PROJECT NO. DATE _ 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE A -25 se LL Z o a O_ W J H . to U) m U U U U) p 0 ¢ U C) 25 1 2.1 1 108.7 0 I DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -18B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown to grayish brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND. _ -- --- - -- --- - - -- ---- --- -- - - ----' ML Brown, moist, stiff, fine to medium sandy clayey SILT; a few scattered light brown stringers. Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000. 7. • q BORING LOG TEMEMIDDLE KS TEMECULA, CALIF ORNLA PROJECT NO. DATE _ 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE A -25 se a� V? —" n- Q to U- to O m w cr D N a F to o cc O CO z 0 Q to U U Nj Q U DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B- 19B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF I METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 0 �I 5 �I �I 8 2.6 93.9 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 10 �I 15 'l 'I 'l 'I 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 'TE<,fEMEC hs BORING LOG LA, CAE SCHOOL p5 TE6fECUL.4, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -26 S W III a o a~� Q O = N F �. II o C O W J m O ,I 0 5 15 'I ,I ,I �I tI IS 11 i� ,I WALI Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/15/2000. BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL X5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. I DATE FIGURE M tLL.l z DATE DRILLED 02 115100 BORING NO. B -20B a o GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 tY F_ N m U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger 2 w U) (nj DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" O u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY R1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; few gravel. 2.4 109.5 WALI Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/15/2000. BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL X5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. I DATE FIGURE M _ z DATE DRILLED 02 115/00 BORING NO. B -21B m 0- F O � °- a w O 1- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 2 °> Q m O a to w ¢ F > F- (n p Q to U u. 6 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger �= w 0 N Ln Nj DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" I O � 00 2 u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI O O cc DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 8 0.9 93.3 5 12 2.0 101.2 'II 'l 10 EEEE� 23 2.7 108.0 [ �II E 15 ' 26 4.1 103.3 Medium dense; few gravel. ,I E E 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL HS TEMECUA, CALIF ORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -28 'll ,I 'll 'II 'll ,I ,II 'l ,I ,I ,II 'l ,I 'I a0 (n Q 00 0o — w °C U) LL U H o JO m 0 z Q� U6 �j Q U DATE DRILLED 02 /15/00 BORING NO. B -21B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 25 30 16 30 7.0 117.3 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine to medium SAND; few clay. Medium dense. 35 40 Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/15/2010. p ^+ BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE GUR �I ,II 'll ,II ,II 'll 11 1 j 1 w w 0 O m o w cc V) U Z } o 00 <(n Q U V LL V)j v DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -22B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION C o 0 5 11 3.8 88.7 p E 111 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 15 120 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 1 s & ®®P a BORING LOG TEM ECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL MS TEt.tECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT N0. 104134 -01 DATE 1 03/00 FIGURE 1 A -30 621 z DATE DRILLED 02 115/00 BORING NO. B -23B o U O a GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 N m (-)(3 METHOD OF DRILLING S" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger ' a c O w �j DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" ° 00 :5 v SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY R1 ° DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. �1 �1 �I 5 ' 12 2.1 95.2 II EEI Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/15/2000. 'I ' 15 11 11 �I ' 1 20 BORING LOG ' =w)yw ®®re TEt,fEMECULA, CALIF SCHOOL pS TECULA MI, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -31 W 'll ,II 5 'I 'II 'll ' 10 15 'I IJ IL0 11 1 2.2 1 100.2 � DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -24B O w GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 LL 2 m U U U LL N w DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" O SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI m Q O w DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: ¢ Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. N _ 0 w n I0- O m ¢ 'll ,II 5 'I 'II 'll ' 10 15 'I IJ IL0 11 1 2.2 1 100.2 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG TENIECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -32 1a.5 z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -24B O GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 2 m U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger N mj DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" Q SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI U DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG TENIECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -32 1a.5 � m U1 ,II 'l 'l 5- 'll ,II ,I '1110 ' I IS 1 1 ' 20 L I w Z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B-2-5B o a O w } QN GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 ¢ ~ m U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger O m H Z �V? U) w N NO DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" O � U SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI 0-1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG ® ®�� TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 1 03/00 1 A -33 U) w �I ° ° o o �I a� Q Q O O z 0 a c c O O U1 ,II 'l 'l 5- 'll ,II ,I '1110 ' I IS 1 1 ' 20 L I w Z DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B-2-5B o a O w } QN GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 ¢ ~ m U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger O m H Z �V? U) w N NO DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" O � U SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI 0-1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG ® ®�� TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 1 03/00 1 A -33 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG ® ®�� TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 1 03/00 1 A -33 ill ,ll ill 5. ill ill ill 'i 10 I l l l15 l l ' 20 9 1 8.6 1 101.7 Z w G2 /11/00 BORING NO. B -26B O F u a SHEET I OF I a ,II w O 0 O 0 m w } Ir O 0 O ill ,ll ill 5. ill ill ill 'i 10 I l l l15 l l ' 20 9 1 8.6 1 101.7 Z DATE DRILLED G2 /11/00 BORING NO. B -26B O F GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF I Q N O U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auer : N � j DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" uSAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY R1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL p5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -34 1 !� 7 ,r �i 'l 111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING N0. B-2 7B O 1- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 Q(n V(n:D CO LL U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger N DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" vSAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI O DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. i i 5 10 2.7 101.7 ]0 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. i i Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 15 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL NS TEMECUTA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03100 A -35 M 'll ,II �I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 1 1 1 t 1 1 7/6 aSo6t.5 -cZ) &? N LL Z DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -28B J f ¢ O g 00 I— - GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 3 Q LL 8R 2 r H O Qm U METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger a. p N U) j DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" Lu 0 O co co v SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI CC o DESCRIPTIONIINTERPRETATION 0 SP ALLUVIUM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, fine to medium SAND; trace silt. 6 S 11 2.1 108.8 I - - -- -- -- --- - - --- --- - - ---- ML ---- -------------------- ----------------------- --- ----------- --- --- ----- - - -- - - -- -- ---- -- - -- --- Brown, damp to moist, loose, fine to medium sandy SILT; trace clay. to— 12 8.2 104.7 IS 14 8 9 109.0 Increase in clay content. .- ----- ----- .. -...-- --'-'--- -- SM ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Grayish brown, moist, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; few clay. 20 BORING LOG ® TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL XS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT N O. DATE 7 FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -36 7/6 aSo6t.5 -cZ) &? F 7d LL Z DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING N0. B -28B a F- Z-- 0- O F- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 Q `°—L cc } N JO Q (n cQ U J N METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diann t r Hollow -Stem Auger _ F Z 2 U: 6 c O N� DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" to t7 > co U SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTw REVIEWED BY Rl cr cr DESCRIPTIONIINTERPRETATION 20 € SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) ` Grayish brown, moist, loose, silly fine to coarse SAND. 18 10.4 105.8 E E 25 [E "[tI Ef�l - : ;EE[ 30 E 10 EE Interlayers of brown; moist to wet; stiff; clayey silt. �i EE !35- "E °tEo II EE�Ij E fll iI ' i[lE I 40 Mil BORING LOG & TEAf ECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 oo tl TEMECUI.L A, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -37 F 7d I L ,1 II 1 i 'I 1 1 m ` (L LU o d Q (n F O 0 m °— w cc _m O LL a F o 0 O m (n Z O F- Q ui U U �j U DATE DRILLED 02 /14/00 BORING NO. B -28B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTw REVIEWED BY R1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION O 40 45 50 28 28 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Light grayish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND. 1 155--- 11 Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/14/2000- 60 1 a �TEME I" ® BORING LOG NS TEMECULA, CAL IFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -38 V a�i _ a II ] ■ U) a Q i O O m o m 7 N 0 LL a >- N W } p JO c ? O 'll 'll 'll 5 'I ,II ,I I 10 'I. 'I 15 11 �I ,I 20 I 14 1 1.6 1 97.5 Z DATE DRILLED 02 /15/00 BORING NO. B -29B O Q� (SHOUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger LL � DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI U DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. &I Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/15/2000. BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -39 )A d _ F- w i U) c 0 F O 0 0 m o w cc H � N O w a Z 0 O m y Z O H Q vi U U w N yj Q U DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -30B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 4 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: r Light brown, damp, loose, silty fine SAND; scattered rootlets; scattered charcoal fragments. 9 4.6 89.7 5 10 `(E E EE•E[E[€( 10jttttttl[[ €[€ 15 4.4 108.1 €[EE�[EEEE{{€[ Brown; moist. �I EE� EE IS iEp€ 20 5.1 106.2 �E 20 1..)vff/jf4u&Muure BORING LOG TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL 85 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -40 25 O IIw � Q to O 0 N O m e w ¢ F N U } Z O cc Q O to n m < U) U U !E Uri 0O U DATE DRILLED 02111/00 BORING N0. B -30B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 4 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" D' ter Hollow -Stcm Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 20 �I �I 28 5.3 106.6 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; micaceous. �I 25 'II 'll F 30 i ` II 29 €j k 35 (((( !tEt` f EEC 40 ' f BORING LOG TEMEMIDDLE qS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ® ® PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03100 A -41 ,*570 �49e 40 �I 'l 'II 45 'll 'l 'll ' 150 �II 11 55 'I 60 1 21 33 DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -30B w w z a m Q N O O LL GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 4 W r 1— m W _> CC 0 J no 40 �I 'l 'II 45 'll 'l 'll ' 150 �II 11 55 'I 60 1 21 33 Dense. " BORING LOG TEM ECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL N5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -42 17.5 DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING NO. B -30B w z a a O GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 4 W r 1— m Q � CC U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger F� Z U) DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" O W Nj >' SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY R1 cc o U DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Ligbt brown to brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers. Dense. " BORING LOG TEM ECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL N5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -42 17.5 _ w _ wC O w J EL g Q F 00 LL to Q En to _ o w D U } F=- ul DRIVE W O z O F- Q In U LL N Nj U DATE DRILLED 02111/00 BORING NO. B-30B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 4 OF 4 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION D 60 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to coarse �I SAND. �I ail E 65 'II 'll l€ ' II 70 Lost SPT down hole; drilled out to recover SPT. 'II ` ' 75 Total Depth = 7S feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 11 1 1 go BORING LOG e�� ®&ffiu ®�@+ \7 NS TEMECULA MIDDLE CALIFORNIA TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -43 1 76 _d = W O � 2 to O m e w j �_ O 2 U } Ln cr o CO Z .QN U U) u DATE DRILLED 02/11/00 BORING N0. B -31B GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION C 0 �I �I 5 �I 12 3.9 96.6 SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND. �I �I �I 10 �I 'll 15 'l 'l 'I Total Depth = 6.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. 20 BORING LOG TEATEMECULA, CALIF SCHOOL PN1A pS TE�fECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 1 03100 FIGURE 1 A -44 If C9 DATE DRILLED 02111/00 BORING NO. B -32B W aw w nJ. Q N �0 O u- = d O N W 0 C _> 0 J m C9 10 1 2.1 1 100.5 Total Depth = 6.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG TtE MIDDLE SCHOOL NS & Gore TEMEC ULA, CALIFORNIA Wfj76y® PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE innive -M nl /00 A -45 '7S DATE DRILLED 02111/00 BORING NO. B -32B LL z o a O GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 W } m Qcn cc IZ U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger z t1 u~i w (n� DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" 0 SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI cc O U DESCRIPTIONIANTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 1 2.1 1 100.5 Total Depth = 6.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/2000. BORING LOG TtE MIDDLE SCHOOL NS & Gore TEMEC ULA, CALIFORNIA Wfj76y® PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE innive -M nl /00 A -45 '7S LI I I n I ?4 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No 104134 -01 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Classification ' Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 -93. Soil classifications are indicated ' on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A. In -Place Moisture and Density Tests ' The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex- ploratory excavations were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 -94. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A. 1 Gradation Analysis ' Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accor- dance with ASTM D422-63. The grain -size distribution curves are shown on Figures B -1 through B -3. These test results were,utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System ' Consolidation (Settlement Potential) Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general ac- cordance with ASTM D 2435 -90. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse ' field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the tests are summarized on Figures B -4 through B -7. Direct Shear Tests ' Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed and remolded samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 -90 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are ' shown on Figures B -8 through B -12 ' Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with U B.C. Stan- dard No. 18 -2. Specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 ' percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent) The prepared 1 -inch thick by 4 -inch diameter speci- mens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap 4I3d�01G28 doe 2 R" 1095 1 1 Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours The results of these tests are presented on Figure B -13. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected representative soil samples were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 -91. The results of these tests are sum- marized on Figure B -13. R -Value The resistance value, or R- value, for subgrade soils was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2844 -94. Samples were prepared and each was tested for exudation pressure and R- value. The graphically evaluated R -value at an exudation pressure of 300 pounds per square inch is reported. The test results are shown on Figure B -14 Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH, and minimum resistivity tests were performed on a representative samples in general ac- cordance with California Test (CT) 643. The chloride contents of selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 422. The sulfate contents of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417. The test results are presented on Figure B -15. 4114.01GRBdo 3 Rc ION) 9E i i 1 1 1 1 1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 K% 00 B -1 GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Ooarse Medium Fine Silt Clay US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3" 1 -1? 1" 34 1 YW 4 B 16 30 50 100 200 t000 I - I I I I I I I I I 0 1 I e0 I I I I I I I 1I 1 I `z ? ]0 I I I I I I I w m I I I I I I I I rc I I I I I I I I w LL I I I I I I I I 40 ui w I I I I I I I I II I I I 10 I — I I 1 I 1 II I I I 0 l00 m 1 of 0 01 owl 00001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Hole Number Depth feet Liquid Limit PI: t Lt Plastlat Index Soil T e a B -20B 2 -6 0 — SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 K% 00 B -1 K% 00 B -1 1� i 1 1 1 1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 0- 104134 -01 3100 B-2 008 ]J 5 Ms g3 Plasticlt • B -28B 2 -3 S -- GRAVEL SAND SP FINES Coarse Fine Coarse I Medium Fine Silt Clay V S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3" 1.1 1" 314" 1? 318" 4 a 16 m W 200 100 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I ZO I x C I I I I 1 1 I I I I I w 3 � I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I I W LL I I I I I 1 I I I I I i 40 — m w a I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I II I I 0 100 10 + 01 001 ooD1 0ooD1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Hole Number Depth feet Liquid Limit Plastic Llmlt Index Soil T e PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 0- 104134 -01 3100 B-2 008 ]J 5 Ms g3 Plasticlt • B -28B 2 -3 S -- -- -- SP GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 0- 104134 -01 3100 B-2 008 ]J 5 Ms g3 i 1 1 1 1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 1 n. 00 B -3 8-2eaw31 5 GRAVEL SAND FINES Plasticit Index S Sod T e Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SI Clay U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3" 1.112' 1- 314' 1? 318' a 8 16 30 so 100 200 100 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I s0 I I I I I I I I I I I I w I I 11 I I I I I I I I I 1 20 x mI I I I I I I 1 I I I I w 6o LL I 1 1 I I I I I I I I w 40 a 1 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I 0 t00 10 t Ot OOt 0001 00001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Hole Number De th feet Liquid Limit PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 1 n. 00 B -3 8-2eaw31 5 P Plastic Limit P Plasticit Index S Sod T e • B B -28B 3 30 -31.5 - -- - -- - -- S SM 1 n. 00 B -3 8-2eaw31 5 1 1 I 0.1 -4.0 r -3.0 z O w 2.0 z a a x w no 1.0 2.0 3.0 i L 4.0 L L j 5.0 U ,c, 6.0 L L 7.0 J J 8.0 1 Cu 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 -Seating Cycle Boring No. B -1 B s Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft ) 10-11.5 Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS �g TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA �i PROJECT NO. DATE [114 RE 104134 -01 3100 --reC2 3 O lo� -'a $s 1 1 0.1 -4.0 r -3.0 z O N -2.0 z a x x w -1.0 1.0 2.0 m w z 3.0 Y U_ S H 4.0 a 0 5.0 z z U w 6.0 a z 0 a 7.0 0 0 w 0 8.0 U m 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 Seating Cycle Boring No. B -10B e Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft ) 2 -3.5 Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS �g TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 ®O,� ®& ® ®��— TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE �ioe xa sa. 104134 -01 3/00 B -5 S!v I 1 1 r r r r 1 1 r 0.1 -4.0 -3.0 0 z 0 M -2.0 z a x w -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 rn - N W - z 3.0 Y U_ - T H 4.0 a - 0 5.0 z z U w 6.0 a z 0 a 7.0 o - 0 O 0 8.0 U - 9.0 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 - - � - -Seating Cycle Boring No. B -10B • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 ♦ Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435.90 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ss• TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 ft,VO& ® ®�® _ TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA �i PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE &fOB S65 e. 104134 -01 3/00 B -6 87 1 A r 0.1 -4.0 Ws U. z o -2.0 z x m 1.0 2.0 w Y 3.0 v_ x 4.0 a 0 5.0 w U w 6.0 Z O a 7.0 0 O 0 8.0 U m 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 100.0 - - ♦ - -Seating Cycle Boring No. B -18B • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft ) 2 -3.5 Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS p TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 ® / ®� ® ' � *nor ® TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA �i PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE a+ee ao 5 e, 104134 -011 3/00 B -7 g� 1 4000 Symbol Boring Depth (ft) Shear Cohesion (psi Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type 3500 IllL Number Strength HLL 3000 • B -1 B 5 -10 0 Peak 320 31 SM N 2500 a_ N N uj 44:H- 2000 N Q w 1500 U= 1000 i I 500 1 1 i I I 1 1 1 1 I I _ 1 I 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Depth (ft) Shear Cohesion (psi Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type Number Strength Silty Sand • B -1 B 5 -10 0 Peak 320 31 SM DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 10 4134 -01 3/00 B-$ If 1 1 1 4000 Symbol Boring Depth (ft) Shear Cohesion (psi Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type 3500 Number Strength Silty Sand • 3000 2 -15 T+ 130 - _ffi+H+_0_I__ SM N 2500 I I =FTT 44-_-9T44+# a_ N N Q� 2000 N K Q 111 N 1500 -1 1000 I 500 - I a,, 1 I I I I I I 0 I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Depth (ft) Shear Cohesion (psi Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type Number Strength Silty Sand • B -18B 2 -15 Peak 130 31 SM S. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 B-9 9a 1 1 4000 3500 3000 N 2500 a_ rn N Lu c� 2000 Q W N 1500 1000 500 0 0 I i 500 I 1000 I I 1500 2000 2500 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) I I 3500 4000 B -19B 2 -6.0 Peak 350 29 SM 3000 Description Symbol Boring Number Depth (ft) Shear Strength Cohesion (psi Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type Silty Sand 0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE LB-10 URE l 104134 -01 3/00 ) 91 B -19B 2 -6.0 Peak 350 29 SM DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE LB-10 URE l 104134 -01 3/00 ) 91 4000 Shear Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) 3500 Number Strength 3000 Silty Sand o B -28B 2 -3.5 Peak N 2500 34 SP a_ w 2000 7D LL N a' Q till N 1500 1000 I II I II II 500 I I I I 'I 0 II - 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Depth (ft) DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 00 8-11 9�. Shear Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type Number Strength Silty Sand o B -28B 2 -3.5 Peak 210 34 SP DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 00 8-11 9�. 1 1 1 4000 Symbol Boring Number Depth (ft) Shear Strength Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) 3500 TH��F Silty Sand #+T B -308 0 -10 Peak 200 3000 SM K2500 a_ N N X 2000 N K Q N 1500 1000 I_ I - - I 1 500 I I I 0 I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Number Depth (ft) Shear Strength Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type Silty Sand • B -308 0 -10 Peak 200 33 SM DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE __j 104134 -01 3 /00 8 -12 Tic�30 5-a 43 1 1 EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH UBC STANDARD 18 -2 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) INITIAL MOISTURE % COMPACTED DRY DENSITY PCF FINAL MOISTURE % VOLUMETRIC SWELL IN. EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B -1 B F2-3.5 7 8 116 4 15.0 0 0004 0 Very Low B -1 B Light brown, silly SAND 7.0 120.7 12 3 0.0023 2 Very Low B -10B 8.4 114.9 217 00001 0 Very Low B -13B 2-35 7.8 1167 155 00010 1 Very Low B -16B 2-60 79 1160 167 00001 0 Very Low 8 -20B 2-60 79 1172 125 00001 0 Very Low B -30B 0-100 7.4 1187 126 00001 0 Very Low MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1557 -91 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) SOIL DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) B-16 10-150 Grayish brown, silty SAND. 131 1 80 B -19B 2-60 Grayish brown, silty SAND 1306 82 B -30B 0 -100 Light brown, silly SAND 1335 84 EXPANSION INDEX AND MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE [LB-1 URE I -] 104134 -01 3100 3 g�c I I I [] I 1 I I I r I R -VALUE TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE EPTH SOIL TYPE R -VALUE B -128 2-60 SM 79 B -19B 2 -6.0 SM 73 B -308 0-100 SM 78 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 284494 R -VALUE TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 B -14 95 I [l 1 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) pH ' RESISTIVITY' (ohm�m) WATER -SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT IN SOIL" (PPS^) CHLORIDE CONTENT (PPm) B -3B 2-60 62 15,685 30 20 B -4B 2 -7.0 68 13,640 0 15 B -12B 2 -60 6.5 4.365 20 30 B -16B 2-60 64 12,275 0 15 B -198 2-60 64 9,500 12 20 B -30B 0 -100 62 12,960 0 15 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST 643 " PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST 417 "' PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST 422 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA �® PROJECT NC DATE FIGURE 104134104134.013/001 B -15 4l0 �-- Mill REBA, —.dm 1 APPENDIX C TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES I 1 --- 1 11 1 ' T, ,W Ez ..,k owna�ti am 11 Ninyo & Moore TABLE OF CONTENTS Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' Figures Page 1. GENERAL ............................................................................................ ..............................1 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES ............................................................. ..............................2 3. SITE PREPARATION ........................................................................... ..............................3 4. REMOVALS AND EXCAVATIONS ................................................... ..............................4 5. COMPACTED FILL ............................................................................. ..............................4 6. OVERSIZED MATERIAL ....................... ......................................... ..............................7 7. SLOPES ............................................................................................. ............................... 8 8. TRENCH BACKFILL— ................. ... ............ _.. .. .. ................... .............................11 9. DRAINAGE ............................................................................... ............................... 12 10. SITE PROTECTION .... :........ .......... ....... ................ ..... ......... ...... ............................... 13 11. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ..... ............................. .................. .... ....._....... .... ............15 ' Figures 1 9 Figure A — Fill Slope Over Natural Ground or Cut Figure B — Transition and Undercut Lot Details ' Figure C — Canyon Subdrain Detail Figure D — Oversized Rock Placement Detail Figure E — Slope Drainage Detail ' Figure F — Shear Key Detail Figure G — Drain Detail [l ' T T,y W Ev ,k Gwddma d.i 1 1 9 TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES ' 1. GENERAL These Guidelines and the standard details attached hereto are presented as general procedures for ' earthwork construction. They are to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These Guidelines are considered a part of the geotechnical report, but are superseded by recom- mendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could super- ' sede these specifications and/or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It is the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these Guidelines as well as the geotechni- ' cal report and approved grading plans 1.1. The contractor shall not vary from these Guidelines without prior recommendations by the geotechnical consultant and the approval of the client or the client's author- ized representative. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant and /or client shall not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the jurisdictional agency prior to the execution of any changes. 1.2. The contractor shall perform the grading operations in accordance with these specifi- cations, and shall be responsible for the quality of the finished product notwithstanding the fact that grading work will be observed and tested by the geo- technical consultant. 1.3. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to notify the geotechnical consultant ' and the jurisdictional agencies, as required, prior to the start of work at the site and at any time that grading resumes after interruption. Each step of the grading operations shall be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant and, where neces- sary, reviewed by the appropriate jurisdictional agency prior to proceeding with subsequent work ' 1A. If, during the grading operations, geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated or described in the geotechnical report, the geotechnical con- sultant shall be notified immediately and additional recommendations, if applicable, ' may be provided. 1.5. An as- graded report shall be prepared by the geotechnical consultant and signed by a ' registered engineer and certified engineering geologist. The report documents the geotechnical consultants' observations, and field and laboratory test results, and pro- vides conclusions regarding whether or not earthwork construction was performed in ' accordance with the geotechnical recommendations and the grading plans Recom- mendations for foundation design, pavement design, subgrade treatment, etc., may also be included in the as- graded report. ' T,.mil re kG.Mdm d1 t Rn 1198 `,9 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 1 1 1.6. For the purpose of evaluating quantities of materials excavated during grading and /or locating the limits of excavations, a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall be retained. 1 1.7. Definitions of terms utilized in the remainder of these specifications have been pro- vided in Section 11. 1 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES 1 The parties involved in the projects earthwork activities shall be responsible as outlined in the following sections. 1 2.1. The client is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the project. The client or the 1 client's authorized representative has a responsibility to review the findings and rec- ommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The client shall authorize the contractor and /or other consultants to perform work and /or provide services. During 1 grading the client or the client's authorized representative shall remain on site or re- main reasonably accessible to the concerned parties to make the decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. 1 2.2. The contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of grading and other associated operations, including, but not limited to, earthwork in 1 accordance with the project plans, specifications, and jurisdictional agency require- ments. During grading, the contractor or the contractor's authorized representative shall remain on site. The contractor shall further remain accessible at all times, in- 1 eluding at night and during days off. 2.3. The geotechnical consultant shall provide observation and testing services and shall 1 make evaluations to advise the client on geotechnical matters The geotechnical con- sultant shall report findings and recommendations to the client or the client's authorized representative. 1 2.4. Prior to proceeding with any grading operations, the geotechnical consultant shall be notified at least two working days in advance to schedule the needed observation and 1 testing services. 2.4.1. Prior to any significant expansion or reduction in the grading operation, the geo- technical consultant shall be provided with two working days notice to make appropriate adjustments in scheduling of on -site personnel 2.4.2. Between phases of grading operations, the geotechnical consultant shall be pro- f vided with at least two working days notice in advance of commencement of additional grading operations I. 0 S _c;2 T,Tmal Ea ,,k Gwdelmn do, I Rev 1198 /D/ I 1 1 1 1 1 Ninyo & Moore 3. SITE PREPARATION Typical Earthwork Guidelines Site preparation shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the following sections. 3 1. The client, prior to any site preparation or grading, shall arrange and attend a pre - grading meeting between the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geo- technical consultant, and representatives of appropriate governing authorities, as well as any other involved parties. All parties shall be given at least two working days notice. 1 3.2. Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the substantial removal of vegetation, brush, grass, wood, stumps, trees, tree roots greater than 1/2 -inch in diameter, and other 1 deleterious materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing shall extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. 1 3.3. Demolition in the areas to be graded shall include removal of building structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, etc.), and other manmade surface and subsurface im- provements, and the backfilling of mining shafts, tunnels and surface depressions. Demolition of utilities shall include proper capping or rerouting of pipelines at the project perimeter, and abandonment of wells in accordance with the requirements of 1 the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. 1 3A. The debris generated during clearing, grubbing and /or demolition operations shall be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of off site at a legal dump site. Clearing, grubbing, and demolition operations shall be performed under the observa- tion of the geotechnical consultant. 3.5. The ground surface beneath proposed fill areas shall be stripped of loose or unsuit- able soil. These soils may be used as compacted fill provided they are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and approved for use by the geotechnical consultant. The resulting surface shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant 1 prior to proceeding. The cleared, natural ground surface shall be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 5. of these Guidelines. 1 3.6. Where fills are to be constructed on hillsides or slopes, topsoil, slope wash, collu- vium, and other materials deemed unsuitable shall be removed. Where the exposed slope is steeper than 5 horizontal units to I vertical unit, or where recommended by the geotechnical consultant, the slope of the original ground on which the fill is to be placed shall be benched and a key as shown on Figure A of this document shall be 1 provided by the contractor in accordance with the specifications presented in See- 1 T,p 1Ee .,V Gwd,Ue dol Rcv 1:98 i /D% Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 1 ' tion 7. of this document. The benches shall extend into the underlying bedrock or, where bedrock is not present, into suitable compacted fill as evaluated by the geo- technical consultant. ' 4. REMOVALS AND EXCAVATIONS ' Removals and excavations shall be performed as recommended in the following sections. 4.1. Removals 4.1.1. Materials which are considered unsuitable shall be excavated under the observa- tion of the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic, compressible natural soils, fractured, weathered, soft ' bedrock, and undocumented or otherwise deleterious fill materials 4.1.2. Materials deemed by the geotechnical consultant to be unsatisfactory. due to moisture conditions shall be excavated in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, watered or dried as needed, and mixed to a gener- ally uniform moisture content in accordance with the specifications presented in ' Section 5. of this document. 4.2. Excavations ' 4.2.1. Temporary excavations no deeper than 5 feet in firm fill or natural materials may be made with vertical side slopes. To satisfy CAL OSHA requirements, any ex- cavation deeper than 5 feet shall be shored or laid back at a I inclination or ' flatter, depending on material type, if construction workers are to enter the exca- vation. 5. COMPACTED FILL Fill shall be constructed as specified below or by other methods recommended by the geotechni- cal consultant. Unless otherwise specified, fill soils shall be compacted to 90 percent or greater relative compaction, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557 -91. 5.1. Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor shall request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise recom- mended, the exposed ground surface shall then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a generally uni- form moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials shall then be compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum density. The evaluation of compaction by the geotechnical consultant shall not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is ' T,,.1 6nh,k Gwdt m dm 4 R:. IM /40.4 ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant and the appropri- ate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. ' 5.2. Excavated on -site materials which are in general compliance with the recommenda- tions of the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill provided they ' are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and do not contain rock fragments greater than 6 inches in dimension. During grading, the contractor may encounter soil types other than those analyzed during the preliminary geotechnical study. The geotechnical consultant shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of any such soils for use as compacted fill. ' 5.3. Where imported materials are to be used on site, the geotechnical consultant shall be notified at least three working days in advance of importation in order that it may sample and test the materials from the proposed borrow sites. No imported materials '- shall be delivered for use on site without prior sampling, testing, and evaluation by the geotechnical consultant. ' 5.4. Soils imported for on -site use shall preferably have very low to low expansion po- tential (based on LTBC Standard 18 -2 test procedures). Lots on which expansive soils may be exposed at grade shall be undercut 3 feet or more and capped with very low ' to low expansion potential fill. Details of the undercutting are provided in the Tran- sition and Undercut Lot Details, Figure B of these Guidelines. In the event expansive soils are present near the ground surface, special design and construction considera- tions shall be utilized in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. 5.5. Fill materials shall be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils shall be generally uniform throughout the ' soil mass. 5.6 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill shall be pre- pared to receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction 5.7.Compacted fill shall be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift shall be watered or dried as needed to achieve near opti- ' mum moisture condition, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other appropriate com- pacting rollers, to the specified relative compaction. Successive lifts shall be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 5.8 Fill shall be tested in the field by the geotechnical consultant for evaluation of gen- eral compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. TmW Ev ,,k G.d,W-&1 i Rev 1198 mf(- INinyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines Field density testing shall conform to ASTM D1556 -90 (Sand Cone method), D2937 -83 (Drive- Cylinder method), and /or D2922 -91 and D3017 -88 (Nuclear Gauge method). Generally, one test shall be provided for approximately every 2 ver- tical feet of fill placed, or for approximately every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition, on slope faces one or more tests shall be taken for approximately every 10,000 square feet of slope face and/or approximately every 10 vertical feet of slope height. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found to be out of conformance with the grading recommendations shall be removed, moisture con- ditioned, and compacted or otherwise handled to accomplish general compliance with the grading recommendations. 5.9. The contractor shall assist the geotechnical consultant by excavating suitable test pits for removal evaluation and /or for testing of compacted fill. ' 5.10. .At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall "shut down" or re- strict grading equipment from operating in the area being tested to provide adequate testing time and safety for the field technician 5.11. The geotechnical consultant shall maintain a map with the approximate locations of field density tests. Unless the client provides for surveying of the test locations, the locations shown by the geotechnical consultant will be estimated. The geotechnical consultant shall not be held responsible for the accuracy of the horizontal or vertical control points. 5.12. Grading operations shall be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Testing and evaluation by the geotechnical consultant does not preclude the need for approval by or other requirements of the jurisdictional agencies. 5.13. Fill materials shall not be placed, spread or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rains, the filling operation shall not be resumed until tests indicate that moisture content and density of the fill meet the project specifications. Regrading of the near - surface soil may be needed to achieve proper moisture content and density. 5.14. Upon completion of grading and termination of observation by the geotechnical con- sultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, retaining walls or other features, shall be performed without the in- volvement of the geotechnical consultant 5.15. Fill placed in areas not previously viewed and evaluated by the geotechnical consult- ant may have to be removed and recompacted at the contractor's expense. The depth and extent of removal of the unobserved and undocumented fill will be decided based upon review of the field conditions by the geotechnical consultant. T,pmal Eanh,iA Gmddm> dot 6 R_ 1198 105 I Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 5.16. Off -site fill shall be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifica- tions for on -site fills. Off -site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up gradient) shall be surveyed for future locating and connection. 5.17. Prior to placement of a canyon fill, a subdrain shall be installed in bedrock or com- pacted fill along the approximate alignment of the canyon bottom if recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Details of subdrain placement and configuration have been provided in the Canyon Subdrain Detail, Figure C, of these Guidelines. 5.18. Transition (cut/fill) lots shall generally be undercut 3 feet or more below finished grade to provide a generally uniform thickness of fill soil in the pad area. Where the depth of fill on a transition lot greatly exceeds 3 feet, overexcavation may be in- creased at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Details of the undercut for transition lots are provided in the Transition and Undercut Lot Detail, Figure B, of these Guidelines. 6. OVERSIZED MATERIAL Oversized material shall be placed in accordance with the following recommendations. 6.1. During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 6 inches in dimension (oversized material) may be generated. These materials shall not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed in general ac- cordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant ' 6.2. Where oversized rock (greater than 6 inches in dimension) or similar irreducible material is generated during grading, it is recommended, where practical, to waste such material off site, or on site in areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal ' areas." Rock designated for disposal areas shall be placed with sufficient sandy soil to generally fill voids. The disposal area shall be capped with a 5 -foot thickness of fill which is generally free of oversized material 6.3. Rocks 6 inches in dimension and smaller may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such a manner that nesting of rock is not permitted. Fill ' shall be placed and compacted over and around the rock. The amount of rock greater than 3/4 -inch in dimension shall generally not exceed 40 percent of the total dry weight of the fill mass, unless the fill is specially designed and constructed as a "rock ' fill." 6.4. Rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 6 inches but less than 4 feet in 1 dimension generated during grading may be placed in windrows and capped with finer materials in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consult- ant, the approval of the governing agencies, and the Oversized Rock Placement ' Detail, Figure D, of these Guidelines. Selected native or imported granular soil (Sand Equivalent of 30 or higher) shall be placed and Flooded over and around the wind- T,kal Ev ,i Gwdc u dot 7 R:v 1/09 106 I I Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines rowed rock such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized materials shall be stag- gered so that successive windrows of oversized materials are not in the same vertical plane. Rocks greater than 4 feet in dimension shall be broken down to 4 feet or smaller before placement, or they shall be disposed of off site. 7. SLOPES The following sections provide recommendations for cut and fill slopes ' 7.1. Cut Slopes ' 7.1.1. Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 (hofi- zontal:vertical). The maximum recommended height of a cut slope shall be ' evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Slopes in excess of 30 feet high shall be provided with terrace drains (swales) in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Uniform Building Code, Section 3315 and the details provided in ' Figure E of these Guidelines. 7.1.2. The geotechnical consultant shall observe cut slopes during excavation. The ' geotechmeal consultant shall be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations. 7.1.3. If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable materials, overexcavation of the unsuitable material and replacement with a compacted stabilization fill shall be evaluated and may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the ' geotechnical consultant, stabilization fill construction shall be in general accor- dance with the details provided on Figure F of these Guidelines. ' 7.1.4. If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical con- ditions are encountered in the slope which were not anticipated in the preliminary evaluation report, the geotechnical consultant shall evaluate the conditions and ' provide appropriate recommendations. 7.2. Fill Slopes ' 7.2.1. When placing fill on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal :vertical), topsoil, slope wash, colluvium, and other materials deemed unsuitable shall be removed. Near- horizontal keys and near - vertical benches shall be excavated into sound bedrock ' or firm fill material, in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical consultant. Keying and benching shall be accomplished in general accordance with the details provided on Figure A of these Guidelines. Compacted fill shall I not be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been observed by the geotechnical consultant. Where the natural gradient of a slope is less than 5:1, benching is generally not necessary. However, fill shall not ' T,,,o] E n -,i Gwd,W >dm 8 Rev 1198 �0 7 I I 1 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines be placed on compressible or otherwise unsuitable materials left on the slope face. 7.2.2. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a temporary slope, benching shall be conducted in the manner described in Section 7.2.1. A 3 -foot or higher near- vertical bench shall be excavated into the documented fill prior to placement of additional fill. 7.2.3. Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 (hori- zontal:vertical). The height of a fill slope shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Slopes in excess of 30 feet high shall be provided with terrace drains (swales) and backdrains in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Uniform Building Code, Section 3315 and the details provided in Figure E of these Guidelines. 7.2.4. Unless specifically recommended otherwise, compacted fill slopes shall be over- built and cut back to grade, exposing firm compacted fill. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes shall be overexcavated and reconstructed in accor- dance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding may be increased until the desired compacted slope face condition is achieved. Care shall be taken by the contractor to provide mechanical compac- tion as close to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface as practical. 7.2.5. If access restrictions, property line location, or other constraints prevent over- building and cutting back of the slope face, an alternative method for compaction of the slope face may be attempted by conventional construction procedures in- cluding backrolling at intervals of 4 feet or less in vertical slope height, or as dictated by the capability of the available equipment, whichever is less Fill slopes shall be backrolied utilizing a conventional sheeps foot -type roller. Care shall be taken to maintain the desired moisture conditions and/or reestablish the same, as needed, prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slope shall again be moisture conditioned and backrolled. 7.2.6. The placement, moisture conditioning and compaction of fill slope materials shall be done in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5. of these Guidelines. 7.2.7. The contractor shall be ultimately responsible for placing and compacting the soil out to the slope face to obtain a relative compaction of 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density and a moisture content in accordance with Section 5. The geotechnical consultant shall perform field moisture and density tests at intervals of one test for approximately every 10,000 square feet of slope face and/or ap- proximately every 10 feet of vertical height of slope 1 T>PFaal EaM kGwdeWn dot 9 Rn 1198 �O� 7.4. Slope Maintenance 7.4.1. In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting shall be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope plants shall consist of deep - rooting, variable ' root depth, drought - tolerant vegetation. Native vegetation is generally desirable. Plants native to semiarid and and areas may also be appropriate. Large- leafed ice plant should not be used on slopes. A landscape architect shall be consulted re- ' grrding the actual types of plants and planting configuration to be used. 7.4.2. Irrigation pipes shall be anchored to slope faces and not placed in trenches exca- vated into slope faces. Slope irrigation shall be maintained at a level just sufficient to support plant growth Property owners shall be made aware that over watering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability Slopes shall be monitored ' regularly and broken sprinkler heads and/or pipes shall be repaired immediately. 7.4.3. Periodic observation of landscaped slope areas shall be planned and appropriate measures taken to enhance growth of landscape plants. 7.4.4. Graded swales at the top of slopes and terrace drains shall be installed and the property owners notified that the drains shall be periodically checked so that they may be kept clear. Damage to drainage improvements shall be repaired irttmedi- ' ately. To reduce siltation, terrace drains shall be constructed at a gradient of 3 percent or steeper, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil ' engineer 7.4.5. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant shall be contacted immediately for field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. ' -TiPa 3 c'-'*) 4(v s — t p 9a T.yaal p...n.rk Gwddmn dot 109 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 1 7.2.8. Backdrains shall be provided in fill slopes in accordance with the details pre- ' sented on Figure A of these Guidelines, or as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 7.2.9. Fill shall be compacted prior to placement of survey stakes. This is particularly important on fill slopes. Slope stakes shall not be placed until the slope is com- pacted and tested. If a slope face fill does not meet the recommendations presented in this specification, it shall be recognized that stakes placed prior to completion of the recompaction effort will be removed and/or demolished at such ' time as the compaction procedures resume. 7.3. Top -of -Slope Drainage ' 7.3.1. For pad areas above slopes, positive drainage shall be established away from the top of slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradient of 2 percent or steeper at the top-0f- -slope areas. Site runoff shall not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes. 7.3.2. Gunite -lined brow ditches shall be placed at the top of cut slopes to redirect Sur- face runoff away from the slope face where drainage devices are not otherwise ' provided. 7.4. Slope Maintenance 7.4.1. In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting shall be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope plants shall consist of deep - rooting, variable ' root depth, drought - tolerant vegetation. Native vegetation is generally desirable. Plants native to semiarid and and areas may also be appropriate. Large- leafed ice plant should not be used on slopes. A landscape architect shall be consulted re- ' grrding the actual types of plants and planting configuration to be used. 7.4.2. Irrigation pipes shall be anchored to slope faces and not placed in trenches exca- vated into slope faces. Slope irrigation shall be maintained at a level just sufficient to support plant growth Property owners shall be made aware that over watering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability Slopes shall be monitored ' regularly and broken sprinkler heads and/or pipes shall be repaired immediately. 7.4.3. Periodic observation of landscaped slope areas shall be planned and appropriate measures taken to enhance growth of landscape plants. 7.4.4. Graded swales at the top of slopes and terrace drains shall be installed and the property owners notified that the drains shall be periodically checked so that they may be kept clear. Damage to drainage improvements shall be repaired irttmedi- ' ately. To reduce siltation, terrace drains shall be constructed at a gradient of 3 percent or steeper, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil ' engineer 7.4.5. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant shall be contacted immediately for field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. ' -TiPa 3 c'-'*) 4(v s — t p 9a T.yaal p...n.rk Gwddmn dot 109 ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 8. TRENCH BACKFILL The following sections provide recommendations for backfilling of trenches. 8.1. Trench backfill shall consist of granular soils (bedding) extending from the trench ' bottom to I or more feet above the pipe. On -site or imported fill which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant may be used above the granular backfill. The cover soils directly in contact with the pipe shall be classified as having a very low expansion potential, in accordance with UBC Standard 18 -2, and shall contain no rocks or chunks of hard soil larger than 3/4 -inch in diameter. ' 8.2. Trench backfill shall, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means to 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D1557 -91. Backfill soils shall be placed in loose lifts 8- inches thick or thinner, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommenda- tions of Section 5. of these guidelines. The backfill shall be tested by the geotechnical consultant at vertical intervals of approximately 2 feet of backfill placed ' and at spacings along the trench of approximately 100 feet in the same lift 8.3. Jetting of trench backfill materials is generally not a recommended method of densi- ' fication, unless the on -site soils are sufficiently free - draining and provisions have been made for adequate dissipation of the water utilized in the jetting process. ' 8.4. If it is decided that jetting may be utilized, granular material with a sand equivalent greater than 30 shall be used for backfilling in the areas to be jetted. Jetting shall generally be considered for trenches 2 feet or narrower in width and 4 feet or shal- lower in depth. Following jetting operations, trench backfill shall be mechanically compacted to the specified compaction to finish grade. ' 8.5. Trench backfill which underlies the zone of influence of foundations shall be me- chanically compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D1557 -91. The zone of influence of the foun- t dations is generally defined as the roughly triangular area within the limits of a 1:1 projection from the inner and outer edges of the foundation, projected down and out from both edges. 8.6. Trench backfill within slab areas shall be compacted by mechanical means to a rela- tive compaction of 90 percent or more of maximum dry density, as evaluated in ' accordance with ASTM D1557 -91. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be omitted or spot testing may be performed, as deemed appropriate by the geotech- nical consultant. ' 8.7. When compacting soil in close proximity to utilities, care shall be taken by the grading contractor so that mechanical methods used to compact the soils do not dam- , age the utilities. If the utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use Typal E�,E Gmdtlmo da I p, 1198 lla Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, then the grading con- tractor may elect to use light mechanical compaction equipment or, with the approval of the geotechnical consultant, cover the conduit with clean granular material These ' granular materials shall be jetted in place to the top of the conduit in accordance with the recommendations of Section 8.4 prior to initiating mechanical compaction proce- dures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon ' review by the geotechnical consultant and the utility contractor, at the time of con- struction. ' 8.8. Clean granular backfill and /or bedding materials are not recommended for use in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential for buildup of seepage forces or piping of backfill materials. 8.9. The contractor shall exercise the necessary and required safety precautions, in accor- dance with OSHA Trench Safety Regulations, while conducting trenching operations. Such precautions include shoring or laying back trench excavations at 1:1 or flatter, depending on material type, for trenches in excess of 5 feet in depth. The geotechnical consultant is not responsible for the safety of trench operations or sta- bility of the trenches ' 9. DRAINAGE The following sections provide recommendations pertaining to site drainage ' 9.1. Canyon subdrain systems recommended by the geotechnical consultant shall be in- ' stalled in accordance with the Canyon Subdrain Detail, Figure D, provided in these Guidelines. Canyon subdrains shall be installed to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on project plans. The actual subdrain location shall be ' evaluated by the geotechnical consultant in the field during grading Materials speci- fied in the attached Canyon Subdrain Detail shall not be changed or modified unless so recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrains shall be surveyed by a li- censed land surveyor /civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys prior to commencement of filling over the sub - drains. ' 9.2. Typical backdrains for stability, side hill, and shear key fills shall be installed in ac- cordance with the details provided on Figure A and Figure F of these Guidelines. ' 9.3. Roof, pad, and slope drainage shall be directed away from slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales, etc ). 9.4. Positive drainage adjacent to structures shall be established and maintained. Positive ' drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more out- ' Tmlfl EaMw1A Gwdfl.- dm 12 0.n 1198 I! Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' side the building perimeter, further maintained by a graded swale leading to an ap- propriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and/or landscape architect. 9.5. Surface drainage on the site shall be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper shall be maintained over the pad area and drainage ' patterns shall be established to direct and remove water from the site to an appropri- ate outlet. 9.6. Care shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final ' grading shall be maintained for the life of the project. Property owners shall be made very clearly aware that altering drainage patterns may be detrimental to slope stabil- ity and foundation performance. ' 10. SITE PROTECTION ' The site shall be protected as outlined in the following sections ' 10.1. Protection of the site during the period of grading shall be the responsibility of the contractor unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties. Completion of a portion of the project shall not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the need for site protection, until such time as the project is complete as agreed upon by the geotechnical consultant, the ' client, and the regulatory agency. 10.2. The contractor is responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. Recommen- dations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, shall not be con- sidered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the ' geotechnical consultant shall also not be considered to preclude more restrictive re- quirements by the applicable regulatory agencies. ' 10.3. Precautions shall be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavation, and grading to protect the site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by surface runoff. Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season to adequately direct sur- face runoff away from and off the working site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps shall be provided to remove water as needed during periods of rainfall. ' 10.4. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting shall be used as needed to reduce the potential for unprotected slopes to become saturated. Where needed, the contractor shall install check dams, desilting basins, riprap, sandbags or other appropriate devices or methods to ' reduce erosion and provide safe conditions during inclement weather. T�Acal E�nhw�� Gwd,l., doi 13 P.�' V96 14- Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 10.5. During periods of rainfall, the geotechnical consultant shall be kept informed by the contractor of the nature of remedial or precautionary work being performed on site (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.). 10.6. Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the geotechnical consultant and arrange a walk -over of the site in order to visually assess rain - related damage. The geo- ' technical consultant may also recommend excavation and testing in order to aid in the evaluation. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall make exca- vations in order to aid in evaluation of the extent of rain - related damage. ' 10.7. Rain- or irrigation- related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other adverse ' conditions noted by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected shall be classified as "Unsuitable Material" and shall be subject to overexcavation and re- placement with compacted fill or to other remedial grading as recommended by the ' geotechnical consultant. 10.8. Relatively level areas where saturated soils and /or erosion gullies exist to depths greater than 1 foot shall be overexcavated to competent materials as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Where adverse conditions extend to less than 1 foot in depth, saturated and /or eroded materials may be processed in- place. Overexcavated ' or in -place processed materials shall be moisture conditioned and compacted in ac- cordance with the recommendations provided in Section 5. If the desired results are ' not achieved, the affected materials shall be overexcavated, moisture conditioned, and compacted until the specifications are met. 10.9. Slope areas where saturated soil and /or erosion gullies exist to depths greater than 1 ' foot shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where adversely affected materials exist to depths of 1 ' foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture condition- ing in -place and compaction in accordance with the appropriate specifications may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be ' overexcavated, moisture conditioned, and compacted until the specifications are met. As conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may also be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. ' 10.10. During construction, the contractor shall grade the site to provide positive drainage away from structures and to keep water from ponding adjacent to structures. Water shall not be allowed to damage adjacent properties. Positive drainage shall be main- tained by the contractor until permanent drainage and erosion reducing devices are installed in accordance with project plans. 11 ' T�}ncJ Emhw,A Gwde Wes dos 14 Rev 1198 �� 1 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' 11. DEFINITIONS OF TERAIS ALLUVIUM: Unconsolidated detrital deposits deposited by flowing water; includes sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood ' plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes, and in estuaries. ' AS- GRADED (AS- BUILT): The site conditions upon completion of grading. BACKCUT: A temporary construction slope at the rear of earth- retaining structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilization fills, or retaining walls. BACKDRAIN: Generally a pipe- and - gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth - retaining structures such as buttresses, stabilization fills, and retaining walls. BEDROCK: Relatively undisturbed in -place rock, either at the surface or - beneath surficial deposits of soil ' BENCH: A relatively level step and near- vertical riser excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed. ' BORROW (IMPORT): Any fill material hauled to the project site from off -site areas. BUTTRESS FILL: A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engi- ' neering calculations, to retain slopes containing adverse geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by mini- mum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. ' A buttress normally contains a back drainage system. CIVIL ENGINEER: The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible ' for preparation of the grading plans and surveying, and veri- fying as- graded topographic conditions. ' CLIENT: The developer or a project - responsible authorized represen- tative. The client has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant and authorizing the contractor and/or other con- sultants to perform work and/or provide services. COLLUVIUM: Generally loose deposits, usually found on the face or near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous downhill creep (see also Slope ' 'A'ash). COMPACTION: The densification of a fill by mechanical means. ' rna E�-Ik G-dcwa ail 15 R,, ws it# I 1 1 L 1 LJ I I Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines CONTRACTOR: A person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the client to perform demolition, grading, and other site improvements. DEBRIS: The products of clearing, grubbing, and/or demolition, or contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill, and/or any other material so designated by the geotech- nical consultant. ENGINEERED FELL: A fill which the geotechnical consultant or the consultant's representative has observed and/or tested during placement, enabling the consultant.to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant and the governing agency re- quirements. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST: A geologist certified by the state licensing agency who ap- plies geologic knowledge and principles to the exploration and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil, as re- lated to the design of civil works EROSION: The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, and /or ice. EXCAVATION: The mechanical removal of earth materials EXISTING GRADE: The ground surface configuration prior to grading; original grade. FILL: Any deposit of soil, rock, soil -rock blends, or other similar materials placed by man. FINISH GRADE: The final as- graded ground surface elevation that conforms to the grading plan. GEOFABRIC: An engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications such as subgrade stabilization and filtering. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT: The geotechnical engineering and engineering geology con- sulting firm retained to provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the geotechnical consultant include observations by the geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist and other per- sons employed by and responsible to the geotechnical consultant. Gwddme d T a ' 6 0.n' PoH �yael EaMal ���.. H 1 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: A licensed civil engineer and geotechnical engineer, ap- proved by the state licensing agency, who applies scientific methods, engineering principles, and professional experience to the acquisition, interpretation, and use of knowledge of materials of the earth's crust to the resolution of engineering problems. Geotechnical engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology, and related sciences. GRADING: Any operation consisting of excavation, filling, or combina- tions thereof and associated operations. LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: Material, often porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural or manmade slopes. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Un- less otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557 -91. ' UWW Em ,k Gmddma dm 17 R,r 1193 //W OPT]MUM MOISTURE: The moisture content at the maximum dry density. RELATIVE COMPACTION: The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of a material as compared to the maximum dry density of the ' material. ROUGH GRADE: The ground surface configuration at which time the surface ' elevations approximately conform to the approved plan. SHEAR KEY: Similar to a subsurface buttress; however, it is generally con- structed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without encroach- ing into the lower portion of the slope. SITE: The particular parcel of land where grading is being per- formed. ' SLOPE: An inclined ground surface, the steepness of which is gener- ally specified as a ratio of horizontal units to vertical units. SLOPE WASH: Soil and /or rock material that has been transported down a slope by gravity assisted by the action of water not confined tto channels (see also Colluvium). SLOUGH: Loose, uncompacted fill material generated during grading ' operations. ' UWW Em ,k Gmddma dm 17 R,r 1193 //W I 11 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines SOIL: Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or com- binations thereof. STABILIZATION FILL: A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. A minimum stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A sta- bilization fill may or may not have a back drainage system specified. SUBDRAIN: Generally a pipe- and - gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill along the alignment of buried canyons or former drainage channels. TAILINGS: Non - engineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equipment haul roads TERRACE: A relatively level bench constructed on the face of a graded slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. TOPSOIL: The upper zone of soil or bedrock materials, which is usually dark in color, loose, and contains organic materials WINDROW: A row of large rocks buried within engineered fill in accor- dance with guidelines set forth by the geotechnical consultant. T�9��a1 EaM•tt GwGCLna dol 19 Rev. 1198 / //� I �I 'I �I 'I FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL GROUND SWALE AT TOP of SLOPE FILL SLOPE OVER CUT INATURAL GROUND / 27 20' MIN. * — OUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE OUTLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER SWALE AT TOP OF SLOPE 2 ,-- COMPACTED FILL -`� 1 / � / / MpT CR1PL BENCH INCLINED / 40 SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE 10' TYP-► BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS EVALUATED BY THE / GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BACKDRAIN AND T- CONNECTION (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) *MINIMUM KEY WIDTH DIMENSION. ACTUAL WIDTH SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON EVALUATION OF SITE- SPECIFIC GEOTECHNIC4L CONDITIONS. NOTES: CUT SLOPE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E �an,ta.a.y NOT TO SCALE FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL GROUND OR CUT FIGURE A u 2 ,o- COMPACTED FILL" OUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE OUTLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE / / MPjEg1Fi E 0\E, UNSUllP'5 / NATURAL GROUND REM / BENCH INCLINED 4' TYP. SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE / 10' TYP BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, 3' MIN. 2% AS EVALUATED BY THE T �15. MIN. —►{ BACKDRAIN AND T- CONNECTION / GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) FILL SLOPE OVER CUT INATURAL GROUND / 27 20' MIN. * — OUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE OUTLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER SWALE AT TOP OF SLOPE 2 ,-- COMPACTED FILL -`� 1 / � / / MpT CR1PL BENCH INCLINED / 40 SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE 10' TYP-► BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS EVALUATED BY THE / GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BACKDRAIN AND T- CONNECTION (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) *MINIMUM KEY WIDTH DIMENSION. ACTUAL WIDTH SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON EVALUATION OF SITE- SPECIFIC GEOTECHNIC4L CONDITIONS. NOTES: CUT SLOPE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E �an,ta.a.y NOT TO SCALE FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL GROUND OR CUT FIGURE A u n TRANSITION (CUT -FILL) LOT Ir COMPACTED FILL jPgLE ok OAS U\ / R / / / NATURAL GROUND 5' MIN.► ERA P 3' MIN. OVEREXCAVATE AND REPACT / BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, I' AS EVALUATED BY THE --� GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NATURAL GROUND UNDERCUT LOT / / _ M / 5' MIN.► -1 � COMPACTED FILL -, OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, � AS EVALUATED BY THE -� GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE DETAILS ABOVE ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY BE MODIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AS CONDITIONS DICTATE. ea Hh /b.dwg i TRANSITION UNDERCUT :LOT 3' MIN. J- NOT TO SCALE DETAILS FIGURE g I CANYON SUBDRAIN NATURAL GROUND COMPACTED FILL / REMOVE SEE FIGURE A UNSUITABLE / BEDROCK OR `1 FOR DETAILS OF BENCHES j.9 MATERIAL COMPETENT MATERIAL, j �T91�Y� AS EVALUATED BY THE fGEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT LOWEST BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN SUBDRAIN (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINATION SUBDRAIN PIPE IIOUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE OUTLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER C I I I so�mr�.o�y 1 A, DESIGN FINISH GRADE �OMPACTED FILL) f . CUTOFF WALL CONSTRUCTED _ OF GROUT, CONCRETE, BENTONITE, OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NON— PERFORATED PIPE— PERFORATED PIPE 20' MIN. 5 MIN. FILTER MATERIAL NOT TO SCALE CANYON, SUBDRAIN , DETAIL FTC;IIRF c I i 1 1 1 1 ' 1 WINDROW SECTION 30 S.E. SOIL (FLOODED) �1 6 " -49" ROCK Iy L i J "V' OR RECTANGULAR TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET DEEP AND 5 FEET WIDE EXCAVATED INTO COMPACTED FILL OR NATURAL GROUND PAD SECTION FINISH GRADE STREET ZONE A MATERIAL I - . . ` 5' MIN._ 15' MIN. ° o io, 2 _ ZONE B MATERIAL 0 0 0 1� 8' DEEP OR WINDROW (TYPICAL) 0 2' BELOW DEEPEST 0 o-r PROPOSED UTILITY, 5, MIN. WHICHEVER L IS GREATER o 15' MIN. —.� BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT ZONE A: COMPACTED FILL WITH ROCK FRAGMENTS NO GREATER THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER ZONE D: COMPACTED FILL WITH ROCK FRAGMENTS BETWEEN 6 AND 48 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE PLACED IN STAGGERED WINDROWS UP TO 100' LONG IN THIS ZONE AND SURROUNDED BY GRANULAR SOIL (30 SAND EQUIVALENT) DENSIFIED BY FLOODING ROCK FRAGMENTS LESS THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE PLACED IN COMPACTED FILL SOIL. NOTE: SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E. NOT TO SCALE eaNhfd.d.g a= OVERSIZED ROCK 4a PLACEMENT DETAIL PIGUH,E''C1 MID -SLOPE BACKDRAIN (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE TERRACE WIDTH' REINFORCED CONCRETE- I PAVED TERRACE (SWALE)---__ I COMPACTED FILL -/ • 2% 2% MAXIMUM VERTICAL SLOPE HEIGHT, H (FEET) LESS THAN 30 60 120 GREATER THAN 120 SWALE AT TOP OF SLOPE MI N. 2 BENCH INCLINED I SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE H tT' BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WHEN POSSIBLE, LOWEST BACKDRAIN SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE BASE OF KEY (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) ♦ TERRACE WIDTH AND LOCATION NO TERRACE REQUIRED ONE TERRACE AT LEAST 6 FEET WIDE AT MIDHEIGHT ONE TERRACE AT LEAST 12 FEET WIDE AT APPROXIMATELY MIDHEIGHT AND 6 -FOOT WIDE TERRACES CENTERED IN REMAINING SLOPES DESIGNED BY CIVIL ENGINEER WITH APPROVAL OF GOVERNING AUTHORITIES I,. lnle d.y NOT TO SCALE SLOPE .DRAINAGE: DETAIL IA FIGURE :E NOTES: 1. MID -SLOPE BACKDRAINS SHOULD BE PLACED IN FILL SLOPES IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH TERRACE. 2. TERRACES SHOULD HAVC AT LEAST A 5- PERCENT GRADIENT, AND RUN OFF SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO AN APPROPRIATE SURFACE DRAINAGE COLLECTOR. 3. TERRACES SHOULD BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AND VEGETATION TO ALLOW UNRES7RICTED FLOW OF WATER. 4. TERRACES SHOULD BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR. I5. REFER TO UBC CHAPTER 70 FOR ADDITIONAL REOUIREMENTS. I,. lnle d.y NOT TO SCALE SLOPE .DRAINAGE: DETAIL IA FIGURE :E I ml 11 I ,i UNSTABLE MATERIAL 11 ui 1 1 I 1! PROPOSED GRADED SURFACE COMPACTED FILL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE � t I \ \ PLANE OF WEAKNESS \ BENCH INCLINED SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE (SEE FIGURE A) COMPACTED FILL IT BEDROCK OR ' COMPETENT MATERIAL, J AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BACKDRAIN -KEY WIDTH -►i (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, _/ I FIGURE G) 1.5 T DEPTH _ OF KEY NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE NOTES: 1. THE DEPTH AND WIDTH OF KEY WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON ANALYSIS OF SITE — SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS. 2. AN ADDITIONAL MID —SLOPE BACKDRAIN AND TERRACE DRAIN MAY BE RECOMMENDED FOR SLOPES OVER 30 FEET HIGH. SEE SLOPE DRAINAGE DETAIL, FIGURE E. 3. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E. eorfhff.dvg 1 /�/inyo &/�►oore NOT TO SCALE SHEAR KEY FIGURE _F Ili SUBDRAIN CONFIGURATION ALTERNATIVE A* ALTERNATIVE B FILTER MATERIAL (9 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAR FOOT) \, 124' MIN. _ PERFORATED PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATION DOWN (SEE SCHEDULE BELOW) * ALTERNATIVE A SUBDRAIN CONFIGURATION MAY BE USED IN FILLS LESS THAN 25 FEET DEEP BACKDRAIN CONFIGURATION FILTER MATERIAL (3 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAR FOOT) T- CONNECTION (SEE DETAIL) T 12" MIN. NON -PERF UTLET T- CONNECTION DETAIL 4" MIN. PERFORATED PIPE, 4" MIN. SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUIVALENT INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN PERFORATED PIPE SLOPED AT 1% MIN. 10' MIN TOWARD OUTLET PIPE (� klACH SIDE L END CAP NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE 100' MAXIMUM ON CENTER HORIZONTALLY FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED ALTERNATE GEOFABRIC DRAIN SYSTEM. CLASS II GRADATIONS SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1" 100 3/4" 90 -100 3/8" 40 -100 No. 4 25 -40 No. 8 18 -33 No. 30 5 -15 No. 50 0 -7 No. 200 0 -3 NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATIVE THE FILTER MATERIAL MAY CONSIST OF Y' MAXIMUM OPEN - GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC WITH A MINIMUM 6 -INCH OVERLAP. ..dhlg.d.g �%/11Ju & *uOr PIPE SCHEDULE PERFORATED AND NON — PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) OR ACRYLONITRILE BUTADIENE STYRENE (ABS) OR EQUIVALENT, AND WILL HAVE A MINIMUM CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1000 PSI FOR DEPTHS OF FILL UP TO 50 FEET. FOR DEEPER FILLS, PERFORATED AND NON— PERFORATED PIPE SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH ADEQUATE CRUSHING STRENGTH. THE PIPE DIAMETER WILL GENERALLY MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, BUT MAY BE MODIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AS CONDITIONS DICTATE. THE LENGTH OF RUN IS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST ELEVATION. LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER 0 -500' 4" 500 -1500' 6 > 1500' B NOT TO SCALE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C NINYO AND MOORE REPORT DATED MARCH 3, 2000 t PETRA [1 1 FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO. 3 AND MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 PALA ROAD AND PECHANGA ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Ms. Janet Dixon Temecula Valley Unified School District 40516 Roripaugh Road Temecula, California 92592 PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore Geoteclmical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710 Ruffm Road San Diego, California 92123 March 6, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 5710 Ruffin Road , San Diego, California 92123 • Phone (858) 576 -1000 ^ Fax (858) 576 -9600 San Diego • Irvine , Ontario • Los Angeles • Oakland • Las Vegas • Salt Lake City • Phoenix !; 6 waffleGeotechnical antl Errvuonmenial Saences Consultants ' March 6, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 ' Dear Ms. Dixon In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a fault hazard evaluation for the pro- posed Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 in Temecula, California. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed project. Our re- ' port was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated January 28, 2000. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or com- ments regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. ��RE� GFO Sincerely, g , 04 NINYO & MOORE FWWCis 0. MoREtANp No 2071 ' CERTIFIED (P EERIN I G�� ENGINERIN(I GEOLOGIST �Q' Francis 0. Moreland, C.E.G. 9��c OPT Michael R. Rahilly, G.E. Senior Project Geologist Op C Chief Geotechnical Engineer ri'z R. Randal L. Irwin, C.E.G. ( NO.Gj Chief Engineering Geologist 3r o /I x 1 FOM/RUMRWrlmfkrnf ' Distribution: (6) Addressee I 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 - Phone 1858) 576 -1000 - Fax (858) 576 -9600 Ms. Janet Dixon ' Temecula Valley Unified School District -- ------ ------ - -- - -- - --------------- Oakland Las Vegas - Salt Lake City Phoenix 40516 Roripaugh Road Temecula, California 92592 ' Subject: Fault Hazard Evaluation Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Temecula, California ' Dear Ms. Dixon In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a fault hazard evaluation for the pro- posed Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 in Temecula, California. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed project. Our re- ' port was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated January 28, 2000. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or com- ments regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. ��RE� GFO Sincerely, g , 04 NINYO & MOORE FWWCis 0. MoREtANp No 2071 ' CERTIFIED (P EERIN I G�� ENGINERIN(I GEOLOGIST �Q' Francis 0. Moreland, C.E.G. 9��c OPT Michael R. Rahilly, G.E. Senior Project Geologist Op C Chief Geotechnical Engineer ri'z R. Randal L. Irwin, C.E.G. ( NO.Gj Chief Engineering Geologist 3r o /I x 1 FOM/RUMRWrlmfkrnf ' Distribution: (6) Addressee I 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 - Phone 1858) 576 -1000 - Fax (858) 576 -9600 -- ' --- -- - -- - -� ---- ----- ------ - San Diego - Irvine - ----- --- �-- --- - -�--- Ontario Los Angeles -- ------ ------ - -- - -- - --------------- Oakland Las Vegas - Salt Lake City Phoenix -, /� Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION ............................................................ ............................... 3 Figure I — Site Location Map 6 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ ..............................4 Figure 3 — Fault Location Map 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting .......................................................... ..............................4 Appendices ' 6.2. Site Geology... ................................... .................. .......... ........................................ 5 62.1. Fill ..................................................................................... ..............................5 6.2.2. Alluvium ........................................................................... ..............................5 6.3. Groundwater ........................................................................... ............................... 5 6.4. On -Site Faulting ....................................................................... ..............................6 ' 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ...... ..... ..................... .. ....................... 6 8. LIMITATIONS .................................... ............................... ............... ..............................7 9. SELECTED REFERENCES ........................................................... ..............................9 1 I Appendix II —Log of Exploratory Trench T -2 4134AIFHR d« qq�� q� - —V Lvf M gag Figures Figure I — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Geotechnical Map Figure 3 — Fault Location Map Appendices ' Appendix A — Log of Exploratory Trench T -I 1 I Appendix II —Log of Exploratory Trench T -2 4134AIFHR d« qq�� q� - —V Lvf M gag Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and our proposal dated January 28, 2000, we have performed a ' fault hazard evaluation for the proposed Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 at the " Redhawk" site in the Temecula area, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The pur- pose of our evaluation was to assess the possible presence and location of geologic faults (if any) at the site where structures for human occupancy (i.e., structure intended for 2,000 person -hours or more per year) may be proposed. The northeastern portion of the project site is located within a State of Califor- 1 nia Alquist -Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone (Special Studies Zone). Therefore, in accordance with State of California requirements, a geologic fault hazard evaluation was performed. ' This report presents the results of our field exploration, our conclusions regarding fault hazards at the subject site, and our recommendations for this project We have also performed geotechnical ' design evaluations for the proposed Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5, which will be located on the Redhawk site. The results of our geotechnical evaluations for Teme- cula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5, which included the exploratory borings shown on Figure 2, are presented in separate reports. ' 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services for this study included the following: • Review of background data listed in the Selected References section of this report. The data reviewed included topographic maps, geologic data, stereoscopic aerial photographs, fault ' maps, Special Studies Zones maps, and a conceptual site plan for the project. • Subsurface evaluation consisting of the excavation of two exploratory trenches located on the ' eastern portion of the site. The trenches were logged in detail by California Certified Engi- neering Geologists from our firm. ' Compilation and analysis of the data obtained. • Preparation of this illustrated report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions regarding the site. Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the northwestern portion of the Redhawk site is to be utilized for the future Temecula High School No. 3. The high school will consist of approximately 13 buildings including classrooms, a gym, a shop building, a cafeteria and performing arts building, and an ad- ' ministration building. Paved parking will be provided between the school buildings and Pala Road. Athletic fields are planned to the northeast and southeast of the structures. Based on current con- , ceptual plans, the Temecula Middle School No. 5 is to be constructed on the southern portion of the Redhawk site, separated from the future high school to the north by the planned Peach Tree Road. The middle school will consist of eight buildings, including classrooms and administration. Paved parking will be provided adjacent to Peach Tree Road to the north, and Pechanga Road to the south._.Athletic fields will also be provided on the eastern side of the middle school site. We _ ' anticipate that the new buildings will be one -story, slab -on -grade structures of wood -frame, steel - frame, or reinforced concrete construction. 4. SITE DESCRIPTION The Redhawk school site is an irregularly shaped parcel located to the northeast of the intersection of Pala Road and Pechanga Road in Temecula, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The site is generally flat with a drainage channel approximately 5 feet deep along the southwestern side of the site ' adjacent to Pala Road. Several minor drainage channels approximately 2 to 3 feet deep are also present along the southwestern side of the site adjacent to Pechanga Road. The property is bordered to the ' northwest by agricultural fields, to the northeast by a golf course, and to the southwest by Pala Road Site elevations range from approximately 1,175 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the southeastern corner of the site to approximately 1,140 feet MSL at the northwestern comer of the site. Vegetation consists of a sparse growth of grass and weeds over the majority of the site and medium to large sized 1 trees, brush, and weeds in the southern portion of the site. 1 t113401FHR d., z /d 6 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION Between February 14 and 18, 2000, California Certified Engineering Geologists from our office con- ' ducted a geologic subsurface evaluation of portions of the site where future school buildings are planned within the AP Earthquake Fault Zone (Figure 2, Geotechnical Map). The evaluation included the excavation of two backhoe trenches. The first trench (T -1) was approximately 385 feet long and was located in the northeastern portion of the high school site. The second trench (T -2) was approxi- mately 510 feet long and was located in the eastern portion of the middle school site. Both trenches were excavated roughly perpendicular to the limits of the AP Earthquake Fault Zone and extended from a point 100 feet outside the Earthquake Fault Zone to a point 100 feet beyond the building ex- tending furthest into the Earthquake Fault Zone at each school. The exploratory trenches were excavated utilizing a tracked excavator and were oriented generally in a northeasterly direction, ' roughly perpendicular to mapped fault traces associated with the Wildomar fault system in the site area. The excavations ranged in depth from approximately 9 to 19 feet. The geologic units and features exposed in the excavations were logged by California Certified Engineering Geologists from our firm. Discussions of the units and conditions encountered during our subsurface evaluation are presented in Appendices A and B and are briefly summarized in ' Section 6 2. In addition, the geologic conditions, as encountered, are shown graphically in Ap- pendices A and B. ' Following the completion of our logging, the trench excavations were backfilled using the exca- vated on -site soils. It should be noted that sonic settlement of the backfill and the surrounding ' alluvium may occur and that the backfill and alluvium, in their present condition, are not consid- ered suitable for support of settlement- sensitive improvements. It is anticipated that the ' construction of a compacted fill mat, as recommended in our geotechnical reports for the high school and middle school, will remove mitigate the potential for settlement of the trench backfill and native alluvium. 1 I 4 1 l 01 FHR doc l�� tTemecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 6. GEOLOGY Our findings regarding regional and local geology at the subject site are provided in the following sections. 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting The project area is situated in the coastal section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the ' Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, t the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimen- tary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The portion of the ' province in Riverside County that includes the project area consists generally of uplifted and dis- sected Cretaceous granitic basement rocks and late Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary units. ' The subject site is underlain by relatively deep alluvial soils. The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub - parallel faults and fault zones trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults, which are shown on Figure 3, Fault Lo- cation Map, are considered active faults. The San Jacinto and San Andreas faults are active fault systems located northeast of the project area and the Agua Blanca— Coronado Bank, San Clemente, and Newport- Inglewood faults are active faults located west of the project area. The Wildomar Fault segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone has been mapped near the eastern limits of the project site. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right - lateral, strike -shp movement. ' The subject site is within the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone. Three faults associ- ated with the Elsinore Fault Zone are near the site. The Wolf Valley and Willard faults are located on the western side of the site and approximately 2,500 feet southwest of the site, respectively. The Wildomar fault is located near the eastern limits of the site. The Wolf Valley and Willard faults show evidence of late Quaternary movement, however, insufficient evidence of Holocene move- ' ment has been established to warrant zoning as an AP Earthquake Fault Zone. The Wildomar 411 01 FHR doe 4 /3�- Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 IFault has been designated as being within an Earthquake Fault Zone by the State of California based on substantial evidence of Holocene movement. These faults trend generally in a northwest- erly direction along the base of the slopes on either side of Wolf Valley. 6.2. Site Geology Geologic units encountered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation include minor amounts of artificial fill and alluvium. Generalized descriptions of the earth units en- ' countered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections. More detailed descriptions are provided on the trench logs in Appendi- ces A and B. 1 6.2.1. Fill Scattered fill materials were encountered during our evaluation of the subject site associ- ated with past agricultural activities. In general, the fills are shallow and of limited extent. The fill materials are similar to the alluvial soils underlying the site and consist of silty sand and sandy silt. 6.2.2.Alluvium Alluvium was encountered in our exploratory trenches to the maximum depth explored ' of 19 feet. In general, the alluvial materials encountered consisted of grayish brown, brown, and light brown, dry to moist, loose, interbedded silty fine - grained sand, poorly ' graded sand, and silt. An older alluvial unit was encountered in the eastern end of trench T -1 which consisted of reddish brown to light brown, damp, medium dense to very ' dense, silty fine to medium sand The alluvium contained numerous cross strata, graded beds and channel infills. 6.3. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory trenches or in the exploratory borings ' drilled for our geotechnical evaluations. Based on our subsurface exploration, we anticipate ' 4I1�01 FHR doc 5 7;e"� ads 6 133 I Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 that the actual groundwater table is at a depth in excess of 90 feet. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors. 6.4. On -Site Faulting ' Based on observations of the geologic units exposed in our exploratory fault trenches, no evidence of faulting was encountered. The geologic units, as depicted on the trench logs, are ' generally continuous. No offset surfaces or structures were observed. However, we note that faults could be on the site, easterly of our exploratory trenches. At this time, however, we ' understand that structural improvements are not currently planned in these areas. ' 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOhID/ENDATIONS The purpose of our fault hazard evaluation was to assess the geologic conditions with respect to faulting at the project site where buildings are planned. The site consists of a relatively flat parcel previously used for agricultural purposes at the intersection of Pala and Pechanga Roads adjacent to the southern Temecula city limits in Riverside County. The northeastern portion of the project 1 site is located within a State of California Special Studies Zone for Earthquake Faults. Accord- ingly, our fault hazard evaluation was performed pursuant to State of California requirements. ' Our conclusions are based on,a review of background information, geotechnical literature, and the performance of subsurface exploration. Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation and logging of two exploratory trenches that were generally oriented in a northeast direction in the eastern portion of proposed building areas. The exploratory trenches were oriented to inter- ' cept faults, if any, based on the northwesterly trend of known faults in this part of Wolf Valley. ' Our evaluation indicates that man -made fill soils, and natural deposits of alluvium, underlie the site. Our background review indicated that faults had not been mapped on portions the site ' planned for school buildings. However, our review did indicate one active fault mapped near the eastern limits of the site. No evidence of faulting was encountered in the exploratory trenches ex- 41 U 01 FHR doe 6 J�Rffzig ®fl % /S�_ ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1 cavated on the site. Based on the above, the likelihood of there being active faults or potential for ground surface rupture due to faulting on the site where buildings are currently planned is consid- ered low. Should construction of the project proceed, we recommend that remedial excavations for the rec- ommended compacted fill pad beneath building areas, as discussed in our geotechnical design reports for the project, be observed by a Certified Engineering Geologist. We also recommend that if any building locations are changed from those currently planned, that the new building lo- ' cations be kept at least 50 feet westerly of the easterly extent of the exploratory fault trenches. 8. LIMITATIONS ' The field evaluation and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geo- technical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No other warranty, express or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this re- port. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in tNs report may be encountered during construc- ttion. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note ' that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, flood potential, or the Ares- ' ence of hazardous materials. ' This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. ' Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site condi- ' tions If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office ' 41 o-01 FHR d- 7 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 LI I 1 1 CJ lJ' March 6, 2000 Project No. 104134-01 should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Nmyo & Moore has no control. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu- sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties' sole risk. 1 413"1 FHRda ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 6, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 Project No. 104134 -01 1 [1 1 11 9. SELECTED REFERENCES Anderson, J.G., M. ERRI, Rockwell, T.K. and Agnew, D.C., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2. California Building Standards Commission, 1998, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Vol- umes 1 and 2. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: dated February. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, State of California Special Studies Zone, Pechanga 7.5 Quadrangle. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazards Maps of California: Map Sheet 48. ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code Standards: International Conference of Building Officials. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No 6, Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Geologic Map of the Elsinore Fault Zone Southern Riverside County, California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131. Norris, R M. and Webb, R W, 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John NVdey & Sons, Inc. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual. United States Geological Survey, 1968 (photo- revised 1988), Pechanga Quadrangle, California, Riverside County, 7.5- Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 1:24,000. United States Geological Survey, 1999, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, World Wide Web, http : / /geohazards.cr.usgs.gov /eq AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Source Date Flight Numbers Scale USDA 8 -27 -53 AX_M -1K 171 and 172 1:20,000 41 s01 FHB da 9 127 [1 [1 11 [1 �. �� � c .. _�.�. �-• �.:'_t.� .I . -_ ice,"% _i;� _I / _21 11-0 IJ �. �� � c .. _�.�. �-• �.:'_t.� .I . -_ ice,"% _i;� _I / _21 SITE O_ rSLa- Y. ESER VA O S � /,. :� � -- .� ".^ ,emu. ',�,�_ ",,�_�, ";I : _ t! -_�_ - • �"�a� ago :, -u.,' _ - a �@ APPROXIMATE . n \� SITE LIMBS 1 _ _ 17 7 .. N 2000 0 2000 4000 Approximate Scale in Feet REFERENCE US G S. PECHANGA QUADRANGLE, 7 S MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC). DATED 1968, PHOMREVISED 1982 SITE LOCATION MAP TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO.3 AND MIDDLE SCHOOL NO.5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE =FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 !3 8 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 (L f rR Ao D B-6 A - D I A llz� ER v Am B- 11A I B -9A B -10A I 26A _ Izr A B- A— B' 3 A B -34 B -38A I B- A B - 44A 35A L,.N.reN -37A �JILOINL 1000 B -45 8 B -38A B-39A q 4 e�1 1 � 4 B -46A N B- t4 B -4 0 VA B- 13A L FAIRVIEW B -27 uoa B -57A B -2 A B -51A 13-54A I 7Qai Ve.s , BeseCCll 913 �Q 12 Qal AVENUE B 21A 13-23 III f I ' Q2 Z -24 � � / B -30A PROP HIGH SCF -29A (SITI T -1 FAULT TRENCH 9ff AU THE N A ti r 0 250 500 scale feet GEOTECHNICAL MAP TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO. 3 AND MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE '104134 01 3/00 2 i3! PROPOSED ° B-20 B 2, LEGEND MIDDLE SCHOOL NO.5 a (SITE B) Qal Alluvium 13- 67A-q- Approximate location of exploratory boring (Site A) B -32B-q�- Approximate location of exploratory boring (Site 8) T -2 Approximate location of exploratory fault trench m 0 d j BASE. SITE PI.W PRWDED 9 1EIOECUTA VALLEY UNInED SCNOO- DISTRICT U NOTE PLAN PREPARED DURING CN -SITE RECONNAISSANCE NID SNOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A RECORD Cr SUWLY ALE DIVENSIONS ARE APPRO.IUAw r 13A L FAIRVIEW B -27 uoa B -57A B -2 A B -51A 13-54A I 7Qai Ve.s , BeseCCll 913 �Q 12 Qal AVENUE B 21A 13-23 III f I ' Q2 Z -24 � � / B -30A PROP HIGH SCF -29A (SITI T -1 FAULT TRENCH 9ff AU THE N A ti r 0 250 500 scale feet GEOTECHNICAL MAP TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO. 3 AND MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE '104134 01 3/00 2 i3! trig to. as d1orful few i MIN f'k-w roe -Z '"SITE CCEAARSM OESCOPAAW o SOLAM REACH .%" � 0 is on Im"OEX, fro 0 30 60 scale miles j Yll 7YO & Paul CO. FAULT LOCATION MAP TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO. 3 AND MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ( PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 1 104134-01 3ioo 3 1 1 1 fy/ 1y 1 1 O 0 Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 APPENDIX A LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH T -1 <IV O FHR do t March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 l // A E1NIA1 1 11 1 I 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 N45°E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) STATION (IN FEET) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 IJ 2 to 18 inches thick, interlayered with gray, damp, loose, fine to medium SAND; cross - EXISTING GROUND SURFACE\ strata. _ _ - - - Gradational contact `A) ' Dark brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND with clay; interlayered with thin layers of fine to -�-- Sharp contact coarse sand. 1E2) Light brown, damp, loose, poorly graded fine to coarse SAND; scattered gravel and cobbles. Fig _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OLDER ALLUVIUM: 0 S 10 CG) Reddish brown to light brown and yellowish brown, damp, medium to very dense, silty fine © to medium SAND, little coarse sand and gravel; somewhat porous; scattered root hairs, (Horizontal and Vertical) some cemenlahoo. CROSS- STRATIFIF-D OD SANDY SILT LAYER ° O -- OC _________ ______________ fn - ______ m� a&o �__- -- -- -- Z _ _ °00 °�da % ° °e oar. UNIT DESCRIPTIONS AGRICULTURAL FILL (PLOWED SOIL) &own, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND ALLUVIUM: U Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; abundant cross - strata; scattered medium and coarse sand deposits in paleo channels. Brown to dark brown sandy and clayey SILT layers, continuous except where channel erosion has occurred. Gross - stratified sands generally grade coarser to the southwest end of trench, alternating fine to medium and medium to coarse sand layers, with gravel layers. C; Dark grayish brown, moist. loose, fine sandy SILT; slightly micaceous; finely laminated with gray fine and coarse sand. q ` Grayish brown, damp to moist, loose, fine to medium SAND; with some coarse sand, gravel lag in paleo channels. locally cross - stratified. Dark brown. moist. medium dense, silty fine SAND to fine sandy SILT. ,^ Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey to silty , fine to coarse SAND, scattered ' C1 root hairs and roots up to approximately 1/32" in diameter; scattered subrounded gravel, (generally massive). Grayish brown, damp, medium dense to dense, silty line to coarse SAND; scattered gravel and cobbles; somewhat porous. Light grayish brown, dry to damp, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; few gravel; scattered chunks of reddish brown fine to coarse sand (chunks of older alluvium). Brown, damp to moist, dense, clayey fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL; scattered IS subrounded cobbles and occasional clasts of intensely weathered to decomposed granitic rock; locally porous. #i17 EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -1) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 141 1 v i i tJ GEOLOGIC CONTACTS E `-" Light brown, damp, loose, fine to coarse SAND; graded layers (fining upward) roughly 2 to 18 inches thick, interlayered with gray, damp, loose, fine to medium SAND; cross - strata. _ _ - - - Gradational contact E) ' Dark brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND with clay; interlayered with thin layers of fine to -�-- Sharp contact coarse sand. 1E2) Light brown, damp, loose, poorly graded fine to coarse SAND; scattered gravel and cobbles. Fig Light brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. (basal sand unit of channel mfill). OLDER ALLUVIUM: 0 S 10 CG) Reddish brown to light brown and yellowish brown, damp, medium to very dense, silty fine Approximate Scale in Feet to medium SAND, little coarse sand and gravel; somewhat porous; scattered root hairs, (Horizontal and Vertical) some cemenlahoo. #i17 EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -1) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 141 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 413 A2 l N45'E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) STATION (IN FEET) 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 / L — DARK BROWN, FINE SANDY, CLAYEY SILT LAYER r 777 CROSS - STRATIFIED m w¢ mD Z w T ::j cc _ _ -- {,�C7 C7 __ O U Qw EROSIONAL _ _ — — — — D r ym SURFACES — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — w iv.Y® red 0 5 10 ApproArnate Scale in Feet (Horizontal and Vertical) EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -1) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL N5 i yy wn3 STATION (IN FEET) 130 135 140 145 N W Q Z W J Q S � U Qu- W w 1n / N45'E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 U) M M -n >1 50 cr 37 r M D M A 0 5 10 Approximate Scale in Feet (Horizontal and Vertical) EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -1) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA �ieo?,�Olo� -� /y5 MA4 STATION (IN FEET) 200 205 C? w¢ zw J cc U � Q tL �w w / N45 E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 U) m� m m� G7 r c= 77 r M ym 6 0 5 10 Approximate Scale in Feet Hor¢ontal and Vertcal E RY TRENCH LOG (T -1) HAZARD EVALUATION LA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND ULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 A-4-j 10 MAS STATION (IN FEET) 265 270 T T a W Q Z W J � ch aLL gw w / N45°E_ (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 rn m T_ {7 l7 G = TI M Z vm m 0 5 10 A('P'o male Scale in Feet Horizontal and Vertical EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -1) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE A - 104134 -01 3/0A-5 nNM STATION (IN FEET) 330 335 L9 W Q Z W J CC U� Q LL W W cn / N45°E. (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) 340 345 350 355 360 365 370 375 380 385 390 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 0 5 10 Approx " Scale m Feet (Horizontal and Vertical EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -1) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 A -6 iyg r 1 r 1 1 .r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5 APPENDIX B LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH T -2 411 41 FHR do 1 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 1�Q 1� Vl fOtll / N66 E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) STATION (IN FEET) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 AI EXISTING GROUND SURFACE G - - - - -- _ _ - - - - --- ___- ___ -- - - - - - - -------- - - - - - -- _-- f \ °o---O RAV m ° O° ° ` _,,_G m T -Di C = O �t Z mm N © GRAVEL ggg GRAVEL °oo O UNIT DESCRIPTIONS GEOLOGIC, CONTACTS AGRICULTURAL FILL (PLOWED SOIL): — — — — — Gradational contact Brown to light brown, dry to moist, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND; Sharp contact iA scattered coarse sand and gravel; scattered organic material (e.g. grass, roots, etc.). , ALLUVIUM: Light brown, dry to damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; scattered CB) roots and rootlets; scattered charcoal fragments; scattered pinhole porosity; micaceous. (ci Light brown to white, dry to damp, loose, medium to coarse SAND; scattered 0 5 10 fine gravel; zones of cross- strata Approximate Scale in Feet I­ Brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered (Horizontal and Verbcal) coarse sand; slightly micaceous; scattered porosity. p Light brown to brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine SAND; scattered medium to coarse sand; gradational upper and lower contacts. EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -2) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND Mingo & Moore TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE ' 104134 -01 3/00 B -1 1166 i r 1 L 413482 N66°E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) STATION (IN FEET) 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 + + u + + + + + + + O + + I- ---------- - -------------------- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - --- :.._ -, - - -_ - ----------------------,.,- © -- - - - - - - - - - - - --------- ------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------=---- - wm _0k sn _ a �w w n m� m 71 >1 5 n c= mr Z mm w 0 5 10 Appro>rnate Scale in Feet (Horizontal and Vertical) EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -2) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE =B-2 l 104134 -01 3/00 151 I. 41xa N66' (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) STATION (IN FEET) 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 N w M Z LLJ ILI U) + -L I + T + PA + + — — — — — 77 7 - - -------- 7.1 .71 - - - - -- 7 7.1 - - - 7-7- 7.7- ROOTS ROOTS (K� JV1174VAU & m (f) m m c= ]D r- M Z Cu M 4 0 5 10 Approximate Scale in Feet (Horizontal and Verbcal) EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T-2) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 1 04134-01 3/00 B-3 15a- I 1 ai » / N66E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) STATION (IN FEET) 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 n + T T T T T T + T T T T Y) SILT - CLAYEY AND r� .CHARCOAL RICH LAYERS � - C? wm / ' - - ------ - - - - -- - - Zw ROOTS -'_ ___ -_ - ----------- ------ -- -' m LL —O C w .. ROOTS - --� '— 77 r- w M Z m in GRAVED ROOT ° �8 _ `D 0 0 5 10 Approwmate Scale in Feet (Horizontal and Vertical) EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T -2) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ROJECT NO. DATE =B-4 104134 -01 3/00 Veo02 30665 -0 153 N66E (VIEW OF SOUTHERLY WALL OF TRENCH) STATION (IN FEET) 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 + + T + + T T + T + CA) L CLAYEY SILT CHARCOALI"RiCH LAYER LA Y, . . . . . . . . . . . . --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — M in m W CD 71 >4 Z W 5c) :3 C T a:) 59 M Z !� LL :E LU 11.1 U) 7-7 — — --- — — — •— 7 0 5 Approximate Scale in Feet (Horizontal and Vertical) EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG (T-2) FAULT HAZARD EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 AND Affi/114ya & *11ur 01. TEMECULA MIDDLE SCHOOL #5 g TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 0. DATE FIGURE 104134-01 3/00 B-6 1511 , I 1 i 1 1 APPENDIX D 1 1 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS [1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 PETRA 1 1 l 'ss I 1 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1 These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations performed under the control of Petra Geotechnical, Inc. ' No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist. I. GENERAL A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's or Builder's representative on the project. For the purpose o f t hese specifications, supervision by the Soils Engineer includes that inspection performed by any person or persons ' employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the sods report. B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted ' by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix, eater, and compact the ' fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. ' D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due ' consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year. E. A final report shall be issued by the Sods Engineer and Engineering Geologist attesting ' to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. ' II. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material such as rubbish shall be disposed of offsrte This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill. determined by Sods Engineer being B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials the as unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and wasted from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Soils ' Engineer. C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, c shall be scarified, drsced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is Umfonm and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greaer than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. I- Page 1 - /45/0 I 1 L STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested, and approved by the Soils Engineer D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer. E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut/fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or unweathered bedrock materials, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replacedwrth compacted fill. (Typical details are given on Plate SG -I.) III. COMPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer. B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches In diameter may be utilized in the fill provided 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine grained matenal to sunound the rocks. 3. The distribution of rocks Is supervised by the Soils Engineer. C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken offste or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is given in Plate SG -2J ' D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used In the compacted fill. I Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill 51-011 be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested Is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon as possible. Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 Inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Engineer. Page 2 - ,$7 J 1 IV I [_1 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D 1557 -78, the five -layer method, will be used) If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to received fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report. I. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of 5 horizontal to t vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. J. The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG -3.) K. Subdramage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendationsof the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist (Typical Canyon Subdrain devils are given in Plate SG -4) L. The contractor will be requited to obtain a nunnnum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbwlding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the soils report. N. Fill- over -cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soils onor to olaane fill. (See detail on Plate SG -7) CUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet. B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer, and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Plates SG -5 and SG -8 ) C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a nonerodrble interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. - Page 3 - IJ v I 1 I 11 1 V VI STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. GRADING CONTROL A. Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 fe6 of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on sod conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate numberof field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. C. Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required by the Soils Engineer. D. All cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrarns, and rock disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any till. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspecuon. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS A. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. Page T - IS9 1 1 1 BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL TO TOP OF BACK CUT 15' MIN FINISHED GRADE 4' SUBDRAIN FINISHED 30' MAXIMUM SPACING qPC PLATEESG16 GRADE I 4' SIBDRAIN 2'MIN 2i MIN �- TYPICAL BENCHING WIDTH VARIES (15' MIN.) NOTES I MAXIMUM VERTICAL SPACING OF PERFORATED PIPE OF 30 FEET 2 MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN NON - PERFORATED PIPE OF 100 FEET 3 MINIMUM GRADIENT OF TWO PERCENT OF ALL PERFORATED PIPE AND NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE 100' MAX �{ -- 27 MIN OUTLET P[PE (TYPICAL) 2 IN PERFORATED PIPE (TYPICAL) Iron PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PLATE SG -5 'T��3oloS-� lbD 1 1 1 1 BUTTRESS OR STABILZATI❑N FILL SUBDRAIN APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL. SLOPE FACE 5 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAR FOOT WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC, 3 CUBIC FEET WITH FABRIC A 4 -INCH PERFORATED PIPE WITH �- 2% MIN.; PERFORATIONS DOWN. MINIMUM 2% GRADE TO OUTLET PIPE. 12' A �12' MIN 4 -INCH NON - PERFORATED PIPE MINIMUM 27. GRADE TO OUTLET APPROVED ON SITE MATERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90% MAXIMUM DENSITY 4 -INCH NON- PERFORATED PIPE SECTION A -A PIPE SPECIFICATIONS 1. 4 -INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PVC SCHEDULE 40, OR ABS SDR -35. 2.MINIMUM 16 PERFORATIONS PER FOOT ON BOTTOM ONE -THIRD OF PIPE. FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL PER CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATION 68 -1.025 CLASS 2 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING I -INCH 100 3/4 -INCH 90 -100 3/8 -INCH 40 -100 NO 4 25 -40 NO. 8 18 -33 NO. 30 5 -15 NO 50 0 -7 NO. 200 0 -3 ALTERNATE OPEN GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC, (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUAL) DPEN- GRADED SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 1/2 -INCH 88 -100 1 -INCH 5 -40 3/4 -INCH 0 -17 3/8 -INCH 0 -7 NO 200 0 -3 Ibl FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE COMPACTED FILL CUT /FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM, OR CREEP MATERIAL FROM EP REMOVE TRANSITION 7 SHOWN ON "AS- BUILT" NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY CUT M, 0Z ARE IjOPSOl // lU / / 4' TYPICAL / 2� MIN. VARIES 10' TYPICAL � 15' MINIMUM OR PER SOILS ENGINEER BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL m m m m m m m m r m= m m= m m m m m NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY i i i i i STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL 5 i i i W FINISH GRADE i i 4' TYPICAL VARIES 10' TYPICAL COMPACTED FILL BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL NOTE 1. SUBDRAINS NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED 2 'W' SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (15') FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 30 FEET FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS GREATER THAN 30 FEET, 'W' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER SHEAR KEY ON DAYLIGHT CUT LOTS PROPOSED CUT LOT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROPOSED DAYLIGHT CUT l� COMPACTED ! \ \ FILL cG T INSTALL 6 -INCH PIPE SUBDRAIN PER PLATES SG -4 AND SG -8 - L� A O \ / �1 W —� RECONSTRUCT AT 1.51 OR FLATTER NUTE '4/' SHALL BE 10 FEET OR AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER /b 7 LD.CT S OF ROCK' DISPOS,�1 ! i i i I I \qS GJ OF n CGC °GC`G� °GC'^_>� °G _1C.�oG.n'GGoG -UGC °GIGO °G nG0 °GCGG°G nG GoGCGG °Gl^_.G � °GIG CoG GGG °G'I'G GoG �- �G�oGCG. -oG OGG °r��G� °G GG�oGL GD °G _.CGoG ` GO °G^ GCoG UGGaGCG�oG CGGoGLG ✓e.� n OD ✓oGL:G ✓oG ♦ „ m CONMETZN7 NL� ��� - PER SOILS ENGi`i=R SECTION ?-A' _.G.- oC_G� °G VGA °GCG� =G 15' `LN I - /'n � =G�1GG�G _GGeG =`GCoG UG. —'eGCG �eC SECTION 5 -93' ! ' .IIC PAR SODS EN %05 P El TF9�.' COSTA MESA • SAN DIEGO • TEMECULA • LOS ANGELES September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC ' 43529 Ridge Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mr. Steve Ford Subject: Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Geotechnical Report Review Sheet, Dated July 31, 2001, and Grading -Plan Review Report for Tract 23065 -2, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) is pleased to submit this response to the Riverside County Building and Safety Department geotechnical report review sheet dated July 31, 2001, and the results of our geotechnical review of the 40 -scale grading plans for Tract 23065 -2, which includes Planning Areas 12, 13, 15 and 16, located in the Temecula area of Riverside County, California. The geotechnical report review sheet was prepared by the County of Riverside following their review of Petra's updated geotechnical investigation report dated April 11, 2001 (see References). The following response provides the specific review -sheet comments with a point -by -point response by Petra to each item. A copy of the original review sheet is also included at the end of this report for your convenience. RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET Remark No. 1 —"The geotechnical consultant of record should be identified and a letter indicting such should be submitted by the consultant." Response — Petra Geotechnical, Inc. is the geologic consultant of record for Tract 23065 -2. A letter to that effect is forthcoming. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ' 27620 Commerce Center Drive . Suite 103 • Temecula . CA 92590 • Tel: (909) 699 -6193 . Fax- (909) 699 -6197 . petrate Bibm net ' THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 ' Page 2 • Remark No. 2 — "The geotechnical consultant should review the grading plans ' so as to confirm that the geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plans." Response — The results of Petra's review of the 40 -scale grading plans are included herein. ' Remark No. 3 — "The Ninyo & Moore fault investigation report should be submitted as part of this review." Response — A copy of the Ninyo and Moore fault- investigation report has been included as Appendix A and Appendix B of this response. Additionally, Petra has ' reviewed the report and a discussion is included in the following grading—plan review. ' • Remark No. 4 — "The geotechnical consultant should address the status of the subsidence monitoring that was performed on this part of the Redhawk project and include any appropriate measures to address subsidence for this specific project." Response — Petra is currently researching the subsidence monitoring program and will address this issue in a supplemental report as data is made available. ' • Remark No. 5 — "The Ninyo and Moore report indicates that there is a potential ' for seismically induced lurching and ground cracking, but does not include specific measures to mitigate these is Appropriate mitigation measures should be included by the geotechnical consultant." ' Response — Ground cracking and lurching adjacent to faults during fault rupture will be partially mitigated by the recommended 20 L -foot cap of dense engineered- , fill soils beneath and adjacent to structures. However, in the event the rupture occurs along the Wildomar fault, there may be ground lurching and some ground cracking which can not be mitigated. Such distress is not expected to pose a threat ' to the structural integrity of the buildings. • Remark No. 6 — "A wet- signed copy of the Ninyo & Moore report referenced above should be submitted as part of this review." ' Response — Ninyo and Moore is no longer the geotechnical consultant of record for Tract 23065 -2 and a wet signed copy of the fault - investigation report was not available. However, we have included a copy of the report in Appendix C. ZU R 1] THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 3 • Remark No. 7 — "The geotechnical consultant should consider greater overexcavation depths than recommended in the Ninyo & Moore report, since of the consolidation testing indicates that hydrocollapsible soils may exist below the recommended overexcavation depths." Response — Overexcavation recommendations are discussed in the grading -plan review portion of this report and are noted on the enclosed grading plans. Based on Petra's previous work, Petra has recommended that with the exception of Planning Area 13, overexcavation extend to approximately 20 feet below existing grade beneath proposed structures. Overexcavations may be limited to 8 feet in athletic fields, streets and parking areas. The anticipated depth of removal in Planning Area 13 is on the order of 10 to 15 feet below existing grade, based on limited subsurface data in general proximity to the site. GRADING -PLAN REVIEW The following discussion is based on Petra's geotechnical review of the 40 -scale grading plans date stamped July 24, 2001, prepared by RBF Consulting for Tract 23065 -2 and a review of data obtained by Earth Research Associates, Petra and Ninyo and Moore (see References). Based on our review, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Proposed Development /GradLn_g A Temecula Valley Unified School District high school is tentatively proposed for the southwester portion of the site encompassing Planning Areas 12, 15 and 16. The campus will consist of 29 buildings which will include classrooms, cafeteria, administrative building and gymnasium. Athletic fields are proposed in the eastern and northern portions of the site and parking lots and track field are proposed in the southwestem portion of the site. Since Ninyo & Moore's investigation (see References), an additional building has been proposed in the east- central portion of the site. A large, single pad is proposed for Planning Area 13 located northeast of Peach Tree Lane. 3 i 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 4 Based on our review of the rough - grading plans, maximum proposed vertical depths of cut and fill will be 5 and 12 feet, respectively. However, due to the removal of unsuitable alluvial soils, it is estimated that the resultant maximum depth of vertical fill will be on the order of 32 feet. The tallest proposed slope will be a five foot high fill slope constructed at a ratio of 3:1 (horizontal: vertical [h:v]) situated in the central portion of the site between the athletic fields and the classroom structures. Background Several fault investigations have been performed within Tract 23065 -2 to investigate possible active faulting along the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore fault. There is i general consensus in the cognizant geologic community that the Wildomar fault is expressed topographically as a break in slope between the flat, alluviated valley to the southwest and elevated hills of Pauba Formation bedrock to the northeast. Pioneer Consultants (1980) trenched the site and reported faulting along which a 50 foot building setback zone was established. In 1987, Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. performed fault trenching along proposed Fairview Avenue, redesigned Deer Hollow Road and encountered either faulting or landsliding for which they recommended a 50- foot building set back zone. Earth Research Associates, Inc. performed fault trenching in 1987 and 1988 during which they encountered landslide or creep features (identified as faults by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.) and intra - Pauba (pre- Holocene) faulting. Highland Soils Engineering, Inc. fault - trenched the site in 1988 where they encountered faulting, determined there was a potential for surface rupture and recommended a 50 -foot setback zone. In 1989, all of the investigations summarized above were reviewed by Petra and a supplemental fault investigation was performed. Dr. Roy Shlemon was involved in the supplemental investigation and provided the e ' THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 TR 23065- 2/Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 5 ' quality assurance review for the project. Petra detennined that the faulting encountered was mtra -Pauba in age and did not pose a threat to the proposed ' development. Landsliding was encountered north of Tract 23065 -2. While Petra recommended a restricted -use zone north of Tract 23065 -2, no setback or restricted -use ■ zones were established within Tract 23065 -2. ' Ninyo and Moore performed a fault investigation within Planning Areas 12, 15 and 16 of the subject site in 2000 to access onsite faulting hazard with respect to the Wildomar fault (see References). Two fault trenches were excavated, one at each proposed campus within Tract 23065 -2 (high school site) and Tract 23065 -3 (middle ' school site). Trench T -2 was excavated within the proposed high- school area. It extended from the Alquist - Priolo (AP) Fault Hazard Zone boundary, across the AP ' zone to a point 100 feet past the northeastern most building footprint. Younger alluvial soils were encountered at 19 feet in which no evidence of faulting was ' . reported. The site has been the subject of preliminary geotechnical investigations by Petra and ' its predecessor Earth Research Associates in 1988 and 1989 (see References) as a part ' of the development of the Redhawk project. A total of five exploratory borings were drilled throughout Planning Areas 12, 15 and 16. Based on the data obtained from the borings, as well as the results of laboratory testing, Petra recommended the depth of removal of unsuitable alluvium be 20 feet below existing grade. No exploratory ' borings were drilled specifically within Planning Area 13 nor were recommendations made for removal depths. However, removal -depth recommendations of generally 10 ' to 15 feet were presented for the immediate surrounding areas. ' Concurrent with their fault investigation, a geotechnical investigation was conducted by Ninyo and Moore in 2000 where they advanced several exploratory geotechnical 1 I fl THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 6 borings in proposed building areas for the proposed high school (see References). Sixty -seven borings, ranging in depth between 10 and 86 feet, were drilled with a majority of the borings extending to 10 feet. Ninyo and Moore recommended 8 -foot removals throughout the site. Regional Geologic Setting The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. Peninsular ranges are characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. More specifically, the property is located within the Elsinore Trough, a fault - controlled, downdropped graben which is bounded by the Willard fault and the Santa Ana Mountains on the southwest and the Wildomar fault and Perris Block on the northeast. The Wolf Valley fault crosses the southern part of the basin in the north- westerly direction. The Willard and Wildomar faults are part of the Elsinore fault zone- which extends from the San Gabriel River. Valley southward to the-United States /Republic of Mexico border. The Wildomar and Wolf Valley faults are considered active and the Willard fault is considered potentially active, as defined by I California Division of Mines and Geology classification criteria. Local Geology and Soil Conditions Earth Materials Soils within the site consist of scattered, thin deposits of artificial fill and alluvium. Engineered fill, placed in 1989, is present along the eastern boundary of Planning Area 13 adjacent to the golf - course fairway. The subject tract is underlain with Quaternary alluvial deposits in excess of 86 feet ( Ninyo and Moore, 2000a). The artificial fill consists of reworked alluvial soils. The alluvium consists of light yellowish brown, damp, silty fine - grained sand, poorly graded sand and silt. \/ R I 1 1 [l 1 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 7 Laboratory testing and sampling blow counts indicated the soils were generally loose to depths up to 20 feet. Groundwater No groundwater or seepage were encountered in any of the borings excavated within the subject tract. 'Furthermore, groundwater is anticipated to be approximately 90 feet below the existing ground surface (Ninyo and Moore, 2000a). Faulting The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated by northwest- trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. Faults such as the Newport- Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas are major faults in this system and all are known to have ruptured the ground surface in historic times. Based on our review of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature and a review of fault - investigation studies (see References), the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore fault exists in the far northeastern portion of the site in the vicinity of proposed Peach Tree Lane. The Wolf Valley branch of the Elsinore fault is located near the southwestern portion of the site. It has been determined that the Wildomar fault within the site was last active in the Plio - Pleistocene and, therefore, does not pose a surface - rupture threat to the proposed development (Petra, 1989). The Wolf Valley fault is considered active and is zoned as an AP zone southeast and northwest of the site. 1* 1 7 h 1 P THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General From a soils engineering and geologic point of view, the subject property is considered suitable for the proposed development, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and project specifications. Recommendations for Additional Geotechnical Investgation The approximately 37,745- square -foot building addition in the central portion of the school site requires seven to eight additional exploratory borings within the building footprint to satisfy California Department of Mines and Geology guidelines for geotechnical investigations for proposed school sites. Laboratory testing of select bulk and undisturbed soil samples will be required to evaluate removal, depth(s) and determine foundation - design parameters and settlement potential. Planning Area 13 should be the subject of a site - specific geotechnical investigation, once development plans have been formulated. In the event mass grading is to be undertaken prior to completion of a development- specific geotechnical investigation, a review of boring and test -pit data in proximity to Planning Area 13 suggests that Pauba Formation bedrock or terrace deposits are present at depths of approximately 10 to 15 feet or less. Limited site grading was undertaken in 1989 during the grading of the adjacent golf- course fairway and consisted of the placement of engineered fill along the entire eastern boundary of the site. Removal depths in this area are presumed to have been approximately 10 to 15 feet. -r, x'130&,5 �� 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area Earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 9 ' All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of the Grading Code of the County of Riverside, in addition to the ' provision of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) including Appendix Chapter A33. Grading should also be performed in accordance with applicable ' provisions of the attached Standard Grading Specifications (Appendix A) prepared by Petra unless specifically revised or amended herein. 1 Clearing and Grubbing ' All weeds, grasses, brush, shrubs and trees in areas to be graded should be stripped and ' hauled offsite. Trees to be removed should be grubbed -out such that their stumps and major -root systems are also removed and the organic materials hauled offsite. During ' site grading, laborers should clear from fills any roots, tree branches and other deleterious materials missed during clearing and grubbing operations. Clearing operations should also include the removal of all trash and debris existing ' within the site. The project geotechnical consultant should be notified at the appropriate times to tprovide observation and testing services during clearing operations to verify compliance with the above recommendations. In addition, should any buried structures or unusual or adverse soil conditions be encountered that are not described ' or anticipated herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the geotechnical consultant. U N 1 1 t 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 10 Excavation Characteristics Based on the results of our study, surficial -soil deposits consisting of fill and alluvium will be readily excavatable with conventional earthmoving equipment. Groundwater Neither groundwater or seepage were encountered during previous investigations (see References) of the subject tract. Furthermore, groundwater is expected to be approximately 90 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to be encountered during grading nor to adversely impact the proposed development. Ground Preparation - Till Areas Prior to placing structural fill, existing unsuitable materials should be removed to underlying dense native soils from all areas to receive compacted fill. Unsuitable materials consist thin surficial deposits of uncompacted artificial fill and loose alluvial soils which are subject to hydrocollapse in the upper 15 to 20 feet. Dense native soils are defined as undisturbed native materials with an in -place relative compaction of 85 percent or greater based on ASTM Test Method D1557 -91. Soils should also beat or slightly above optimum - moisture conditions and exhibit a hydrocollapse potential of less than 1 percent. Prior to placing structural fill, exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, watered or air -dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then recompacted in -place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Based on our evaluation of both the Petra and Ninyo and Moore geotechnical investigations (see References) for the school site and Planning Areas 12, 15 and 16, we recommend removal depths on the order of 20 feet within building areas and 8 feet T /0 I THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 ' TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 11 ' within athletic fields and streets Overexcavations in building areas should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the buildingfootpnnt. Actual depths and horizontal limits ' of removals will have to be determined during grading on the basis of in- grading observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant. Removal ' depths within Planning Area 13 are anticipatgdSo be_Q the order of 1 15 feet however, this determination can be made as a part of the recommended supplemental geotechnical investigation. ' Fill Placement All fill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch- thick- maximum lifts, watered or air -dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then compacted in -place ' to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in ' accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557 -91 ' Benching Compacted fills placed on natural -slope surfaces inclining at 5:1 (h:v) or greater ' should be placed on a series of level benches excavated into dense native soils. Typical benching details are shown on Plates SG -3, SG -4, SG -5, SG -7 and SG -8 ' (Appendix D). ' Import Soils for Grading ' It is expected that the import soils may be derived from adjacent tracts. The soils imported from adjacent tracts are considered acceptable; however, soils intended for ' import from a source other than the surrounding tracts should be observed, tested and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. The soils should consist of clean materials that are void of organics, trash and other deleterious materials and rock THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 12 ' exceeding a maximum dimension of 12 inches. It is also recommended that soils to be imported from an outside source exhibit expansion potentials in the VERY LOW ' and LOW ranges (i.e., expansion index not exceeding 50). Fill Slopes Fill slopes constructed with onsite soils and /or similar import soils are evaluated to be grossly and surficially stable to the maximum - planned height of 5 feet and ' maximum- planned slope ratio of 3:1 (h:v). To obtain proper compaction to the face of fill slopes, all fill slopes should be overfilled during construction and then trimmed -back to the compacted inner core. Care should be taken to avoid the placement of clean sands in the zone of the ' finished -slope faces. Observations and Testine ' An observation of clearing operations, removal of unsuitable surficial materials, cut - and fill -slope construction and general grading procedures should be performed by the ' project geotechnical consultant. Fills should not be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant. The project geotechnical consultant or his representative should be present onsite ' during all grading operations to verify proper placement and compaction of fill, as well as to verify compliance with the other recommendations presented herein. Shrinkage and Subsidence ' Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soil are replaced as properly compacted fill. Following is an estimate of shrinkage factors for the various geologic units present onsite. These estimates are based on in -place �d THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 13 densities of the various materials and on the estimated average degree of relative compaction achieved during grading. • Artificial fill (Afu) ............................. Shrinkage of 15 to 20% • Alluvium (Qal) .............................. Shrinkage of 10 to 15% Subsidence from scarification and recompaction of exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas to receive fill is expected to be approximately 0. 15 to 0.20 foot in areas exposing approved native soils. The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that occurs during grading. Post - Grading Considerations Settlement Monitoring Compacted -fill depths of up to approximately 32 feet are anticipated within the tract. Although these fills are not considered "deep fills ", they will be placed on alluvial soils. Therefore, we recommend that post - grading settlement monitoring of the fill and underlying alluvium be conducted within the tract. Settlement monuments should be installed in pairs - one surface monument and one deep monument installed at the filt/alluvium contact. Settlement monument locations should be determined during and at the completion of rough grading based on known as- graded conditions. I I i THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 14 Elevation readings of survey monuments should be made biweekly for the first 8 weeks and then monthly until observed settlement data indicates primary settlement has occurred and long -term secondary settlement will be within tolerable limits. Construction timing in monitored areas should be evaluated on a continuing basis, as survey data are available. Slope Landscaping and Maintenance Adequate slope- and pad- drainage facilities are essential in the design of grading for the subject site. An anticipated rainfall equivalency on the order of 60 to 100f inches per year at the site can result due to irrigation. The overall stability of the graded slopes should not be adversely affected provided all drainage provisions are properly constructed and maintained thereafter and provided all engineered slopes are landscaped with a deep- rooted, drought- tolerant and maintenance -free plant species, as recommended by the project landscape architect. Additional comments and recommendations are presented below with respect to slope drainage, landscaping and irrigation. A discussion of pad drainage is given in a following section. The most common type of slope failure in hillside areas is the surficial type and usually involves the upper 1 to 6t feet. For any given gradient, these surficial slope failures are generally caused by a wide variety of conditions, such as overwatering; cyclic changes in moisture content and density of slope soils from both seasonal and irrigation- induced wetting and drying; soil expansiveness; tithe -lapse between slope construction and slope planting; type and spacing of plant materials used for slope protection; rainfall intensity; and/or lack of a proper maintenance program. Based on this discussion, the following recommendations are presented to mitigate potential surficial -slope failures. I 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 15 • Proper drainage provisions for engineered slopes should consist of concrete - terrace drains, downdrains and energy dissipaters (where required) constructed in accordance with the Grading Code of the County of Riverside. Provisions should also be made for construction of compacted -earth berms along the tops of all engineered slopes. ' All permanent engineered slopes should be landscaped as soon as practical at the completion of grading. As noted, the landscaping should consist of a deep- rooted, drought- tolerant and maintenance -free plant species. If landscaping cannot be provided within a reasonable period of time, jute matting (or equivalent) or a spray - on product designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary measure to inhibit surface erosion until such time permanent landscape plants have ' become well - established. ' Irrigation systems should be installed on the engineered slopes and a watering program then implemented which maintains a uniform, near - optimum moisture condition in the soils. Overwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry -out is also detrimental to slope performance. ' Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of sprinkler lines in trenches should not be allowed without prior approval from the ' soils engineer and engineering geologist. • A permanent slope- maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes not maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include ' the care of drainage- and erosion - control provisions, rodent control and repair of leaking or damaged irrigation systems. • Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage, maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope 1 soils is considered very low. ' Utility Trenches All utility- trench backfill within street right -of -ways, utility easements, under ' sidewalks, driveways and building -floor slabs, as well as within or in proximity to ' slopes should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. Where /5 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 ' TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 16 I 11 i onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer or his representative, to verify proper compaction. For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately I- to 2- foot -thick maximum lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra - hammer, pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped - walls, backfill materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12- inch - thick - maximum lifts and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment. As an alternate for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under building -floor slabs, imported clean sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, inspection, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed. To avoid point -loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported sand bedding should be placed at least I foot above all pipe in areas where excavated trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand - bedding materials should be thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill. Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing (interior and /or exterior trenches), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Site Drainage Positive- drainage devices, such as sloping sidewalks, graded- swales and/or area drains, should be provided around each building to collect and direct all water away from the structures. Neither rain nor excess irrigation water should be allowed to collect or I I 1 i THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065- 2/Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 17 pond against building foundations. Roof gutters and downspouts may be required on the sides of buildings where yard - drainage devices cannot be provided and/or where roof drainage is directed onto adjacent slopes. All drainage should be directed to adjacent driveways, adjacent streets or storm -drain facilities. Seismic- Design Considerations Ground Motions Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Sections 1626 through 1633 of the 1997 UBC. The method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system, and on the building height. For structural design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (UBCSEIS, 1998/1999) was utilized which compiles fault information for a particular site using a modified version of a data file of approximately 183 California faults that were digitized by the California Department of Mines and Geology and the U.S. Geological Survey. This program computes various information for a particular site including the distance of the site from each of the faults in the data file, the estimated slip -rate for each fault, and the "maximum moment magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest Type A, Type B, and Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for each of the fault types. The program then selects the largest of the computed seismic design coefficients and designates these as the design coefficients for the subject site. Based on our evaluation and fault investigation, the closest Type A fault is the Elsinore - Julian segment of the Elsinore fault zone, located approximately 10.6 s I? I 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 18 kilometers from the site. The closest Type B fault, the Wildomar fault, part of the Temecula segment of the Elsinore fault zone, located in the northeastern portion of Tract 23065 -2, would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and an anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. The following 1997 UBC seismic design coefficients should be used for the proposed strictures. These criteria are based on the soil profile type as determined by existing subsurface geologic conditions, on the proximity of the Elsinore - Temecula fault, and on the maximum moment magnitude and slip rate. Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity Secondary effects of seismic activity normally considered as possible hazards to a site include several types of ground failure, as well as induced flooding. Various general types of ground failures which might occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking at the site include landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow- ground rupture and liquefaction. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, in addition to other factors. It Figure 16 -2 Seismic Zone 4 16 -1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.4 16 -U Seismic Source Type B 16 -1 Soil Profile Type Sp 16 -5 Near - Source Factor N. 1.3 16 -T Near - Source Factor N, _ 1 6 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient C, 0.44 N, = OS7 16 -R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.64 N, = 1.02 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity Secondary effects of seismic activity normally considered as possible hazards to a site include several types of ground failure, as well as induced flooding. Various general types of ground failures which might occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking at the site include landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow- ground rupture and liquefaction. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, in addition to other factors. It I 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 ' TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 19 ' Based on our data evaluation, landsliding and ground subsidence are considered unlikely at the site. Ground lurching, rupture and liquefaction are discussed below. ' Seismically induced flooding which might be considered a potential hazard to a site ' normally includes flooding due to a tsunamis (seismic sea wave), a seiche (i.e., a wave -like oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed basin that may be ' initiated by a strong earthquake) or failure of a major reservoir or retention structure upstream of the site. Since the site is located nearly 25 miles inland from the ' nearest coastline of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation in excess of 1,100 feet above mean sea level, the potential for seismically induced flooding due to a tsunamis run- , up is considered nonexistent. Since no enclosed bodies of water lie adjacent to the site, the potential for induced flooding at the site due to a seiche is also considered ' nonexistent. ' Ground Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture ' Seismically induced ground lurching and shallow ground rupture could occur in the northeastern portion of the site in the event the Wildomar fault ruptures on the site. ' There are no structures planned in this portion of the site at this time. Therefore, ground lurching and shallow ground rupture is not anticipated to occur in areas of ' the proposed structures. ' Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soils, usually ' taking place within a soil medium exhibiting a uniform, fine - grained characteristic, loose consistency and low- confining pressure when subject to impact by seismic or ' dynamic loading. Factors influencing a site's potential for liquefaction include area seismicity, onsite soil type and consistency and groundwater level. Due to the ' anticipated depth of fill and, based on our evaluation of the alluvial soils and since 1 t 1 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 20 groundwater was not encountered in exploratory borings to a depth of 86 feet and is anticipated to be approximately 90 feet below natural ground surface, the site is considered to have a very low risk for liquefaction. Tentative Foundation - Design Recommendations General Provided site grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, conventional shallow foundations are considered feasible for support of the proposed structures. Tentative foundation recommendations are provided herein. However, these recommendations may require modification depending on as- graded conditions existing within the building sites upon completion of grading. Allowable- Bearing Values An allowable - bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pso may be used for 24- inch - square pad footings and 12- inch -wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width and depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. Recommended allowable- bearing values include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one -third for short - duration wind and seismic forces. Settlement Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted fill and in -situ alluvium, as well as the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the maximum total settlement of conventional footings will be less than approximately 1.0 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be about one -half the total settlement. It is J19 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 21 anticipated that the majority of the settlement will occur during construction or shortly thereafter as building loads are applied. The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the grading will be performed in accordance with the grading recommendations presented in this report and that the project geotechnical consultant will observe or test the soil conditions in the footing excavations. Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf may be used to determine lateral- bearing resistance for footings. In addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.4 times the dead -load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. The above values may be increased by one -third when designing for short- duration wind or seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill placed against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Footing Observations All building- footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture - softened soil should be removed prior to concrete placement. i II U I 1 C' L 1 1 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 22 Excavated materials from footing excavations should not be placed in slab -on -grade areas unless the soils are compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Expansive Soil Considerations Results of laboratory tests by Ninyo and Moore (see References) indicate onsite soil and bedrock materials exhibit VERY LOW expansion potential, as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B. Expansive soil conditions should be evaluated during and at the completion of rough grading to verify expansive -soil conditions within the upper 15 feet. The design and construction details presented herein are intended to provide recommendations for the Very Low expansion potential which may be evident at the completion of rough grading. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent j than the minimum recommendations that follow should be provided as recommended by the project architect or structural engineer. ' Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less) The following recommendations pertain to as- graded areas where the foundation soils exhibit a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B. Since these soils would exhibit expansion indices of less than 20, the design of slab -on- ground foundations is exempt from the procedures outlined in 1997 UBC Section 1815. Based on this soil condition, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum criteria. However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement should be provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer. Footings - Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -C (i.e. 12 -inch minimum depth for one -story and 18- rte%, THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065- 2/Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 23 inch minimum depth for two -story construction). Interior continuous footings for both one- and two -story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two -story buildings, respectively, and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. - Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. No special reinforcement of the pad footings will be required. - Interior isolated pad footings supporting raised wood floors should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade for one- and two -story construction, respectively. No special reinforcement of the pad footings will be required. • Floor Slabs - Concrete -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with No.3-bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center, both ways. All stab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid - depth. Concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all concrete slab -on -grade should be prewatered to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. Post- Tensioned Slabs Post - tensioned slabs may be considered to mitigate the potential differential ' settlement. The actual design of post- tensioned slabs is referred to the project Ak :�3 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area September 21, 2001 J.N. 165 -01 Page 24 structural engineer. However, to assist the structural engineer in his design, the following parameters are recommended. - $ipansion In -dex. _ Very Low to Low (0 to 50) .' Assumed percent clay 30 Clay type Monnnoril lonite Approximate depth of constant suction (feet) 7 0 Approximate soil suction (pF) 16 Approximate velocity or moisture flow (inches /month) 0 7 Thomwif e Index -20 Average edge Moisture variation depth, e,,, (feet) Center lit 46 Edge lift 2 2 Anticipated swell, y,,, (inches) Centel lilt 1 4 Edge lift 04 • Perimeter footings for either one- or two -story buildings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the nearest adjacent final- ground surface. Interior footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of the finish -floor slab. • All building -area floor slabs constructed on -grade should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl- chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil visqueen. A minimum of 1 inch of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. • Presaturation of subgrade soils below slabs -on -grade will not be required. However, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 25 ' Masonry Garden Walls Footing Setbacks From Descending Slopes Continuous footings for masonry garden walls proposed on or near the tops of descending fill slopes should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal clearance of 7 feet is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the footing and the slope face. The footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. Plans for any top -of -slope garden walls proposing pier and grade- ' beam footings should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant prior to construction. Construction on Level Ground Where masonry walls are proposed on level ground and at least 7 feet from the tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at a minimum depth ' of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also be ' reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. Construction Joints ' In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of differential settlement, positive separations (construction joints) should be provided in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 25 feet and at each comer. The separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings. The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls. i i �5 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 TR 23065- 2/Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 26 Concrete Flatwork Thickness and Joint Spacing To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Subgrade Preparation As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete- flatwork areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. _ This moisture should extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and maintained in the soils during placement of concrete. Pre - watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of the project soils engineer should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete. Planters Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry -block garden walls to minimize excessive infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the ground in these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the walls and foundations. Drip - irrigation systems are also recommended to prevent overwatermg and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils. F I 27 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 ' TR 23065- 2/Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 27 ' INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS This report is based on the project, as described and the geotechnical data obtained the locations indicated the The from the field tests performed at on plan. materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory investigation are However, believed representative of the total area. soils can vary in characteristics between excavations, both laterally and vertically. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the best described geotechnical evaluations and represent our professional judgement. The findings, conclusions and opinions contained in this report are to be considered tentative only and subject to confirmation by the undersigned during the construction e process. Without this confirmation, this report is to be considered incomplete and Petra or the undersigned professionals assume no responsibility for its use. In addition,. this report should be reviewed and updated after a period of 1 year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. rThis report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those ' named or described above. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. The professional opinions contained herein have been derived in accordance with ' current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. I 27 r r r r 1 r r r r r r 1 r r 1 r 1 1 THE GARRETT GROUP, LLC September 21, 2001 TR 23065 -2 /Temecula Area J.N. 165 -01 Page 28 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. �G P�Q r� O • B t R z^ �, mane � Gr�yson R. lke~ r�O 87t 4j* Prirz�a �" ' eulogist Senior Ass eEZ Bt v3 a lea. 1 GE 871 01�1 EXP. D r5J ��Ct{PI1GP 1 /MB /keb F� CALIF7P�\P Volume I Riverside County Geotechnical Report Review Sheet References Plates I through 5 - Grading Plans (in pocket) Appendix A - Ninyo and Moore Report dated March 6, 2000 Volume II Appendix B - Ninyo and Moore Report dated March 3, 2000 Appendix C - Ninyo and Moore Report dated March 3, 2000 Appendix D - Standard Grading Specifications Distribution: (3) Addressee (2) Riverside County Building & Safety /Planning Department Attention: Mr. Mack Hakakian (2) RBF Consulting Attention: Mr. Mike Tylman s I EU RIVERSIDE COUNTY BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW SHEET OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS INCLUDING: Report Date Soil Report (Petra) 518/89 ,Geologic Report Date Received 7123/01 IGeotechnical(Ninyo &Moore) 4128/00 6/19101 Update (Petra) 7/3/01 7123/01 Consulting Firm Ninvo & Moore /Petra Type of Report X Preliminary (Initial) Ingrading or Interim Roughgrade Compaction X Supplement/ Addendum Grading Plan Review Paving Design Final Design Their Job #_1 04134-01/165-01 Tract # TR 23065 -2 Site Address Redhawk Specific Plan - Temecula High School Site Lots _Grading Plan Check No. (if any) BGR 010525 _Preliminary Grading Permit (# if issued) Precise. Grading Permit (# if issued) _Assessor's Parcel No(s). Distribution IDeveloper/Owner The Garrett Group Address 43524 Ridge Park Dr, Temecula CA 92590 Civil Engineer /Architect RBF _X 'Soil Engineer Ninvo & Moore /Petra Engineering Geologist _ Ninyo & Moore /Petra _X_ ' ACS Report Approved Report Approved Subject to Conditions below: v teviewe( Prior to approval of report attend to Prior to report approval and issuance of grading permits submit: ) The geotechnical consultant of record should be J9 REFERENCES Bergmann, Mark C., and Rockwell, Thomas K., 1996, Holocene Slip Rate of the Elsinore Fault in Temecula Valley, Based on Three - Dimensional Trenching, Final Technical Report; for US Geological Survey, External Research Program, dated February 8, 1996. Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1987, Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential, Portion of Wolf Valley Project, Rancho-California, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298 -86, dated November 20, 1987. , 1988, Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Red Hawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298 -87, dated February 2, 1988. , 1989, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066 and 23067, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298 -87, dated May 8, 1989. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1987, Geotechnical Investigation of "Ground Crack ", Tract 19872, Wolf Valley, Rancho California Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 6851602 -03, dated December 7, 1987. , 1988, Geotechnical Response to Questions from The County of Riverside, Department of Building and Safety dated December 16, 1987, related to The "Geotechnical Investigation for Ground Crack, Tract 19872, Wolf Valley, Rancho California Aiea, County of Riverside, California" by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated December 7, 1987; jar Richmond American Homes, Project No. 6851602 -03, dated January 12, 1988. Ninyo and Moore, 2000a, Geotechnical Evaluation, Temecula High School No. 3, Pala Road and Pechanga Road Temecula, California, Y.N. 104134 -01, dated March 3, 2000. 2000b, Geotechnical Evaluation, Temecula Middle School No. 5, Pala Road and Pechanga Road, Temecula, California, P.N. 104134 -01, dated March 3, 2000, 2000c, Fault Hazard Evaluation, Temecula High School No. 3 and Middle School No. 5, Pala Road and Pechanga Road, Temecula, California, P.N. 104134 -01, dated March 6, 2001. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 1987, Alquist -Paolo Special Studies Zoning and Liquefaction Study of the Mundy Trotter Parcel, Wolf Valley, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, Work Order 400103, dated August 12, 1987. , 1989, Second Party Review of Report "Supplemental Evaluation of Faulting, Southwest portion of Redhawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California ", dated May 1989. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989a, Supplemental Evaluation of Faulting, Southwest Portion of Redhawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298 -87, dated March 1, 1989. , 1989b, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066 and 23067, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, Volumes I and II, J.N. 298 -87, dated May 8, 1989. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SEPTEMBER 2001 J.N. 165 -01 F9 ' REFERENCES (Continued) '- 1989c, Location of Redhawk project with Respect to Subsidence Report Zone, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California; for Great American Development, J.N. 298 -87, dated May 16, 1989. 1990, Settlement Monuments for Planning Areas 9, 12, 15 and 16, Portion of Tentative Tract Map No. 23065, Redhawk Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California; for Great American Development, J.N. 298 -87, dated March 2, 1990. , 2001 a, Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Tract 23065 Phases 3 through 7 and Final, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N 165 -01, dated April 11, 2001. 2001b, Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Geotechnical Review Sheet Dated June 29, 2001, and Grading -Plan Review Report for Tract 23065 -3, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 165 -01, dated August 17, 2001. ' Shlemon, Roy J., 1989, Second Party Review of Report, "Supplemental Evaluation of Faulting, Southwest Portion of Redhawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California; for Great American Development Company, dated May 1989. r2000, Ground Fissures Subsidence Zones and Litigation at Temecula and Murrreta, Southwest Riverside County. California; in Geology and Enology of the Temecula Valley, Riverside County, San Diego Association ' of Geologists 2000 Field Trip Guide Book. I I PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SEPTEMBER 2001 J.N. 165 -01 ,I 31 3Y 1.. APPENDIX A NINYO AND MOORE REPORT ' DATED MARCH 6, 2000 1 1 1 PETRA 3Y I I I 11 Geo(eCh,,cai and En,,,dnje,iaf SaenCeS Cors,,hanrs GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO. 3 PALA ROAD AND PECHANGA ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Ms. Janet Dixon Temecula Valley Unified School District 40516 Roripaugh Road Temecula, California 92592 PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore Geoteclinical and Envirmunental Sciences Consultants 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134-01 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 - Phone (858) 576-1000 Fax (858) 5769600 San Diego Irvine Ontario • Los Angeles � Oakland - Las Vegas - Salt Lake Gry � Phoenix 33 Geotecnn¢al and En,,,onmenal sciences Consuuants March 3, 2000 ' Project No 104134 -01 1 Ms. Janet Dixon ' Temecula Valley Unified School District 40516 Roripaugh Road Temecula, California 92592 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Report Temecula High School No. 3 ' Temecula, California Dear Ms. Dixon: In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the pro- ' posed Temecula High School No. 3 in Temecula, California. This report presents our geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed project. Our report was pre- pared in accordance with our proposal dated January 28, 2000. ' We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or com- ments regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. r_ 1 Sincerely, X51 ° "__ v NINYO & MOORE 2 'RI'ICs 0. MORi CE, 477pzI .9 GE010G1ST Francis O. Moreland, C.E G. �F Senior Project Geologist ��CAL1Ft Randal L. Irwin, C.E.G. Chief Engineering Geologist FOM /RI /MRR/rlm Distribution: (6) Addressee )44l chael R. Rahilly, G.E. E. / C h ief Geotechnical Engineer /7 `0 Q��\POddL. No 1521 Cen,ften Engiaeennp .. GEeby,St \ Exp 9;30/01 / 5710 Ruffin Road • San Diego, California P2123 NO CE 708 c UP._ .ma Phone X8581 576 -1000 - Fax (858 )576 -9600 San Diego - Irvine . Ontario - Los Angeles - Oakland Las Vegas -- Sall Lake City - Phoenix 3q I Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No- 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134-01 41�.01Gan 6� a 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pau 1. INTRODUCTION .............. . . ......... . I .......... ... 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES .. .... .. .... ....... .. . .. ... ... ....... . 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... .. ......... .... .................. .... ........ ............. ............ ......... 2 4. SITE DESCRIPTION ........... ... .. ......................................................... ......... ................... 2 5. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING . .. ....................................... 2 5.1. Exploratory Borings .............. ... ...................... 3 3 5.2. Laboratory Testing ......... ......... . ... .. . .. .. . ........ ....... .. .... 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..... ...... .. ...... ......... 3 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting ......... . .... ... . . ... ... ...... 3 6.2, Site Geology 4 4 62.1. Fill__.... 6.12 Alluvium.: 13, Rippability ........ .. ... . ................5 64, Groundwater .. ... .. .. 5 5 6 5. Flood Hazards..... .......... 5 6.6. Faulting and Seismicity 6 6,6.1, UBC Seismic Design Parameters... ... 6.6.2 Strong Ground Motion and Ground Surface Rupture . ... .... .. ... .... .. ... .6 6.63 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement .7 6,6.4, Tsunamis.... . ..... . ... . ...8 6.7, Landslidingo......................... 7, CONCLUSIONS ...... 8. RECOMMENDATIONS .. ....... .... .... ....... 8 8.1. Earthwork._ ... .. .. .... .. . ... .. ..... .... 9 9 8.1,1. Pre-Construction Conference ............................ 8 1,2 Construction Observation . .................. ..... . ....... 9 8.1,3. Site Preparation ....... . ...... ...... .... - 9 10 8.1.4. Treatment of Existing Alluvial Soils... ........ .... ... 9.1 5. Excavation Characteristics 10 S. 1 Materials for Fill .10 .6 8.1.7. Compacted Fill .. . . .. ....... 10 8.1.8 Slopes ........ _.. _ .. .... .... ...... 12 13 8.1.9. Temporary Slope Stability .... .. .... 8.1.10. Trench Backfill .... .. .. ............. ....... ... ..... . ... 13 8.1.11, Drainage.. . ...... ... . . ... ... ...... ..... ... 14 8.2. Foundations .... ....... ... ... ... . .. . ....... ... .. . ...... 14 82.1. Shallow Foundations... is 41�.01Gan 6� a 35 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 Tables ' Table 1 — Seismic Design Parameters.... - - - "" "" " 17 7 Table 2 — Recommended Pavement Sections .............................. .. ... ............................... ' Fi2ures Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Geotechnical Map ' Figure 3 — Fault Location Map Appendices ' Appendix A — Boring Logs Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Appendix C — Typical Earthwork Guidelines 1 u I ' dl Jd-0IGItA doc 11 � ®�2// ®S V ® ®I.f l: 3t ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 ' Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and our proposal dated January 28, 2000, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the design of the proposed Temecula High School No. 3 at the "Red- ' hawk" site in the Temecula area, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). Our geotechnical evaluation was in conformance with Chapter 18A of Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of the 1998 Cali- fornia Building Code. This report presents the results of our field exploration and laboratory '. testing, our conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the subject site, and our recom- mendations for the design and earthwork construction of this project. We have also performed a fault hazard study for the site, the results of which are presented in a separate report. In addition, ' we concurrently performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Temecula Middle School No. 5, which will be located southeast of, and adjacent to, the subject site The results of our tgeotechnical evaluation for Temecula Middle School No. 5 are also presented in a separate report. ' 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Ninyo & Moore's scope of services for this phase of the project included review of pertinent ' background data, performance of a geologic reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory ' testing, and engineering analysis with regard to the proposed high school construction. Specifi- cally, we performed the following tasks: ' • Review of background data listed in the Selected References section of this report. The data reviewed included topographic maps, geologic data, stereoscopic aerial photographs, fault maps, Special Studies Zones maps, and a conceptual site plan for the project i` • Performance of a geologic reconnaissance of the proposed site, including the observation and mapping of geologic conditions and the evaluation of possible geologic hazards which may ' impact the proposed project. • Subsurface exploration consisting of 67 exploratory borings. The boring depths ranged from 10 to 85 feet below the ground surface • Laboratory testing consisting of in -situ dry density and moisture content, expansion index, ' sieve analysis, direct shear, consolidation, maximum density /optimum moisture content, and soil corrosivity tests. ' • Compilation and engineering analysis of the data obtained. ' aiu.oicw d- t 11PHO UPw�MTp- �1 I 1 I i 1 i t.< t t, t Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No 104134 -01 Preparation of this geotechnical design and data report presenting our findings and conclu- sions regarding the proposed high school site. The report also includes geotechnical recommendations for the design and earthwork construction of the subject project. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the northwestern portion of the Redhawk site is to be utilized for the future Temecula High School No. 3. The high school will consist of approximately 13 buildings including classrooms, a gym, a shop building, a cafeteria and performing arts building, and an ad- ministration building. Paved parking will be provided between the school buildings and Pala Road. Athletic fields are planned to the northeast and southeast of the structures. We anticipate that the new buildings will be one -story, slab -on -grade structures of wood- frame, steel- frame, or rein- forced concrete constriction Building loads are expected to be typical of this type of relatively light construction. 4. SITE DESCRIPTION The Redhawk school site is an irregularly shaped parcel located to the northeast of the intersec- tion of Pala Road and Pechanga Road in Temecula, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The high school portion of the site is generally flat with a drainage channel approximately 5 feet deep along the southwestern side of the site adjacent to Pala Road. The high school property is bordered to the northwest and southeast by agricultural fields, to the northeast by a golf course, and to the southwest by Pala Road. High school site elevations range from approximately 1,155 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the southeastern corner of the site to approximately 1,140 feet MSL at the northwestern corner of the site. Vegetation consists of a sparse growth of grass and weeds. ' 5. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ' Our field exploration of the subject site included a geologic reconnaissance and subsurface ex- ploratory work conducted on February 8 through 14, 2000. The subsurface evaluation consisted of ' drilling 67, 8 -inch diameter continuous flight, hollow -stem auger borings. The boring locations ' MW z 111E27C1 ®� �T� aim -m Gc. a« V t.. 3 8 1 I t 1 t 1 t i 1 1 Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 were selected based on the results of our background geotechnical review, field reconnaissance, and the currently proposed building layout. Prior to commencing the subsurface exploration, Underground Service Alert was notified for mark -out of the existing utilities. 5.1. Exploratory Borings A total of 67 exploratory borings were excavated at the site on February 8 through 14, 2000 at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 2. The borings were drilled with a truck mounted, continuous flight hollow -stem auger drill. Boring depths ranged from 10 to 85 feet. Detailed logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A 5.2. Laboratory Testing Samples were obtained during our subsurface evaluation for laboratory analysis. Testing in- cluded in -situ dry density and moisture content, expansion index, sieve analysis, direct shear, consolidation, maximum density /optimum moisture content, and soil corrosivity tests The re- sults of the in -situ dry density and moisture testing are presented on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. Other laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. ' 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our findings regarding regional and local geology, including faulting and seismicity, landslides, i:. rippability (excavatibility), and groundwater conditions at the subject site are provided in the following sections. t 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting The project area is situated in the coastal section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. t This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the 'Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California (Norris L and Webb, 1990) The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, ' the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimen- i ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 1 ' tary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The portion of the ' province in Riverside County that includes the project area consists generally of uplifted and dis- sected Cretaceous granitic basement rocks and late Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary units. ' The subject site is underlain by relatively deep alluvial soils The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub - parallel faults and fault zones trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults, which are shown on Figure 3, Fault Lo- cation Map, are considered active faults. The San Jacinto and San Andreas faults are active fault ' systems located northeast of the project area and the Agua Blanca— Coronado Bank, San Clemente, and Newport - Inglewood faults are active faults located west of the project area. The Wildomar Fault segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone has been mapped near the eastern ' limits of the project site. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right- lateral, strike -slip movement. Further ' discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in the Faulting and Seismicity section of this report and in the separate fault hazard evaluation report 1 6.2. Site Geology Geologic units encountered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation include minor amounts of artificial fill and alluvium. Generalized descriptions of the earth units en- countered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections. More detailed descriptions are provided on the boring logs in Appen- dix A. 6.2.1. Fill Scattered fill materials were encountered during our evaluation of the subject site associ- ated with past agricultural activities. In general, the fills are shallow and of limited extent. The fill materials are similar to the alluvial soils underlying the site and consist of silty sand and sandy silt. Scattered concrete debris, pieces of steel, and wood are also present in some of these soils. t. 413 01Grt do y0 i t t i t Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No 104134 -01 6.2.2. Alluvium Alluvium was encountered in our exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 95 feet. In general, the alluvial materials encountered consisted of light yellowish brown, damp, interbedded silty fine - gained sand, poorly graded sand, and silt. 6.3. Rippability Based on our subsurface exploration of the site, the on -site fill and alluvium are expected to be rippable with normal heavy -duty earthmoving equipment. 6.4. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory borings Based on our subsur- face exploration, we anticipate that the actual groundwater table is at a depth in excess of 90 feet. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface to- pography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors. 6.5. Flood Hazards According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map, the majority of the site is considered to be outside of a 100 -year floodplain. The map indi- cates the 100 -year flood would be contained in a low area along the southwestern and southern sides of the site adjacent to Pala and Pachanga Roads. We anticipate that these low areas will be raised above the 100 year flood level during grading of the site. Based on review of topographic maps, the site is not located downstream of a dam or within a dam inundation area. Based on this review and our site reconnaissance, the potential for significant flooding of the site is considered low. 6.6. Faulting and Seismicity The project area is considered to be seismically active, as is most of southern California. Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as on our geologic field mapping, the subject site, where structures are currently ' ni3soic2e a. 5 - y " G _ 4l Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 t� ,l planned, is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults 0 e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively). 'i The eastern portion of the site, however, is within the Alquist -Priolo earthquake fault zone for the Wildomar Fault, which is part of the Elsinore (Temecula segment) Fault Zone. The �I easterly most portion of the site, where school buildings are currently planned, is within the Special Studies Zone and is the subject of our fault hazard study, the results of which are �(? provided in a separate report. According to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), the 'I 'i proposed project site is within a UBC Near - Source Zone and is within Seismic Zone 4. In general, hazards associated with seismic activity include, strong ground motion, ground surface rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and tsunamis. These hazards are discussed in the following sections. 6.6.1.UBC Seismic Design Parameters Table 1 includes the seismic design parameters for the site as defined in, and for use with, the 1997 edition of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Table 1 — Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z ble 16 — I Soil Profile Type ble 16 — J Seismic Coefficient C. 16 — Q Seismic Coefficient C, able 16 — R Near - Source Factor, N, able 16—S Near- Source Factor, N,. 1.6 Table 16 — T Seismic Source Type B Table 16 — U 6.6.2. Strong Ground Motion and Ground Surface Rupture Based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Western United States, issued by the United States Geological Survey (1999), the project site is located in a zone where the horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is 0.54g. Based on the California Division of Nfines and Geology Map Sheet 48 (1999), q� I 1 i t s , Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 ' March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 the horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is between 0.50g and 0.608. The requirements of the governing jurisdictions and ap- plicable building codes should be considered in the project design. The closest known active fault is the Wddomar Fault of the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula segment) located approxi- mately 300 feet northeast of the proposed school buildings. The Elsinore Fault (Temecula segment) has an assigned maximum earthquake magnitude of 6 8 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). Based on our review of the referenced literature, no active faults have been mapped across the project site where school buildings are currently planned. Based on background informa- tion and our fault hazard study (provided in a separate report), the potential for ground rupture due to faulting in areas where school buildings are planned is considered low. How- ever, lurching or cracking of the mound surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible 6.6.3.Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils and non - plastic silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are susceptible to liquefaction Based on the absence of a shallow groundwater table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement at the subject site is low It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the groundwater level might occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irriga- tion, and other factors. However, the likelihood that the water table would rise from its present depth to the shallow depths needed to produce liquefiable conditions, is also considered low 41N- OIGRkdx 7 1��G3 OE���v©GCF 9S 1 Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 6.6.4.Tsunamis Tsunamis are long seismic sea waves (long compared to the ocean depth) generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. Based on the inland location of the site, the potential for damage due to tsunami is considered nil. 6.7. Landsliding Based on our review of published geologic literature and aerial photographs, and our geo- logic reconnaissance, no landslides or related features underlie the subject site. 7. CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the referenced background data, geologic field reconnaissance, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed high school is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on our review of published geologic maps and our field evaluation, the project site, where school buildings are currently planned, does not ap- pear to be underlain by faults or landslides. In our opinion, however, the following geotechnical factors will be significant in the planning of the proposed high school design and construction. • The upper portions of the alluvial soils underlying the subject site are in a loose condition. In order to mitigate.the potential for future differential settlement of these soils, we recommend that they be removed to a depth of 8 feet below finish grade and replaced with compacted fill. • The subject site is underlain by loose sandy soils Although no groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth explored of 85 feet, there is a potential for the groundwater level to rise during extremely wet years. Liquefaction is possible if the groundwater level rises above a depth of roughly 20 to 30 feet. However, such a significant rise in the water table at the site is considered unlikely ' 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the design and construction of the proposed high school. ' xn cea ax g L"OPY0V & 4 ®'IM M 7 M i it. 't Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 8.1. Earthwork Details of proposed site earthwork are not known at this time; however, it is anticipated that cuts and fills needed to bring the site from its current grade to its finish grade will be minor, on the or- der of 5 feet or less. We recommend that the upper 8 feet of soil underlying the site below finished grade consist of a compacted fill mat to reduce the potential for future differential settlement. The removal and recompaction of loose soils should extend 10 feet or more beyond proposed building limits. The following sections present our recommendations regarding earthwork for the project. In addition, Typical Earthwork Guidelines for the project are included as Appendix C. 8.1.1.Pre- Construction Conference We recommend that a pre - construction conference be held. Owner representatives, the civil engineer, geotechnical consultant, and contractor should be in attendance to discuss the plans and the project 8.1.2. Construction Observation The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed project and on our evaluation of the data collected The interpolated subsur- face conditions should be evaluated in the field during construction Final project drawings and specifications should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the commencement of construction. The project geotechnical consultant should observe the grading and backfilling operations. Compacted fill and backfill soils should be tested for specified compaction by the geotechnical consultant. 8.1.3. Site Preparation The project site should be cleared and grubbed prior to grading Clearing and grubbing should consist of the substantial removal of vegetation and other deleterious materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. The debris generated during clearing and grubbing should be re- moved from areas to be graded and disposed of off site at a legal dumpsite. -0 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 8.1.4.Treatment of Existing Alluvial Soils We recommend that existing alluvial soils in structural areas on the site, including parking ar- eas, be removed to a depth of 8 feet below proposed finish grades and replaced with i compacted fill. The exposed surface of the remedial excavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted and the suitable removed materials, or imported materials, re- d placed as compacted structural fill. The areal extent of, and depths to which the alluvium '... should be removed, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant's representative in the field based on the materials exposed Any unsuitable materials such as organic matter or over- ! sized material should be selectively removed and disposed of off site. ' 8A.S:Excavation Characteristics The results of our field exploration program indicate that the project site, as presently ' proposed, is underlain by alluvium. The on -site materials should generally be excavatable by heavy -duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. 1 + 8.1.6.Materials for Fill ' On -site soils xvith an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are suitable for use ' as fill. Fill material should not contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in largest dimension, and not more than 40 percent larger than 1 -1/2 inches. Utility trench backfill material '. should not contain rocks or lumps over 3 inches in largest dimension and not more than 40 percent larger than 1 -1/2 inches. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or disposed of off site Any imported fill material �I ' should be a low or very low - expansion potential (UBC Expansion Index of 50 or less) ' granular soil with a plasticity index of 12 or less Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant's representative prior to filling or importing. i 8.1.7. Compacted Fill 'i Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise recommended, ' the exposed ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches 41xDIG ne« 10 1GG7 ®s ©OOCt C� y� 1 1 t '1 Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a generally uniform moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials should then be compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum density in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 -91. The evaluation of compaction by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies It is the contractor's responsibility to no- tify the geotechnical consultant and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. Excavated on -site materials which are in general compliance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.1.6 may be utilized as compacted fill provided they are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and do not contain rock fragments greater than 6 inches in dimension. Oversize material should be disposed of off site. During grading, the contractor may encounter soil types other than those analyzed during the preliminary geotechnical study. The geotechnical consultant should be consulted to evaluate the suitability of any such soils for use as compacted fill ``'`'here imported materials are to be used on site, the geotechnical consultant should be notified three working days or more in advance of importation in order that it may evalu- ate, sample and /or test the materials from the proposed borrow sites No imported materials should be delivered for use on site without prior sampline, testing, and evalua- tion by the geotechnical. consultant. Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally uniform throughout the soil mass. We note that as encountered in our borings, the shallow alluvial soils are currently dry of optimum. Accordingly, significant moisture conditioning during grading should be antici- pated. y1 1 i 1 i 1 t t 1 1 1 k_. c. t t 1� Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134-01 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to re- ceive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. Compacted.ftll should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve near optimum moisture condition, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other appropriate compacting rollers, to a relative compaction of 90 or more percent of the maximum dry density as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 -91. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 8.1.8. Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulat- ing agencies, permanent cut and fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Compaction of the face of fill slopes should be performed by backrolling at intervals of 4 feet or less in vertical slope height, or as dictated by the capability of the available equipment, whichever is less. Fill slopes should be backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoot -type roller. Care should be taken to maintain the desired moisture conditions and /or reestablish the same, as needed, prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slope should again be moisture conditioned and backrolled. The placement, moisture conditioning and compaction of fill slope materials should be done in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 8 1 7, "Compacted Fill." Site runoff should not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes. Positive drainage should be established away from the top of slopes. This may be accomplished by utilizing brow ditches placed at the top of cut slopes to redirect surface runoff away from the slope face where drainage devices are not otherwise available. 'll 41� -OIG .dam 12 N IIVO &MOOwm q V 1 1(_. Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134-01 The on -,site soils are likely to be susceptible to erosion; therefore, the project plans and specifications should contain design features and construction requirements to mitigate erosion of on -site soils during and after construction. Slopes and other exposed ground surfaces should be appropriately planted with protective ground cover 8.1.9. Temporary Slope Stability We recommend that trenches and excavations be designed and constructed in accordance with OSHA regulations. These regulations provide trench sloping and shoring design pa- rameters for trenches up to 20 feet deep based on a description of the soil types encountered. Trenches over 20 feet deep should be designed by the Contractor's engi- neer based on site - specific geotechnical analyses For planning purposes, we recommend that the following OSHA soil classifications be used. Alluvium T}pe C Compacted Fill Tlpc B Upon making the excavations, the soil/rock classifications and excavation performance should be evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with OSHA regulations Recommendations for temporary shoring can be provided, if requested. In general, temporary slopes above the water table and excavated in competent alluvium should be inclined no steeper than 1 -1/2:1 (horizontal.vertical). Temporary excavations in compacted fill should be inclined no steeper than I.1. Temporary excavations that en- counter seepage may need shoring or may be stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along the base of the seepage zone- Excavations encountering seepage should be evalu- ated on a case -by -case basis. 8.1.10. Trench Backfill Backfill for utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent or more relative compac- tion as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 -91. Lifts should be of appropriate thickness to allow compaction to be achieved with the equipment used 1 1 t 41x-01cu d« 13 �� �g ✓ ®�G�C 4q 1i I 1 1! 1` 1� 1 11 It 1 t. 1f It 1 1 1� Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 8.1.11. Drainage Roof, pad, and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales, etc.). Positive drainage adjacent to structures should be established and maintained. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more outside the building perimeter, and further maintained by a graded Swale leading to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and /or land- scape architect Surface drainage on the site should be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the pad area and drainage patterns should be established to direct and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets. Care should be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drain- age terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final grading should be maintained for the life of the project. The property operators should be made very clearly aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance 8.2. Foundations Details of the future construction on the site are unknown at this time. Based on our under- standing that the future high school buildings will be one -story, wood- frame, steel- frame, and /or reinforced concrete structures, we are providing the following preliminary foundation recommendations. Additional geotechnical evaluation studies may need to be performed once details of construction are known 1 j 413 01Gn de 14 N /GEn���g n OO�Ci? So i r E t. e. 1 i i 1 c. t Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 8.2.1. Shallow Foundations Continuous and /or spread footings should be founded in compacted fill. Footings founded as recommended may be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one - third when considering loading of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Rec- ommendations for lateral resistance for footings are presented in Section 8.2 2. Foundations should have an embedment depth of 18 inches or more below the lowest adjacent grade into granular, very low or low expansive compacted fill. Continuous footings should be 12 or more inches wide and spread foundations should be 18 or more inches square Footings should be reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend that footings founded in non - expansive granular materials be reinforced with two No 4 or larger reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one near the bottom of the footings. 8.2.2. Shallow Foundation Lateral Resistance For resistance of foundations to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pres- sure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used with a maximum of 3,000 psf This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet or more, or three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater We recommend that the upper one -foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used between soil and concrete If passive and frictional resistance are to be used in combination, we recommend that the friction coefficient be reduced by two - thirds. The passive resistance values may be increased by one -third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces . nl]4 -OIGRA dtK t ��Jbv icySh�gU ®UT, s1 1 1 1 t t '1 Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 8.2.3. Settlement March 3, 2000 Project No 104134 -01 We estimate that the proposed structures, designed and constructed as recommended herein, will undergo total settlements of less than approximately one inch. Differential settlements are typically less than about one -half of the total settlement. 8.3. Slabs -on -Grade We recommend that conventional, slab -on -grade floors, underlain by very low to low expan- sive compacted fill, be 4 or more inches in thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 or larger reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center each way. The reinforcing bars should be placed near the mid -point of the slabs. As a means to help reduce shrinkage cracks, we recommend that the slabs be provided with expansion joints at intervals of approximately 15 to 20 feet, each way or as recommended by the structural engineer The slab reinforcement and expan- sion joint spacing should be designed by the structural engineer If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a vapor barrier and capillary break system consisting of a 6 -mil polyethylene (or equivalent) membrane placed over 4 inches of clean sand and overlain by an additional 2 inches of sand to help protect the membrane from puncture during placement and to aid in concrete curing. The exposed subgrade should be moistened just prior to the placement of concrete Exterior concrete flatwork should be 4 inches or more in thickness and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on- center both ways The vapor barrier may be deleted for exterior flatwork. 8.4. Pavements Based on the results of our subsurface evaluation, laboratory tests, and our experience with soils similar to those encountered at and near the site, we have assumed an R -value of 70 for the preliminary basis for design of flexible pavements at the project site Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R -value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils .5;- t I 1 1 l t I_ Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 that are exposed at the finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the mass grading operations. We understand that traffic will consist primarily of automobiles, light trucks and occasional heavy trucks. For design we have used a Traffic Index (TI) of 9.5 for access drives and 6.0 for parking. We recommend that the geotechnical consultant re- evaluate the pavement de- sign, based on the R -value of the subgrade material exposed at the time of construction. The preliminary recommended pavement sections are as follows: Table 2 — Recommended Pavement Sections As indicated, these values assume a traffic index of 9.5 for site access roads and 6.0 for parking areas where very little truck traffic is anticipated In addition, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent. The above pavement sections should provide an approximate pavement life of 20 years. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re- evaluated. We suggest that consideration be given to using portland cement concrete pavements in areas where dumpsters will be stored and picked up. Our experience indicates that refuse truck traffic can significantly shorten the useful life of asphalt concrete sections. We recommend that in these areas, 6- inches of 600 psi flexural strength portland cement concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars, 18- inches on center, be placed over 3 or more feet of very low to low ex- pansive soil compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 8.1.7 S3 Asphalt Area R -Value Traffic Concrete =(inches) Index (inches) Access Roads 70 9 5 5 8 Parking 70 6.0 3 8 As indicated, these values assume a traffic index of 9.5 for site access roads and 6.0 for parking areas where very little truck traffic is anticipated In addition, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent. The above pavement sections should provide an approximate pavement life of 20 years. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re- evaluated. We suggest that consideration be given to using portland cement concrete pavements in areas where dumpsters will be stored and picked up. Our experience indicates that refuse truck traffic can significantly shorten the useful life of asphalt concrete sections. We recommend that in these areas, 6- inches of 600 psi flexural strength portland cement concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars, 18- inches on center, be placed over 3 or more feet of very low to low ex- pansive soil compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 8.1.7 S3 i t t f.. l._ Temecula Valley Unified School District Temecula High School No. 3 8.5. Corrosion March 3, 2000 Project No. 104134 -01 Laboratory testing was performed on samples of the on -site soils to evaluate pH and mini- mum electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and minimum electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method 643, and the sulfate and chloride tests were performed in accordance with California Test Methods 416 and 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. The results of the corrosivity testing indicated a minimum electrical resistivity of the samples tested of 5,250 to 7,500 ohm -cm. The soil pH of the samples was 6 4 to 7.5, and the chloride content was 20 to 30 ppm. Based on results of our corrosivity tests, the on -site soils may be considered to have a low potential for corrosion of ferrous metals Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration. Laboratory testing indicated a sulfate content of the samples tested of 10 or less ppm, which is considered slight for sulfate attack. We recom- mend that 2 inches or more of concrete cover be provided over reinforcing steel for structures in contact with the soil Although the results of the sulfate tests were not signifi- cantly high, due to the variability in the on -site soils and the potential for import soils, to be prudent we also recommend that Type V modified cement be used for concrete structures in contact with soil and that the water to cement ratio not exceed 0 45, 9. LIMITATIONS The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No other war- ranty, express or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condi- tion. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed 0 I Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical ' aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, flood potential, or the presence of hazardous materials. ' This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. ' This report is intended for design purposes only and may not provide sufficient data to prepare an ac- ' curate bid by some contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing. Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conch tions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It ' should be understood that the conditions of a site can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control. ' This report is intended exclusively for use by the client Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu- sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said ' parties' sole risk. ' 41} 01GR do 19 SS i Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 ' 10. SELECTED REFERENCES American Public Works Association and Associated General Contractors of California (APWA), 1991, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Los Angeles, Califomia. Anderson, J.G., M ERRI, Rockwell, T.K. and Agnew, D.C., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2. ' California Building Standards Commission, 1998, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Vol - t . umes 1 and 2. 0 z t 1 t t_ Califomia Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: dated February. Califomia Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, State of California Special Studies Zone, Pechanga 7 5 Quadrangle. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazards Maps of California: Map Sheet 48. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County, Community Panel Number 060245 3355 D: dated November 20. ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code Standards: International Conference of Building Officials. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas. California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1.750,000. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Geologic Map of the Elsinore Fault Zone Southem Riverside County, California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131. Norris, R. M and Webb, R W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual United States Geological Survey, 1968 (photo- revised 1988), Pechanga Quadrangle, California, Riverside County, 7.5- Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 124,000. United States Geological Survey, 1999, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, World Wide Web, http: / /geohazards.er.usgs gov /eq AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Source Date Flight Numbers Scale USDA 8 -27 -53 A,C1 -1K 171 and 172 120,000 1+ 411- OIGLAdo 20 zyyf0�1L�/Qg ® ®�� S6 I I t 1: t 1 I t t E- t t t I E s I 1 ti \ r. \1 \ Py SITE v v o APPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS y' I I - J I S t I - t I ' 2000 0 2000 4000 Approximate Scale in Feet REFERENCE US G S PECHANGAOUAORANGUE. 7 5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC). DATED 1968. PHOTOREVISED 1982 NiDy °& N A SITE LOCATION MAP TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO.3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 1 S? ' B -6A B-4A B-7A B-BA B- uNw ac .INr, .a. D _ — CKCiCaI. ILniN wuv:w w 13- 12A FAIRVIEW 7A B -9A B -A Dx B- 7A � � � W ;zo, 8 -26A B A {1•, El- B- A B-4-4A B -36A A B-37A B- B-38A 45 wrtoiNC Iwo I ® B -39A Qal Bi OAJ B 13A 14A El- AVENUE 20A B- 21A pO kB-2 6 8 -23 24 rHH PROP SCF q_q� -41A7� B -46A - B -51A B-54A \ B-59A B -42 B -58A I p 0 QalH Rp 2 l c it 9 1 \R 1 t PROPOSED ' MIDDLE SCHOOL NO.5 a LEGEND I Q, aI Alluvium n El- 67A Approximate location of exploratory boring (Sete A) e HIiE. SITE PUH PROVIOEO Pv iENCCV WLLEV Vwn ED SCV00L D -SUC7 -� M]TE. PL9N PREPARED WRING ON -SrtE flECORN455ANCE AND SHOULD N01 BE [ONSiOERED A RECORD Oa SVPaEY A4 DIMENSIONS APE MPROZiWiE Wp W ME 2 Y -L ti 0 250 500 scale feet GEOTECHNICAL MAP TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO. 3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 O I 1 I 1>i I 1 1 1 1� 'I � rauaual �1' fu ulrAn/w le. BARSTOW F 404 ~ �v+wArE rwtrautE \ G> 11 • � I nc�/o �r+i /e/ — ' k O- ` I.MwcM »voo/ Agog s SAN BERV mm:sm w atf n elrr �* \9l 54.1, AILY SDRNCS ry�� • (w X� s9 \•SAARAAALA ITE jnn��• m'DE LO'� (P •Q59K14F '9o7y �0- SAN ClFLF1lrF f AY D/!CO CO. 4 ' ocC.NSnE \\ F .cscr+noo �. 0 AA®OY • Ar ttrtr II D! cD. oc.#j-- DESDU CEMT&R 7 /Yltf1D! Cd I M l!!IA[C0. - SALTON \ SOLA. SEACII l I \ \\ � I i.•o swLE �f \ •sA.L alco i ■ ■ � \ ■ . \ �� p.���v•v ■v 4c ■ fn t v'MEXICO \S O 30 60 �q \�' scale miles \���o \ /�/dnyo&*oore FAULT LOCATION MAP TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL NO.3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA s■ PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 3/00 104134 -01 3 ' Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 i APPENDIX A BORING LOGS l Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples ' Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory excava- tions- The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. t -: The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Spoon !t Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetration Test spoon sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1 -3/8 inches. The spoon was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140 -pound hammer free - falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 -84. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetra- tion. Soil the were observed and removed from the spoon, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing Field Procedure for the Collection of Relativey Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. The Modified Split - Barrel Drive Sampler ' The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with ] -inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a 140 -pound hammer, in general accordance with ASTM ' D 3550 -84. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the labo- ratory for testing. 1� ,4 41 IGR do I Rev IW97 i WV U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES CLASSIFICATION U.S. Standard Grain Size In Well graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures little or no Sieve Size Mimenelm GW fines GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures, little or 12" to 3" GRAVELS GRAVEL (More than 112 of coarse 762104.76 no fines GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures 0O ° fraction q 0 'z;; > No. 4 sieve size) No. 4 to No 200 4.76 to 0.074 GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures N j .-.., Afedlmn No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 w 0.420 Fine No. 40 to No. 200 0.420 to 0.074 SILT &CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.074 N SW Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines N�;; ° z n 12 little O€ (More than of coarse SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, or no fines fraction <No. 4 sieve size) SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clavev fine sands or clave silts with slight plasticity "mot - SILTS & CLAYS CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly ON Liquid Limit X50 clays sandy clays silty clays lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity qw o MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or I7 - silty soils, elastic silts w ° z v SILTS & CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Liquid Limit >50 OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils CLASSIFICATION CHART (Unified Soil Classification System) ;Mfi� 1�RIjIT.I�: F.f�I e CH i u CL aX NN ON 10 Wur: aOL 0 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 80 LIODID 1JM7 (U), % PLASTICITY CFSART AkqA9&*U®i� U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION UscsCL. SMCAnO�MxRTm t9l RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES CLASSIFICATION U.S. Standard Grain Size In Sieve Size Mimenelm BOULDERS Above 12" Above 305 COBBLES 12" to 3" 305 to 76.2 GRAVEL 3" to No 762104.76 Coane 3" to 3/4" 76.2 to 19.1 Fine 3/4" to No 4 19 1 to 4.76 SAND No. 4 to No 200 4.76 to 0.074 Co. No. 4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2 00 Afedlmn No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 w 0.420 Fine No. 40 to No. 200 0.420 to 0.074 SILT &CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.074 ;Mfi� 1�RIjIT.I�: F.f�I e CH i u CL aX NN ON 10 Wur: aOL 0 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 80 LIODID 1JM7 (U), % PLASTICITY CFSART AkqA9&*U®i� U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION UscsCL. SMCAnO�MxRTm t9l C L ' 0 Solid line denotes unit change. �I 'Dashed line denotes material change. II Modified split - barrel drive sampler. IINo recovery with modified split -bane( drive sampler. - Q Seepage. �I 5 Q Groundwater encountered during drilling. s- Groundwater measured after drilling. II Standard Penetration Test (SPT). No recovery with a SPT. IIXX/ Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches /length of sample recovered 5 XX in inches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. 10 Bulk sample. I I Attitudes: Stnke /Dip �I b: Bedding c: Contact j: Joint ' II f: Fracture F: Fault I: cs: Clay Seam �- s: Shear t 15 bss: Basal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs: Sheared Bedding Surface �I (tt t,. �I 1' The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring. 20 o BORING LOG ®re E7:PLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE S}'N1SAMP Rev. 1199 A -1 l to 2— DATE DRILLED BORING N0. SYMBOL SAMPLES II a.�di Q rte++ c O ° ° G cLL.l z 00 Q z D l to 2— If i� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1[ IC 1! 1� � i2 a` e5)A5 —a (as DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B-IA Z ROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 ai Q O U) w > p Q I/1 Y 6 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger S Q. p U) u~—i 0 M �j DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" O > m v SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI cc o DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 [ SM ALLUVIUM: II Light brown to brown, damp, loose, slightly clayey silty fine SAND; t!f micaceous. t II 18 5.9 1(4.2 II 5 - �I 15 2.9 111.7 Scattered thin layers of fine to coarse sand; scattered fine gravel. 10 k E 14 4.1 110.3 [[EE Moist. ML Brown, moist, stiff, slightly sandy clayey SILT; scattered pinhole porosity; micaceous; scattered calcium carbonate hairs. 15 11 9.6 103.9 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 p S� ® ®Y �� M tl TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03100 A -1 � i2 a` e5)A5 —a (as i i 1 1 f 'f o- f �j ,I I = CL �I0 Q U) > O 00 0 cc cn LL } !Z w } o coo z I'- LL 6 �� Q U DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -IA GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diametcr Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 II15 I 25 30 35 II 18 9.4 7.6 103.9 106.2 SM E� E ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND. Slightly silty; micaceous. 40 M �,�� ®& U13 ■ BORING LOG TE EMECU HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03100 A -2 4pq 1 i 1, 1 If " 1( 1( 1� 1( II 11 it i� d d w O CL :E Q vt F O O O m e °- w cc Ln O LL a H w p cc p m cn z O H Q vi U 6 N� 0:5 g DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B lA GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING S" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 40 45 50 32 29 SP -SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown to light brown, damp to moist, dense, fine to coarse SAND; few silt; slightly micaceous. Fme- to coarse - grained. 55 I i 6D Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. ow P ® 217 &MUD Yi BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL A3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -3 &5 I v: 1 — d II = ' (L II O V a U) F- O O to 30 J 03 a �_ O LL a F}-- Z cc. O m > Z O F-- Q vi U 6 LL �j CJi DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -2A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c II 0 II �I II 5 i 11 ------ 17 3.1 -- ---- 2.3 98.9 -- -- -- 107.0 SM --------- .. SP ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. ------ .........'----- -------- ----'--- ---------.....- '-- -._---- -. Grayish brown, damp, loose, poorly graded fine to coarse SAND; trace silt. 10 II I II 15 I II 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. II • ®r P BORING LOG TEh1ECUl.A HIGH SCHOOL N3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -4 0 IF II �I 'II II I) ,II ,II II t II 1 1. d rli = w 2 Q rn O OLL 3 O Co ' w cc t t? LL a z Ir O m >- (n Z Q to L) v v):3 `� N U SAMPLED DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING N0. B -3A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY Rl DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 0 5 8 8.7 110.9 E €jE f F SM ALLUVIUM: Dark brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; few clay. to 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. ® BORING LOG TEM SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA MECULA, CALIFORNIA C PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A_5 S ? r 2 F �I 0- a Q 00 to �- m _LL o w ¢ N U H w .JO m N Z O QN Y6 U) U DATE DRILLED 02/09 /2000 BORING NO. _ B-4A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 0 'II �II II �4 II 5 �II If 110 9 2.8 100.1 E E SM ALLUVNM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coazse SAND. Brown; little clay; scattered thin root hairs. II 1 III ll15 'II III II20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. ' • ® 17 ore BORING LOG TEMM HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEECULECU A H CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A -6 0 'l 9 3.8 97.4 'll II S ' 7 3.3 104.6 [! j` Moist; increase in silt content. i E E�, II I[E[II 10 €I€ iEiE°E 7 9.1 96.8 [[' f' Brown. I €�Ei[E E�Ej(EE ��E(ltE:(1E �EEEEtt{�f` E €EIEEE E EII�I� [EE�j[EfI�fE4j{[ II 15 E`�IIE 16 4.1 111.1 EEEffI II II 20 � I ' ®� ® ®r� BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL N3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA II PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -7 Uu Z D DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. SSA p n n—' O O S SHEET 1 OF 3 N M O w w > > J J Q to METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger = N t~il w w � �� D DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" JI Cl m m U U S SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI Io D DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 S SM A ALLUVIUM: III 0 Light brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND; micaceous. Uu to W "- 2 DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -5A n' � 1.- _ °—' O � H GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 d W O W W } Qtn cn LL U METHOD OF DRILLING 9' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger = a U) W ui N Nj DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" c O m g } Q SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI ,II 0 o U DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND; micaceous. 'II 9 13.7 99.7 'l II ' II 25 II � II I ML Brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine sandy SILT; scattered calcium carbonate stringers. ' 130 ' I 10 Interlayers of fine silty sand. �II II II 35 --------- - - - SM - ---- - -- '------------------------ --- - --- --- -- ---- -- -- — - - - ' Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; micaceous. II �� E :. 40 BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL N3 THMECU MECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE sr 104134 -01 03/00 q -S Cl LJ I II m a IIO u) EL 2 Q Nc F O O Co Q --- w cc to LL d > F- o or O y Z O_ I— Q to U 6 U) v DATE DRILLED 02 109/2000 BORING NO. B -5A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION : 11 40" II II II45 II II II 50 II22 14 I` c. Ei(E SM E ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; micaceous. Fine -to coarse - grained. I II55 II I 60 Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. II M^ Y V�V BORING LOG . TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEM ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -9 I I I 1 I 1 7;1 LL Z DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -6A CL ~ g O _ ° a H GROUND ELEVATION m IIm O w > Qvi tp cr � LL (3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger = vi N N DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" Q II O m g >- SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI o O DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: II Light grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; few II gravel. II 5 II i II 6 5.5 102.7 Brown; moist. 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. I Groundwater not encountered during drilling. i . I Backfilled on 02/09/00. I i II 15 (II t II III 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMECU Eh1ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. -104134- CT01 DATE FIGURE 03/00 A -10 7;1 i i i i 1 I II = II co ii Q to F 0O N m cc v~i LL nV r m w CC O J O 03 z o Q� U U LL N� U DATE.DRILLED 02 /0912000 BORING N0. B -7A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" _ SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION - - Ito II 0 II II } II 5 II II 6 1.7 102.5 c SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 II 11 i II 15 I. III II II 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. II P V BORING LOG TEDfMECU HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMECUII., CALIFORNIA PROJECT I, 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A 11 71 i ', 1. ,t ,I '1 f 'f 0 _ wC O a Q F 00 LL to p on o w Z) O LL a } ~ U) 0 cr Q Z O Q N U V Uj v DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -8A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION Q 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. S T k 8 f 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. i Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. 15 II 20 I� M Are p ^� ®®r BORING LOG TE A HIGH SCHOOL p3 �/ ® TEMEC EMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A_12 2y 1 IIw = ~ (I J_ a 07 0 O 0- � W cc t~n v n_ } t w cr o 0 m N Z � Q U U �j < U DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 _ BORING N0. B -9A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING S" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTIONANTERPRETATION > II 0 II I� 5 6 5.9 91.4 SM ALLUVIUM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Dark brown; moist; little clay. 0 {I t. I II IS [c. t f i, Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. 20 ®�,7y ®� ®®r� BORING LOG TE HIGH SCHOOL k3 TEM EMECU ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGA -URE 13 i 75 d _ n- O to � Q to O O on o w cc Ln E U } o o O to z Q tri U— U Nj U DATE DRILLED 02 /0912000 BORING NO. B -10A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ' C1 0 11 i; 5 III II I II 110 7 2.0 96.6 t '� SM ALLUVIUM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. III II L- 115 II I II II Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. 20 IIa I, ® ®�� ®� ®��� LOG =TEMECULA CHOOL CHOOL p3 PROJ 104 FIGURE A -14 9 IF ,II II 1 II , I I '1 ,1 1! d w a O V a F 2 O Q U) o m w ¢ LL a W cc O m >- z O F Qvi O Li U) v DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -11A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stcm Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 5 8 �[j € SM E ALLUVIUM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel. Brown; moist; loose; few clay. 10 15 II Total Depth = 10 fee[. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. 20 II s s�,7Y®& f ®®■ YI BORING LOG TEE HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECU MECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 1 03100 FIGURE 1 A -15 17 I. �I it II II II II II I I 'I I t; 11 �, m a w o w J tan O O N C '— to - w � U > � w O >- o J CO Z DATE aui U6 U) �j < cf DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING N0. B- 12A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diametcr Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY Pi _ DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 5 I 12 f SM ALT UVVfUM: Brown, damp, very loose, silty fine SAND; little clay. Grayish brown; loose; fine- to coarse- grained. 10 II . II II15 it it It Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. EL— 20 II , / ®�/ ®� rwp ^+� e OU Vi BORING LOG TE EMECU HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEIv1ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -16 ku 1 1 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 IF- d II = O U Q U) 0 O O m ° v~i 0 LL w (0 z O U �� v DATE DRILLED 02/09 /2000 BORING NO. B -13A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ' 0 [ SM ALLUVIUM: €I Light brown, damp, very loose to loose, slightly silty fine SAND; micaceous. 10 2.0 97.4 :I 5 7 3.9 97.3 Increase in silt content. 10 l 10 5.2 106.0 EEE[EEfEEj Brown; moist. ' E�E.E I II 15 7 Scattered calcium carbonate stringers. 1120 BORING LOG TEt A HIGH SCHOOL p3 � ® TEt,EMEC fECU1.A, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -17 11 7�'a2c)&,s -� ?4 ,I 'III_ 'i 1 1! 1i d w a~. U Q V) O OLL m w 0 LL a 0 O p m Z Q(n U U Ln U DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B- 13A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ; 20 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 1s 6.9 108.3 Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers; micaceous. 2s - - - - -- - -- - -- ----- - - - - -- ML ------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brown, moist, loose, fine sandy SILT; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers; micaceous. 30 10 I 35 I I 40 II . ®r �� BORING LOG TEh1ECULA HIGH SCHOOL q3 TEh1ECULA, CALIFORNIA I PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE I' 104134 -OI 03/00 A -18 , m w CL W p 2 O < LL rn U c 3 O m W U- a } W p Of p 0 to > n Z < N U U tr� to U DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -14A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 5 7 rf i i SM f ((jkj t ALLUVI M: Brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 I I IS I I I 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. s g ^+. & ® ®r tl BORING LOG TEMMECU HIGH SCHOOL q3 SCHOOL TEECULL HIGH CALIFORNLA PROJECT NO 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -20 M 1 '. 1 I — w = w O U) a F- O N LLO to c O m D o m O LL a W O m to z O F- QN U U Nj U DATE DRILLED 02/09 /2000 BORING NO. B- 15A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diamcter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY Rl DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 5 5 I i SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Damp to moist. 10 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09100. j e ® BORING LOG TEM SCHOOL N3 TEMECU MECULA, C CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A -21 s .. d II = = a w w J a vi O O o m _ w 7 (n U a > w > Z O J F. Q to M LL U N N �j � DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING N0. B -16A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diam ter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c Io SM f ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 0 �I �I IIIS III I 7 I' c f I I 10 15 I I II Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. I20 ® � & ®®r ^ � BORING LOG TE RICH SCHOOL p 3 TEMECU LA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -22 M 11 1 1 y O w U O ° ° a U z z D DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B- 17A 'I 11 ' 10 t '.I 15 10 1 3.7 1 91.5 11 1 3.3 I 97.9 1!11[111 I Scattered thin carbonate stringers. 20 1 6.5 1 105.4 20 1 5.4 1 123.5 [1111!!1 I Interlayers of medium to coarse sand. III' (III � inyo&ffiooce 1� BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL H3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE A -24 Ella DATE DRILLED 02 109/2000 BORING N0. B -18A U) z O _ V O a H GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 5 a N O U- w > Qtn co Y U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger a N vi Q V)j DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" w Q O > m g > SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI CL U DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: €`€ Light brown, damp, loose, silty fine SAND. trt l 'I 11 ' 10 t '.I 15 10 1 3.7 1 91.5 11 1 3.3 I 97.9 1!11[111 I Scattered thin carbonate stringers. 20 1 6.5 1 105.4 20 1 5.4 1 123.5 [1111!!1 I Interlayers of medium to coarse sand. III' (III � inyo&ffiooce 1� BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL H3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE A -24 Ella 1 1 I k I I I I 1 1 = 0- II ° U) O O vai N to ° w cc u~i u >" w cr ° Z Q (n 6 LL N� v DATE DRILLED 02 109/2000 BORING NO. B -18A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 5 m m METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Ste Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 15 7.2 101.9 jjIIE SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; pinhole porosity; scattered thin ' carbonate stringers; thin interbeds of silt. �� II 25 11 -__ -_ _ SP _____ _ _______ .. -------------------------------- ----------------- --------------------- . Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; scattered interbeds of silty sand. 30 II 23 ( ----------- ' ---- -- - - ---- ---- ------ SM - --- -------- --- - -- ----------------------------------------------.-------------- Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine SAND. �'�i 35 E { [Ik E f� €f � 40 } II ��� ®®re BORING LOG TTEMECU HIGH SCHOOL p3 ®� tl ® TEM ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -25 L M II I� I d 2 w O I- o o a LL m L Z D DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING N0.' B -18A > m �a3ols -=�Z 9-7 ' 1 N EL F— 00 N 00 a O Or �_ O a JO O Q U Li Mj Q u DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -18A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 4 OF 5 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 0 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) —7 Light brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium SAND. 1 kk i Moderate drilling effort. l EtE 1 E 1 tE 5 i E ' EE E [tE ItiEI i (E�[E e P 07 ®® BORING LOG TEMECULA SCHOOL #3 Y TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03100 A -27 i i n Q00 N c O 0 to p al _ e w � to LL U } t to W cc JO m Z Q m U 6 V) j v DATE DRILLED 02109/2000 BORING NO. B -18A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 5 OF 5 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Light brown to light olive brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered thin layers of medium to coarse sand. Total Depth = 86 feet. ' Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. 1 1 t t 1 BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL l73 yv&ffinnre TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -28 Tnt� C Q m 7 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. BORING LOG I, yio� ®� ® ®�P TEMECULHIGH SCHOOL �Y TEMECU q3 LA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 n4 /n0 FIGURE A -29 90 I U z DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -19A o n O JO GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF I cc O > ~ m Q N O V METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Aueer w � LL Ui Nj DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' O u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: [ Brown, damp, very loose, silty fine SAND. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. BORING LOG I, yio� ®� ® ®�P TEMECULHIGH SCHOOL �Y TEMECU q3 LA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 n4 /n0 FIGURE A -29 90 I 'N 00 Q LL c p _ w N LL U } ¢ JO 113 Z Q N —U U �j U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -20A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine SAND; micaceous. ' 12 4.4 95.3 ' 14 12.1 86.4 1 TF i 10 i �kI � Fine- to coarse - grained. - 20 2.4 104.9 E• E� f i o ore, BORING LOG TE A HIGH SCHOOL N3 &V TEMEC EM1IECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A -30 91 l LL Z DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING N0. B -20A n- o n0 O GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 JO Q N O h w O } F- N m Q vi LL U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger WN 0j DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" 0 O Q 0 00 u SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI ' O DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 24 2.2 110.6 Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND; scattered ' fine gravel. i (EjE{ EI` � €E f 20 Ete EE((EEEIE t(� i4 1 EE EE �j iE EE BORING LOG TE<EMEC AHIGH IFORNLp3 , TE�IECUI -A, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -31 1 9A i CL 2 O pN o — W cc 00 DRIVE U) OZ F- U U �j U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -20A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stan Auger WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION D SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 28 Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND. 1 1 1 1 26_ Interlayer of brown, silty fine sand. iTotal Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. iBackfilled on 02/10/00. i 1 i i • p ,o ®oa BORING LOG T y0& W TEMECULA' CALIFORNIA3 PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -32 93 9� z DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -21A ' ~O IQ o a O F p GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 G cc to O 2 QLn U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diamuer Hollow -Stem Auger ' LL p Ln W � �j DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" m O U SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI t7 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 1 ' 23 Medium dense. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. _ Backfilled on 02/09/00. 1 1 1-BORING LOG ® ®Y e ���� T A HIGH SCHOOL #3 ,y®&' TEMEC TEMECUI,A, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -33 - 9� ' Q U) LL > p to _ - ac N O >- H U) z 0 JO m >- } (n Z P: UU LL n � Q= U DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -22A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF I METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine SAND. 6 Damp to moist. 1 Total Depth = 10 feet. _ Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/09/00. 1 1 1 P ®®rtl BORING LOG TEEMECU HIGH SCHOOL, YNny®& � TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA HPPR J ECT NO. DATE FIGURE 04134 -01 03/00 A -34 1 7-e a 2o6 s -c V, 90 ' 0 j > 0 no F- U a >- ~ n p O JO m U) z O Q . U U LL Mj U DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING N0. IO GROUND ELEVATION SHEET METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. ' 8 t t Total Depth = 10 feet. ' Groundwater not encountered during drilling. - Backfilled on 02/09/00. 1 • ,�� ®�O ®�� BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL N3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -35 9�0 ' ' � ~O � O m _ o � O cmi a H & o O W z O H Q� U6 �� a u DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B_24A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. ' 10 1.8 102.7 1 ' III Total Depth = 10 feet. _ Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. 1 1 1 1 • BORING LOG T TEMECULA! CALIFORNIA3 . PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -36 97 1 99 W u z DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B_25A CL o a- O NO Lu JO Q vi GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 F F}- to UCi METHOD OF DRILLING S" Diamctcr Hollow -Stem Auger ' 3 O Z a v}i Vi � DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" m U SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 1 ' 6 3.1 99.0 EE E I€[ - Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/10/00. BORING LOG TEbfECULA HIGH SCHOOL N3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA IPROJ NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -37 1 99 ' a Q N c F Q LL N 0 M o w O ~ � O LL a } to Z > O JO m Z O F- V U �� NO Q u DATE DRILLED 02 /11/2000 BORING NO. B -26A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 1 ' 8 7.8 97.3 i ' 8 6.8 96.1 Brown; moist; micaceous. 0 E E 12 7.2 108.6 f Loose. _ Ei 1 € €l i 19 1.6 113.2 p IE Light brown to brown; fine- to coarse- grained. E f� BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL ,tl3 TEfr1ECULA, IFORNI CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -38 � p9 1 a F 2 00 LL c 0 m o w tY N O :E a } ~ 0 m Z O Q n U U �j Q U DATE DRILLED 0211112000 BORING NO. &26A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTIONIINTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 16 Brown, moist, loose, silty fine SAND; micaceous; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers. I EElt ' 1 16- E Medium dense. 5 iE E� )fty® ®re BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL N3 yv&ffiTEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -39 /QD ' N a t— 00 m - a W D N a Y N w0 cc o m z O Q P6 �j U DATE DRILLED 02/11/2000 BORING NO. B -26A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c ' 1 ' 18 21 EE E SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Light brown to brown, moist, medium dense, silty fore to coarse SAND; some white carbonate. Light brown; scattered fine gravel _ ' 1 Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/00. BORING LOG T TEMECUL A, CALIFORNIA CAL FORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -40 ' d Q C 1'- 00 n 00 m o 2 1-- O nU Z z o m N z O Q vi U U �j Q U DATE DRILLED 02/0912000 BORING NO. B -27A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose, silty fine SAND. ' 7 4.4 94 -9 Er �f €ifEl IM Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/09/00. FT )Vfo BORING LOG TE1EMEC AHIGHSCHOOLg3 L TEM ECULA, CALIFORNL4 PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A_41 /O*-L T7ea 30 &� -�;=2 /0;1 Fil"ic U } F O On >- z Q U- U Nj vSAMPLED DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING N0. B -26A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 11 3.0 101.5 0 E E Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. F- Backfilled on 02109/00. 0 BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL q3 V/0 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -42 T7ea 30 &� -�;=2 /0;1 /01/ a Q O ~O O LL O to o w ~ O LL a } F- z o O no 2 O z O <U) U 0 0 aj U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING N0. B -29A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 am METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Dieter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 1 --------- 10 -- ---- 2.0 - ---' --- 99.5 SM -- ---------- SP ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND. ----- "—' -------------------- -------- -------------------------------- ------------------------- -- ----- Light grayish brown, damp, loose, poorly graded fine SAND; trace silt. ' i Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. ®®® re LOG TEMBORING ECUL HIGH TE MECU A GH SCHOOL b3 CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -43 /01/ 3 N a Q ~O O m w O LL 0- H W o 0 m Z O Q uj UU LL ui V)j g DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -30A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION I 1 i12 1 1 i 15 i 1 10 12 15 -- - - - - -- 25 1.3 1.1 - - - - - -- 4.0 95.5 108.4 -- 110.6 €� SM ---- - - - - -- SP -SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, dry, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. -------------------------------- . ........----------------------------------------------- Light brown, damp, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND; few silt. /rte )y /p7 ® ®r V ,V9&ffiTEMECULA, BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -44 ■ /105 i" 1 ' Ja F Q0 0 c O to O o w tY F U d r f U) 0 0 JO m N Z O Q O U U N N '0O U DATE DRILLED 02 /1012000 BORING NO. B -30A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SC ALLUVIUM: (Continued) - 6I 10.6 125.7 IX Brown to reddish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND; scattered cobbles. z i 1 SM Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty Pme SAND; micaceous. 1 E� 22 � Fine- to medium - grained. - i 1 1, 1 1 fEEE ` ® tO &/�� ®o■ BORING LOG TEN! I��Sayv ®� i ,CALIFHOOLg3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134.01 03/00 A -45 I I '0 a N0 0 0 m o JO w Ln d H 0 cc LO Z 0 Q tri LL Li Nj U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. 30A & GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auer DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION c o SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 42 Light brown to brown, moist, dense, silty fine SAND; micaceous. 1 ' 38 Light brown; fine- to medium - grained. Total Depth = 5 1. 5 feet. - Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/10/00. t M^ a ®Y BORING LOG TE HIGH SCHOOL q3 Y EMECUi TEf,fECULA, CALIFORNIA ,yv& PROJECT I 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -qb /o? ' CL 2 N O LL O p � m o W ¢ O O O a } F 0 OJ N Z O F- LL U N Q u DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -31A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stcm Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION � O SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 1 t 1 12 2.7 92.9 1 ' Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/10/00. t `M '�,�vy0 &�� ®{ BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL k3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -47 109 � LL U DATE DRILLED 02/10!2000 BORING NO. B -32A ' CL 1— 00 0 2 � H GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 - OF 1 Q U LL En wW O m Q to U Li METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger ' c p t! j j DRIVE WEIGHT I4016s. t DROP 30" o m O Q u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI O DES CRIPTION/1NTERPRETATION ' SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. ' 13 2.8 98.3 Interlayered fine sandy silt; scattered pieces of carbon. Ef [ � Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. BORING LOG T A HIGH SCHOOL X3 � 'Moore TEMEC TEAtECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -48 109 Total Depth = 10 feet. - Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/10/00. 1 5 1 BORING LOG iyoff � ® ®r� TE EMECU HIGH SCHOOL N3 TEAIECUI.A, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -49 / /D, U LL Z DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -33A a 0 e a O 2i O F- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF I N O �_ N O m QN LL Ci METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger � c Q o v)� DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" 1 > m 0 Q u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI o DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 3.4 104.2 1 I Total Depth = 10 feet. - Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/10/00. 1 5 1 BORING LOG iyoff � ® ®r� TE EMECU HIGH SCHOOL N3 TEAIECUI.A, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -49 / /D, ' 0- O Q 0 U) U) c O to - c w� O ~ N O U U >- Z o O m 2 N Z Qvi U U !L �j Q U - DATE DRILLED 02/10 /2000 BORING NO. 634A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 1 7 10.2 97.1 ML Dark brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, fine to medium sandy ' SILT; few clay; scattered rootlets. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. ' Backfilled on 02/10/00. '1 BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL N3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE . 104134 -01 03/00 A -50 //4�L N a t Q N pN 0° o w ¢ o LL a F}-- Z OJ m tj Z O Q to U6 LL� Qj U DATE DRILLED 02 /102000 BORING N0. B -35A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND; little clay. 14 3.5 103.7 Total Depth = 10 feet. - Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02 /10 /00. 1 L)y1v � ® ®r� BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 ya TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A -51 //4�L 1 ' J Q00 u_ to 3 C O C 0 o w m O ~ � O a } F N z Lu O JO m O Z O Q n U U v Oj U DATE DRILLED 02 /11/2000 BORING N0. B -36A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY R1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, damp to moist, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 1 1 10 1.8 101.6 1 1 10 5.0 100.2 Scattered gravel; scattered charcoal fragments. 1 EEC 14 6.4 98.2 Fine- grained; moist. €E E 1 �E 1 14 2.0 108.3 t ^+ &O®r BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 �,77O V TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -52 113 � Q 00 Q > J m w tY N O LL U } ~ w JO m U) z Q vi U Uri N Q U DATE DRILLED 02 /11/2000 BORING N0. B -36A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 8 9 E i SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; micaceous; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers; scattered charcoal fragments. Light brown; fore- to coarse - grained. ' 1 RiLL Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11100. ,� yP BORING LOG T ECULA HIGH OOL k3 TEMEC , CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -53 7 1 5.0 1 94.3 1 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. Muure BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL k3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE Us U) a U Z DATE DRILLED OZ /10/2000 BORING NO. B-37A F-- p o a p p Qvi GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 Q W cc ~ CO U6 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger 2 LL p j DRIVE WEIGHT 140Ibs. DROP 30' O p cc u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION ' SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND. 7 1 5.0 1 94.3 1 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. Muure BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL k3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE Us v � N O U) N p m w tr N 0 LL } 0 N W CC m Z LL U yj caJJ DATE DRILLED 02/1012000 BORING N0. B -38A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diu ctcr Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 5 5 1 1 13 2.9 109.7 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. _ Backfilled on 02/10/00. W��/1.!/O& ®®re BORING LOG —HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEEMECU TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO, 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -55 Wo 5- 5- 13 1 4.1 1 97.5 smN //i�0 orvi MI.I.0 viuM: Brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND; trace clay. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE //I u z DATE DRILLED 02/10/2000 BORING NO. a C 0 Q GROUND ELEVATION SHEET in j N lri U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Aueer 7BYRI p Ln wo N yj DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP Q u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEW Q DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 5- 5- 13 1 4.1 1 97.5 smN //i�0 orvi MI.I.0 viuM: Brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND; trace clay. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 104134 -01 03/00 FIGURE //I 1 1 E l r li 'I 1 �f t 11 11 i I 1 1 // V ISM w N a } ~ w m > <GROUND cJ CJ Ui 'n Q U DATE DRILLED 02/10/2000 BORING N0. B 40A ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION II 0 II II s II II 14 4.1 102.9 I �� ��EEEE SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, dry to damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 II II15 I II 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02110/00. o =w jy10 �' BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -57 // V �I a 1. 1' ,I ,I 'I '( X: wc U Q 00 — w ¢ 1- Ln 2 LL U F Z W CL z JO Q N m _U U tL to �� v DATE DRILLED 02 /11/2000 BORING NO. B-41A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION om 0 5 10 15 II II 20 9 13 20 13 3.7 2.0 7.7 98.8 111.7 115.1 f jE f� (( i i SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. Light brown to brown, moist. Fine- to coarse - grained. II o ®�,7 &)" ®r p BORING LOG TTEMECU HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEM ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03 /00 FIGURE A -58 �, '-1.3 ,: 5)- 6, 5 -'- 7, 119 d = w V EL Q N 0 O to m e -\-- w ¢ :3 N LL U d F}-- U3 EC 0 m Z Q to U U LL �� v DATE DRILLED 02/11 /2000 BORING NO. B-41A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8• Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION C 20 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 10 13.2 106.0 Brown, moist, loose, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered pinhole porosity; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers. 25 EE �! E IEE I fEEEE . E �t 30-- j 11 26 [`E €i Light brown; medium dense. I I EfIEEEE€ 35 �1�(ffE t € E €EI 40 €llll E €t€ l . ® ®re BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 y4a&M, ®jyiff 7EMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 1 FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -59 Sao P t I 1 11 C' t. — w= a_ Q rn F 00 c 3 Q3 o W Cr F V) d Z w0 OJ m N z O Q U (3 �N Nj U DATE DRILLED 02/11/2000 BORING N0. B -41A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION O 40 45 II 50 26 32 E (E EE SM l ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND. Dense; scattered gravel. IIGroundwater I 55 I I II 60 Total Depth = 51.5 feet. not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/00. II . ® & ®®re L BORING LOG TEECULABIGHSCHOOLp3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A -60 lot/ 'l 'l 'll 1: 'll 'I cI i a W Q 0 w c O om m U) CE a w O OJ m Z O QN U d � �DRIVE NO U DATE DRILLED 02/10 /2000 BORING NO. B -42A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diamcter Hollow -Stem Auger WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 5 9 4.0 99.5 EE E E {{ SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. 1 s ® ,170 &f ® ®Y a • BORING LOG TE HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMECU MECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -61 v II �I 'i I ti '. 1 d a? _ W O U LU i Q U F O O m °— w El= to 0 cc O m y Z O F- Q to U U LL �j v SAMPLED DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B43A GROUND E SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c o 0 5 6 6.8 93.7 SM ALLUV[UNI: Brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND. l0 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling - Backfilled on 02/10/00. M VIVO oure IL BORING LOG TE EMECU HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEhfECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -62 ia3 t Ifll '{II. t IIII II 11. I II 1[ If 11 ! 1[. d w w nJ a ~ O o LL 00 E W cc U) a } F- W cc 0 o N z O F a�i U 6 U j U DATE DRILLED 02 /1012000 BORING N0. B -44A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine SAND. 5 8 4.0 97.6 IE ! t Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. i Backfilled on 02/10/00. 15 I I I 20 P BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL k3 TEMECU ECULA, CALIFORNL4 PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03100 A -63 iaq III II II 1� I II II II it 1, I I = wc o i t Q 0 N N O m e or N LL a — CC OJ m z O Q . P6 u-i U DATE DRILLED 02/10/2000 BORING NO. 13-45A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 5 9 2.5 102.7 I i SM I ALLUVIUh1: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 I 15 I I I 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. ® ®ny0& u ®P a BORING LOG T HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECU LA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -64 / ;5 I 'I II ,E 'II I III I 'l �� II ,i II fl 1 i m wc 0 in Q- a H 0 W n m o cc. N iz d } ~ z cc o o m > z 0 aN 0 U LL N Nj U DATE DRILLED 02 111/2000 BORING NO. B-46A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY R1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION o 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, dry, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 6 5 8 5.4 108.8 Moist. k Ij Ef E ! 10 EEC EE EE� 8 8.6 102.4 E! [f E[[ Brown; fine grained; micaceous. I EE E !!!f 15 II��lE EE, [Ill IjE€ 17 2.0 104.2 i�`€ p. E Light brown. €l!.cEf �€IE j[Ij EEE�€ €E EE 20 BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL k3 ® � � TEMh1ECU ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -65 �a� - II = w O a Q to F p to J m - w m I— _N O a F}- to Z WO OJ m Z O Q� U U LL N �j Q U DATE DRILLED 02/11/2000 BORING N0. B-46A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 0 �I 20 �I I 11 25 III I 30 III 28 17 7.0 8.0 106.6 97.5 Ijl iE'll [ `E 0 SM ALLUVTUNf: (Continued) Light brown to brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND. III II II35 II III �II 40 Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/11/00. II . 777 BORING LOG TEM HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMECU MECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -66 7Ji�a3o�S -0 ��9 d _ wc O �I w Ja Q F O LL to 0 m o w ¢ 7 t? LL a > h to p cc a —� O V) z O Q N U LL N Nj v DATE DRILLED 02/10 /2000 BORING N0. B-47A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF I METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diu eter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140tbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION o 0 II II j. I II 5 i9 III II II 3.1 101.5 EE[ E€ 0 EIE�f �� jEE€ SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 III II III 15 I.. III II ( I 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. III 07 ® Q ®ie & BORING LOG 7EMECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -67 /;s 'll II II i H I '_ = w 0 VI Q N H N 0 00 w ¢ H (n LL Z o Q JO to z O I- O 6 LLL Nj v DATE DRILLED 02/1012000 BORING NO. B-48A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF I METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c O 0 5 9 1.4 105.8 f f SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. ® & vOre BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -68 d g J F F U _ Z LL Z D DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING N0. B -49A c N 0 S SM A ALLUVIUM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse /4D it II I' t.. 11 LJ ' a O 0- Q to F O O m � °- w LL a F W cc w O m N z O H Q U3 O U 'n to 7 U DATE DRILLED 02 110/2000 BORING N0. B -50A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c Q 0 5 7 1.8 102.8 SM f ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; few gravel. 10 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. MM ' ®4 ya& mr e BORING LOG TE HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMECU EMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A_70 13/ If 'll ,II II 1 I I_ = wc O w Q V) 0 vl 0O m W / L :F u_ a Q cc o m (n Z O QV) O U N O U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -51A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY R1 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION o 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 5 7 3.1 95.2 i° 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. I Backfilled on 02/10/00. I 15 I 20 II nure7E BORING LOG HIGH SCHOOL N3 �! TEt,EMECU fECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGUR_71 E 104134 -01 03!00 q /31 1 1 1 1 1 _ wc Ij n Ja t— Q 00 to Q ".R w ¢ F=- N LL (L F z JO m (n Z O Q. En O U LLui tun) j VSAMPLED DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B-52A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 II II II 5 II II 9 3.5 101.1 , t SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine- to medium - grained SAND. 10 IIGroundwater II II 15 II II II 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. II • e 417 U&MUnr e BORING LOG TE ECULA HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEEAT ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A.22 /33 'II II II 'II 1 1 1 ,I 1 13V U Z DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING N0. B -53A o CL 0 Qp } JO GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 3 n Q LL m H U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger = to F to u- L6 w c o Lo DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" 0 > - O Q u SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI O DESCRIPTIONANTERPRETATION 0 € SM ALLUVIUM: € t Light brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. I 10 3.3 101.0 r i 5 7 Very loose. [ tk E €:t 10 x:111 r €'!I EI it 16 3.1 103.8 f� E JIM 15 !€E(iil 11 7.0 108.8 € Brown; moist; fine- grained. E Ett i 20 �Ef o BORING LOG TEM HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEM MECU ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -73 13V 'I 1 1 1 dw a O N CL F Q 0 rn c o m e to 2 LL a } W O m Z O_ t- . Qtn U U �j u DATE DRILLED 02/10/2000 BORING NO. B -53A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 € SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) 28 6.6 111.2 ff Light brown to brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; interlayers of brown silty fine sand; micaceous. E: E €ESE [ 25 tE�I 30 ffBrown; t fine- grained; scattered calcium carbonate stringers. 14 E �EI€ E 35 40 o BORING LOG TEM HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEM MECU ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 p_7q II [1 11 a w ❑ V ii U) ~O o O m o w cc N LL d FZ W ❑ > ❑ m > N Z O F N O Ci m� NO v DATE DRILLED 02/10 /2000 BORING NO. 13-53A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c O 40 45 50 18 45 Et I EEEEEI EE€ SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; micaceous; scattered thin coarse sand layers; scattered thin calcium carbonate stringers. Light brown; dense; fine- to coarse - grained. 155 it II I 60 Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. II Y ®,,ny®& n®re BORING LOG TE EMEC A HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEM ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE A -75 / ;v r 'l t 1 1 w ac :�E O O LL p m o = w N LL U } 0 cc m N z F tri U U U) v DATE DRILLED OZl10 /2000 BORING NO. B -54A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTIONIANTERPRETATION 0 5 - -_7 - -- 7.5 . ..... 85.8 . ...... { IEt ML ...._.-'-....------------------------------------------------------ SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, fine sandy SILT. --- ------- --------------- -----' Brown, damp, loose to very loose, silty fine to medium SAND; few clay. 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10100. ®� BORING LOG TEEMECU HIGH SCHOOL p3 TE�IECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A_7g 137 �3$ V) LL z DATE DRILLED 02/10 /2000 BORING NO. B -55A a F e a O_ H GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 O Q LL } F O Q U METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger w O ~ z 2:N DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" o O > to Q� SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI Q DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: IILight grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium 1 SAND. 1 N.. II 5 1 6 1.5 94.9 € [ II[[ Scattered layers of dark brown; moist; silty clay. i € ��E E II 1 EE € 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. 1 II 1 II. I S �I 0 BORING LOG ' Vinya&Mun N e TE H1 GH SCHOOL p3 ® ■ TEM EMECU ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 1 DATE FIGURE )04134 -01 03/00 �3$ I 1 1 I 119 LL z DATE DRILLED 02 109/2000 BORING N0. 13-56A — ~O o a O O >- F- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF I = Q N LL to °C D ~ N OJ m to U6 METHOD OF DRILLING S" Diameter Hollow -Stcm Auger wc 30 N o tj LL Nj DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" O m U SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY Rl DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SW ALLUVIUM: light brown, damp, very loose, well graded SAND. l 5 - --- --- 4 ------- 4.3 -------- 97.3 --- -- ---- SM -- ---- --- -- ---- — — --- -- --- -- ---- - - -- --- --- --- ----- --- _--- ----- ------ -- --- '- ------- Brown, dam to moist, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND. _ Et E 10 i Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. 'I IS 20 o BORING LOG TEMMECU HIGH SCHOOL p3 ® TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -78 119 'r ' II [l 1 ' F- w O CL Q to 1— 00 ?: O to o W ¢ t~il F w O cc 0 JO 0 2 N z O 1- U U to 6 N:� v DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING N0. B -57A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET •1 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION co o 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Light brown, damp, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; scattered fine gravel. 10 6.2 102.2 5 6 6.0 99.0 Very loose. 10 E E E I 17 7.3 108.4 €j[j( . i Loose; Cme- to coarse - grained. I 15-- E: I 17 6.3 109.9 Nloist; interlayered with brown; fine; micaceous. I 20 ` € I`€ II BORING LOG TEAI HIGH SCHOOL N3 Wu&*Gure TEM MECU ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -79 /yo '.I 11 1. 1 11 m w F- O N a I 2 O O LL c O m o — W LL a } m N z O h N 06 0:5 U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING N0. B -57A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 20 25 30-- 36 22 2.8 116.7 Ek [ (j� [ `€ { iE€ SM I i ALLUVIUNI: (Continued) Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND. 35 40 Total Depth = 31.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL, k3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -80 /Y/ i� I ,. w = w O U) Q. Q O 00 LL O m e U H O LL U } N Z o O CO N NO Z o . Q UCi 6 DRIVE u DATE DRILLED 02/10 /2000 BORING NO. B-58A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c 0 5 8 2.4 102.1 E e SM � . ALLUVIUM: Light grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 10 15 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. l �� BORING LOG TEAIECULA HIGH SCHOOL TE7,IECULA. CALiFORN14 L PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03100 FIGURE p.81 /0- C I 1 1 C — = w Q- Q F 00 3 O o w FO- _O O LL a F Z w o JO m 2 N z O QN O U �N Nj v DATE DRILLED 02 /1012000 BORING NO. B -59A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING S" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger R DRIVE WEIGHT 14016s. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c D I 0 I I I; +i 5 I I I II ]0 7 3.0 90.0 [I ill !ff � cif SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose, silty fine SAND; little clay. Few clay. II III i III Ii 15 it ii II 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. II ® 07ffinure � BORING LOG TE HIGH SCHOOL OL p3 TEMECU EMECULA, CALIFORNIA EPROJECT NO. 04134 01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A_82 ��a3o,�'a5 ,43 [1 [l [1 I = F- II O U) a Q N 0 c O m o w F o `L' a Z w0 cc cc o m to z O Q LL U to N Nj v DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -60A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auer DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/1NTERPRETATION O II 0 II 5 it7 II II 10 9.4 90.1 ML ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp to moist, firm, clayey SILT; little fine sand; scattered light gray stringers. I) 15 II I� 20 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/ 10 /00. � BORING LOG TEM1f ECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEh1ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A_g3 101 li 111 1� 11 1111 1111 II i� II 1( 111 I II 11 II 11 II IiII it If /yS LL Z DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING N0. B-61A d O Q JO Qvi GROt1ND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 _ _ Ln W Fr-- m U6 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger ~ Z u c V) w0 Nj DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" W O C O to 0 SAMPLED U BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI 0 DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp to moist, very loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 5 6 3.6 99.1 f 10 I Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09100. - IS 20 BORING LOG p TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL X3 ® TEAtECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 1 FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -84 /yS t II 1 II. 1 II II 1" II II !I !I .I 1 d ~ t7 to N O O to m w cc U) u_ U a > N w o to N z QN � U 'n V) U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -62A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY R] DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 0 5 9 2.2 101.0 SM ALLUVTUM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND; few gravel. 10 l5 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. 20 V BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL q3 TERfMECU ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE I 03/00 FIGURE A -85 /1/Ib Il 1 II.. I ji r II i 1 ill t I II 1.. 1 '1. o 0- 1i N F 00 N 3� 0 m t~n a r En w cc O fn z O Q U Ci LL N �j v DATE DRILLED 02/10 /2000 BORING N0. B -63A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Duunetcr Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY Rl DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION 0 SM ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown, damp, loose, silty fine to medium SAND. 5 15 1.3 105.3 EE[€EE f EEEE�[ 10 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. 15 20 ®� OOrO BORING LOG TEM HIGH SCHOOL p3 y TEMECU MECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 q_gg /y? iyg L) O DATE DRILLED 02/10/2000 BORING NO. B -64A 'a < O o _ � W >- ,� I— . Qtn GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1 N to � p to p 06 u METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger ' O 0 o v}i tOrt� DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" � � m O ¢ Q v SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI p DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp, very loose to loose, silty fine to coarse SAND. 9 1.3 101.8 EoE �E Total Deptb = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. o ®jy .V®& ®®■ a BORING LOG T A HIGH SCHOOL p3 1 TEMEC ULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -87 iyg �y9 LL U Z DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. 13-65A IN F C w ), I- GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 3 N t` to cc D F_ U) m U) U U METHOD OF DRILLING 8- Dismcter Hollow -Stem Auger 1 N DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' o m v SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI o DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM /SP ALLUVIUM: Light brown, damp, loose, slightly silty fine to coarse SAND. 1 1 14 2.3 100.0 fI iE 1 18 Damp to moist. 27 3.2 115.2 f ` Medium dense; scattered ime gravel. 1 Et 1 �[t , 1 1 22 5.3 106.0 1 E E BORING LOG TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL N3 &yfajr4u&Muure. TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A_88 �y9 is10 Q N 00 3 O M _ w cc l7 N LL U Z W Cr JO CO y z Q� U U �N Nj U DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING N0. B-65A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 2 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auer DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION c SM ALLUVIUI`f: (Continued) ' 11 3.6 116.4 Light brown, moist, loose, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered thin reddish brown silt layers. ' Thin gravel layer. f - 26 Medium dense. - �f s �I ®®re BORING LOG TE HIGH SCHOOL N3 ICALIFORNIA L)Yft w®& TEECULA MECU A, PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -89 is10 u D u 3 J i Q O O N m a= w I U) v N w Y o _ O CO Z Qtn U U LL CO < O DATE DRILLED 02 /10/2000 BORING NO. B -65A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 3 OF 3 METHOD OF DRILLING 8' Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30' SAMPLED BY RCS LOGGED BY RCS REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTIONIINTERPRETATION > J ' 1 to 45 55 i SP -SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued) Light brown, moist, dense, silty fine SAND; few silt; moderate drilling effort. Very dense. ' �5 160 Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/10/00. o& 6vp y ®®r® BORING LOG TE< A HIGH SCHOOL p3 TEMEC EMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -90 -T�t 3 D6/0 5 -� 151 ' Q U F p w LL N po m u cc F U } F- Z JO to 2 N z Q N 06 LLN Qj v DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -66A GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger DRIVE WEIGHT 1401bs. DROP 30" SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVTLJM: Grayish brown, damp, very loose, silty fine to medium SAND; little clay. 6 5.4 103.6 Brown; moist. Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. BORING LOG TE E HIGH SCHOOL p3 yv&Mnur TEMECU MECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 104134 -01 DATE 03/00 FIGURE A -91 15 1 1 1 t 1 1 U) z DATE DRILLED 02 /09/2000 BORING NO. B -67A a o a O Q O r JO Qvi GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF I (n LL U) w cc O F— to m OU METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow -Stem Auger po 0 (n Qj DRIVE WEIGHT 14016x. DROP 30" 00 u SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION /INTERPRETATION SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; little clay. 8 3.6 102.5 Total Depth = 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 02/09/00. BORING LOG ldyfff 0� ® ®�� TEEMECU HIGH IFOPNLk3 TE�f ECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 03/00 A -92 1 10 Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No. 3 Project No. 104134 -01 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING ' Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 -93. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A. ' In -Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex- ploratory excavations were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 -94. The test ' results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A. ' Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accor- dance with ASTM D 422 -63 The grain -size distribution curves are shown on Figures B -1 through B -I1. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System ' Consolidation (Settlement Potential) Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general ac- cordance with ASTM D 2435 -90. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse ' field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the tests are 1 summarized on Figures B -12 through B -26. Direct Shear Tests Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed and remolded samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 -90 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figures B -27 through B -32. ' Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with U.B.C. Stan- dard No. 18 -2. Specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 ' percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1 -inch thick by 4 -inch diameter speci- mens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap 1 1 41] -01 GB d« t acv 10197 /Sy Temecula Valley Unified School District March 3, 2000 Temecula High School No, 3 Project No 104134 -01 water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of these tests are presented on Figure B -33. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Tests The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected representative soil samples were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 -91. The results of these tests are sum- marized on Figure B -33. Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH, and minimum resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general ac- cordance with California Test (CT) 643. The chloride contents of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 422. The sulfate contents of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417. The test results are presented on Figure B -34. 41la_01CR d. 2 Key 10,9] /SS ■ `w x ? 'm ¢ W LL w w v I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I GRAVEL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Sill - Clay US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3- 1 -T 1 314- 1(I 318 4 8 16 30 50 10 20 80 TD fio 40 i 30 I 20 I I I I 10 0 10 10 1 01 0 01 001 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 ' 61A 36315 tls I I I I I I I SAND I I I I I I I I I -- 0001 GRAIN S12E IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Hole Number Depth (feet) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Type B -1A 30 -315 SM GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -1 /I I I I I I I I SAND I I I I I I I I I -- 0001 GRAIN S12E IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Hole Number Depth (feet) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Type B -1A 30 -315 SM GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -1 /I I I I I I I I SAND I I I I I I I I I -- 0001 GRAIN S12E IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Hole Number Depth (feet) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Type B -1A 30 -315 SM GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -1 /I GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -1 /I ■ GRAVEL I SAND 001 0001 FINES HYDROMETER Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine I Slit D -41 S Clay 100 s0 80 ]0 S m w 3 w r m w SO z i 4D w U ll W JO a 20 10 0 100 US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 01 001 0001 Dmo1 HYDROMETER 3- 1 -1l* 1' J/4' la J9' 4 8 16 30 m 100 200 D -41 S 100 s0 80 ]0 S m w 3 w r m w SO z i 4D w U ll W JO a 20 10 0 100 t0 1 01 001 0001 Dmo1 Plastic Limit Plasticit Index GRAIN SIZE IN IARLIMETERS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 y�nyo &,hoo�e_ ' 6'�1U415 Na GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 13-2 rs7 Symbol Hole Number I Depth (feet) idLlmd Plastic Limit Plasticit Index Sod T e D -41 S — -- -- SP -SM IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 y�nyo &,hoo�e_ ' 6'�1U415 Na GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 13-2 rs7 GRAVEL Hole Number SAND Li uid Limit Plastic Limit FINES Soil Type Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt SM Clay US STANOARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 1.1?' 1' 14' 17 S 4 8 16 30 50 too 200 tW 80 u � 60 m w z 40 U tt 30 n 20 1D 0 ' 1W 10 1 01 001 cool DDDOt GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 1 Symbol Hole Number Depth feet Li uid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Type • 3 -5A 40 -41.5 -- -- -- SM ' aen—I set IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTPA D 422 -63 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FPOJTCT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 B -3 0 '159 w 1 100 90 80 ]0 Z (7 w 3 eo m w 50 z 40 `w u K w 30 a 20 10 0 ' t00 10 1 01 001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 001 0 0001 Symbol GRAVEL US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS SAND Plastic Limit FINES HYDROMETER Coarse Fine Coarse Metlium Fine Silt 200 Clay ' t00 10 1 01 001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 001 0 0001 Symbol Hole Number US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS Li uid Limlt Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Type HYDROMETER 3' 1 -1 ?' .1' 3I4' 1Q 18' 4 8 16 30 50 loo 200 ' t00 10 1 01 001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 001 0 0001 Symbol Hole Number De th (feet Li uid Limlt Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Type • B -13A 10 -115 — -- -- S11 ' \ PERFORMED IN WITH ASTM D 422 -63 /�/inya &/Moore_ 1 61-1P111- GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA J PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B-4 1 1 GRAVEL I SAND Liquid Limit Plastic Limit FINES Soil T e Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine I Silt -- Clay rr �. IIn11�B��ili �i��!II_III� ■�IIB� IIIIII� ■I■11111111 ■�Illllh.! ®1111 .. IIIIII�■ ®1111111 ■�IIn111 \`�IIII IIIIII� ■I■Ilinlll ■1111111 ■i►�IIII . �:IIIIII� ■�IIn111 ■�IIII�� ■�1�1 IIIIII�■I■IIIm INN ■11111in IN III■I�Y■111 1111■m1II�1■ 11 11110 1111111101111 IN 111 : Ila■1i ■mIIIIuIam■iul■M1■Ila 100 10 1 01 001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER owl 00001 Symbol Hole Number Depth feet Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticit Index Soil T e • B -18A 10 -11.5 -- -- -- SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 �I -N;nyo &,Moore_ ' b'U 1611s15 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO=DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 L B -5 GRAVEL Hole Number SAND Li uid Limit Plastic Limit FINES Soil T e Coarse Fine I Coarse I Medium 11:1111! Silt SM Clay US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 100 10 1 01 001 m GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER 0001 00001 Symbol Hole Number De th feet Li uid Limit Plastic Limit PIasl city Index Soil T e • B -20A 30-400 -- -- -- SM PERFORMED IN E WITH ASTM D 422 -63 1 azoAIa04a GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 B -6 HYDROMETER 1111111 ■�1111�Igm1111 SEEN III 1111111 ■■1111111111►�11111111 ■1■ 1111111■ ®8111111 ■t`l�IIIIII ■Alll IIIIIII ■ MIN 111 11111■1■II II ;1111111■ 8111111 MEMOIR IIIIIII■■11111111 ■�IIIIUI ■1■111 Illn11 ■111111 ■�IIII1►�1■EIIII :111111 ■■1 ■11 UNEVEN 1111111■�8111111 ■� ■1m�'lIII'I u11 ■■11 ■111 ■�IIIIHII■1�111 01 001 owl ' GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 1 1 Symbol GRAVEL I SAND Plastic Limit 1: sticity Index FINES • Coarse 15 -16.5 Fine Coarse I Metllurn Fine Silt Clay HYDROMETER 1111111 ■�1111�Igm1111 SEEN III 1111111 ■■1111111111►�11111111 ■1■ 1111111■ ®8111111 ■t`l�IIIIII ■Alll IIIIIII ■ MIN 111 11111■1■II II ;1111111■ 8111111 MEMOIR IIIIIII■■11111111 ■�IIIIUI ■1■111 Illn11 ■111111 ■�IIII1►�1■EIIII :111111 ■■1 ■11 UNEVEN 1111111■�8111111 ■� ■1m�'lIII'I u11 ■■11 ■111 ■�IIIIHII■1�111 01 001 owl ' GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 1 1 Symbol Hole Number Depth feet I uid Limit Plastic Limit 1: sticity Index Soll T e • B -30A 15 -16.5 -- -- -- SP -SM ASTM D 422 -63 y�nyo &/�oore_ � ' al-11501 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA o ", PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -7 110- GRAVEL I SAND OOt 7 FINES GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium Fine Silt 100 Clay ■ 100 10 U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS OOt 7 Plasticit Index GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER 3' 1 -1? P 34' 1? 318" a a 18 30 50 100 200 ■ 100 10 i 01 OOt 7 Plasticit Index GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS • 0001 00001 Symbol Hole Number Depth feet LI uld Limit Plastic Limit Plasticit Index Soil Type • B -37A -- SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 GRADATION TEST RESULTS • TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 ��1 ,Y0& %1Q P.- TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 'I I PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE I` ) 104134 -01 3/00 B -8 ' 631A SI Stls _`w/ 1 i 1 1 GRAVEL 10 1 SAND 001 owl FINES Soil T e Coarse Fine Coarse Medlum Fine Silt — Clay US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 1.11T 1' 374' 1?' 378' 4 8 16 30 `.A 100 200 1W 80 )0 > U w 3 � r m w 50 2 t 40 w` U a w 30 a m 10 0 HYDROMETER 100 10 1 01 001 owl 0"l Soil T e • GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 2 -3 5 -- — S mbol Hole Number Depth lfeet Li uid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticq Index Soil T e • B -57A 2 -3 5 -- — — - SM 4. PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 1 ' D57A 23.5 Aa GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE r FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -9 /0/ SAND FINES Coarse Fine PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA I GRAVEL ' 10� 0 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I F i 1 1 I 3 > I I I I I I m w LL I I I I I I 1 w w n I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 ' ' • Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3' 1 -1? 1' 3r4' 1R 3/8' a 8 16 0 50 100 200 90 ea to so I 40 30 20 10 1 I t 0 10 10 01 001 o01 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I -- 0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMEtERS Symbol Hole Number Depth feet Li uid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index SOLI T e B -67A 16 -16 5 -- SM PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -10 ' 69A tS165as /V I PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -10 ' 69A tS165as /V 1 Symbol GRAVEL De th feet SAND Plastic Limit Plasticity Index FINES • Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay US STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3' 1.1R 1" T4" 1?' LB" 4 8 16 30 00 100 200 100 I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I 1 hill I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 > ]0 3 60 ¢ M I I 1 I w 50 I i 40 w I I 11 I I I u 30 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 10 Id 0 100 10 1 01 O01 0001 00001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 -63 Symbol GRAVEL De th feet SAND Plastic Limit Plasticity Index FINES • Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay Symbol Hole Number De th feet Li uld Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Type • B -65A 40 -41.5 -- -- -- SP -SM /'/snyo &/v►oore_ ' ass..on sm GRADATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE � l 104134 -01 3 /00 B -11 I�1� • 0 IN i ■ • ■ ■ • 2.0 ■ ■ i i i 0", • ■ i i 1.0 C 3.0 4.0 • , •� 'E :•, ., � 10.0 j STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 -Seating Cycle Boring No B -1 A • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft) 5 -6.5 ♦ Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 i.•T•7.7 + - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ' sag TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ' �i PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE ,, ,sss„ 104134 -01 3100 B -12 -av 1 I &l STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 ■ I ■ 0 ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 0 A 4.0 • 5. D LD C • 0: .0_ - - Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation ♦ Loading After Inundation ' PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 243590 1 Boring No. B -SA Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS p� � TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 Ni / /� ®'� ® ®9 ® _ TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE 3 f—TEU—R—E� ' asassd. 104134 -01 3100 B -13 /68 0.1 -4.0 r- -3.0 z O 0 -2.0 z a a x w -1.0 �$ 1.0 2.0 N w Y 3.0 U_ F a4.12 a N 0 5.0 z z w U w 6.0 a z O a 7.0 0 o 0 S.0 U ' 9.0 10A STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 - 0 - -Seating Cycle ' • Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation ' PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0 2435 -90 1 Boring No. B-1 3A Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -D1 3/00 B -14 1,609 r 0.1 -4.0 r STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 Seating Cycle Boring No. B-1 8A • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 10-11.5 ♦ Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 100.0 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ' TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 ��Ii� ®� TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE a+a ionsm 104134 -01 3 /00 B -15 l 7D 0.1 -4.0 r- -3.0 z 0 m -2.0 z a a x w -1.0 Es 1.0 2.0 N w Y 3.0 U_ r w 4.0 a u� 0 5.0 z w U w 6.0 a z O ¢ 7.0 0 J Q N o 8.0 U an 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 -Seating Cycle Boring No. B -20A • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 ♦ Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 100.0 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -16 17/ i 1 i 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i 1 1 0.1 -4.0 r STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 • - - Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 Boring No. B -28A Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 1 TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA OY li �i PROJECT NO DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 1-17 ' /7Z 0.1 -4.0 -3.0 z O 0 -2.0 z a x w A# 0.0 1.0 2.0 w Y 3.0 U_ 2 a 4.0 0 5.0 z z w U w 6.0 a z D a 7.0 D 0 D 8.0 U 9.0 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 - - - -Seating Cycle o Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 Boring No. B -31 A Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Ri7ili7 PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 g -1 g 173 • • 1.0 OEM N N w_ Y 3.0 U_ S H a 4.0 N 0 5.0 z w U w 6.0 d Z O i 7.0 O J O N o 8.0 U mm 10.0 • - - Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 K -- I ' 6J6n S65 Ea Boring No. B -36A Depth (ft.)' 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 B -19 /7f/ ' 0.1 -4.0. ' -3.0 a 'z 0 z 2.0 x ' x w -1.0 190111111 1.0 2.0 w Y 3.0 U_ S F w 4.0 a 0 5.0 z w U w 6.0 a z 0 ¢ 7.0 0 0 N p 0 8.0 0 an STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 10.0 I I I I �— -Seating Cycle ' • Loading Prior to Inundation ♦ Loading After Inundation ' PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 Boring No. B -37A Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ' TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE ' g3mse5gs 104134 -01 3/00 B -20 7; of s -� 17.s 0.1 -4.0 r -3.0 z 0 0 -2.0 z a w w 1.0 — 0.0 1.0 2.0 1 N N W Y 3.0 U_ H � 4.0 a a N ' 0 5.0 w U ' ' � 6.0 w Z O Q 7.0 ' 0 0 0 8.0 V ' 9.( ' 10.0 1 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 • - -Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 Boring No. B -38A Depth (ft ) 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ' TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 jv��� ®� TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA e scan, PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 'ao 104134 -01 3/00 B -21 /76 1 1 1 1 0.1 -4.0 r STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 - -Seating Cycle • Loading Prior to Inundation ♦ Loading After Inundation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 Boring: No. B -43A Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 Soil Type SM 100.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ' TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 - �j f j7 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATED f FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -22 1 1 1 L' t_. i r t 0.1 -4.0 r- -3.0 to z O z 2.0 z a w -1.0 11011 1.0 a "I w m Y 3.0 U_ Z H a 4.0 s N 0 5.0 z w U w 6.0 z O a 7.0 O O w z 8.0 O V me 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 ♦ - - Seating Cycle Boring No. B -46A • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft ) 5 -6.5 ♦ Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 1115IT91 rem 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -23 1,70 y 1 1 1 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS /� TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 ��/ /� ®� TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA YY PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -24 i79 .W W�iW Wes.■ ■ ■�����.■ ■ ■����� ■. ■■ MEE mono ��W=.■■ ���� =.■■I�= =OMEN now Wm. ■ ■ ■� W WM ■ ■ ■ ■� �MM■ ■. mm ■omm� =W� ■ ■ ■���� ■ENS OWN �MMMME �����.■vo v■ W ��_v=Mm■■ W • �W��■O ■��W�■■■ ■TWA ■f■■ • In M =OEM ���MOW ��WV ■ ■■ =MOM NOW M OWN Mm OWN mml • OME �■i■ip • W�M�.■ ■W■p■■�_�_��_� ■_W���v.Tl WE ME ����v�v�����■n: °aii • • _ MEE MOM ■ • ���a■o��Wa■■o • ��CCC:: 'CC�Cw0 � =Mond. __.■■i____o■■i_�■�i mm.■■ OW�OV.W���W� ■ ■■■��v� ■ ■■■ • ��■■..��WWes. ■.. �WE °�C�CC�C�CCJ��CC■B IN ,. , ,.•, , CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS /� TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 ��/ /� ®� TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA YY PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3/00 B -24 i79 t 0.1 -4.0 r -3.0 0 z g 2.0 a a x @ I 1.0 2.0 m y 3.0 U_ S F a 40 N LL 0 5.0 z w U w 6.0 Z O 7.0 D J w p O 8.0 U m 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 s - - Seating Cycle Boring No. B -60A • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 5 -6.5 Loading After Inundation Soil Type ML PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 100.0 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE as,sssb, 104134 -01 3 /00 B-25 ng0 i 0.1 -4.0 r -3.0 0 z G -2.0 a X CeZi7 1.0 2.0 Y 3.0 U_ S F a 4.0 N 0 5.0 1— w 0 w 6.0 z 0 a 7.0 0 0 0 8.0 U m 10.0 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 10.0 + Seating Cycle Boring No. B -65A • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 2 -3.5 ♦ Loading After Inundation Soil Type SM /SP PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 -90 66513]5.' ml CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 B -26 /8/ 11 11. 1� li. II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1- 1 4000 3500 3000 N 2500 II _ a N rn 2000 I N 1 I i I I Q I i 1500 1000 I I 500 I.� I i - - I I I I II-T I I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Boring Shear Friction Angle Description Symbol Depth (ft) Cohesion (psf) Soil Type Number Strength (deg) Silly Sand 0 B -1A 0 -10.0 Peak 130 36 SM 'Remolded to 90% relative compaction near optimum moisture content. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE ffFIEGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 -27 /0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE ffFIEGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 -27 /0 1 1 1 1 1 1 -. 1 1 1 4000 I 3500 B -SA , Peak 175 3000 SM N 2500 II a_ N N LLJ 2000 t- N K Q Lu N 1500 I 1000 I I l I I I I I I I I 500 it I I I I I I - II I 0 I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Symbol Boring Depth (fl) Shear Cohesion (p5f) Friction Angle Soil Type yp Description Number Strength (deg) Silty Sand 0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 B-28 ,�OIoS�-a ig� B -SA 5 -6.5 Peak 175 32 SM DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 B-28 ,�OIoS�-a ig� 1 1 1 4000 Symbol Boring Number Depth (ft) Shear strength Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) 3500 Silty Sand � B -20A 2 -3.5 Peak 175 3000 SM I U) 2500 1 1 1 a_ N N C� 2000 N K = 1500 N 1000 I I I 1 - 500 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I O 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Number Depth (ft) Shear strength Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type Silty Sand � B -20A 2 -3.5 Peak 175 26 SM r DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 8 -29 / Sy 1 1 1_. 4000 3500 3000 a^i 2500 a U) 2000 N K a N1500 100( 50( 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Sym bol Boring Number Depth (ft) Shear Strength Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) Soil Type Silty Sand • B -28A 2 -6.0 Peak 240 30 SM 'Remolded to 90% relative compaction near optimum moisture content Lizu DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 1 3100 B -30 ��5 1 t 4000 3500 I t I I I I 5 -6.5 3000 200 31 SM N 2500 a N 2000 N � I � Q = 1500 N I It 1000 It I I I I I I I I 500 I I t I I FEEF I I 0 I t � 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Depth (ft) Shear Cohesion (p s o Friction Angle Soil Type Number Strength (deg) Silty DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 00 B -31 Sand • 839 -A 5 -6.5 Peak 200 31 SM DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 31 00 B -31 1 1 4000 3500 B -57A 5 -6.5 Peak 165 37 SM 3000 N 2500 I I a_ N LU x 2000 i- < x 1500 N I I I I 1000 I 500 I I I I i I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Symbol Boring Depth (ft) Shear Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle Soil Type Description Number Strength (deg) Silty Sand 0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 B -32 197 B -57A 5 -6.5 Peak 165 37 SM DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3 /00 B -32 197 11 'I 11 k p 1 ' I ) EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH UBC STANDARD 18.2 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH FT INITIAL MOISTURE °/= ) COMPACTED DRY DENSITY (PCF) FINAL MOISTURE (% VOLUMETRIC SWELL IN. EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B -41 A 2-35 79 1171 183 00025 3 Very Low MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1557 -91 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) SOIL DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT I%) B -1A 0 -100 Brown, silty SAND 1368 80 B -28A 2-60 Grayish brown, silty SAND 1325 101 MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS ' E TEMECULA HIGH SCHO0 L #3 - � / ®"W�� TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 'f 104134 -01 3/00 B -33 i /gg I 1 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) pH. RESISTIVITY ' (ohmcm) WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT IN SOIL" (PPm) CHLORIDE CONTENT "' (PP-) B -1A 0- 100 7.5 5,250 10 25 B -26A 2-60 66 5,400 2 20 B -49A 2-60 64 7,500 10 30 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST 643 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST 417 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST 422 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS TEMECULA HIGH SCHOOL #3 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 104134 -01 3100 B -34 I g9. 11 1( APPENDIX C 11 TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES 1� 1! II 1� 1' 1� 11. h 11 ,j 1� I 1 � ily�csl Eanhw�k Gwddmn doh 4 ' Guidelines Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork TABLE OF CONTENTS Pale 1. GENERAL ......................................................................................... ............................... 1 ' 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES ............................................................. ..............................2 3. SITE PREPARATION ......................................................................... ............................... 3 4. REMOVALS AND EXCAVATIONS .................................................... ..............................4 - 5. COMPACTED FIE. L- ......................................................................... ..............................4 6. OVERSIZED MATERIAL ................................................................ ..............................7 7. SLOPES ............................................................................................ ............................... 8 .... ..... .... .................. 11 8. TRENCH BACKFI LL ............. ........ .................. ....................._...... ' 9. DRAINAGE ..................................................... ............................... ......... ............ 12 10. SITE PROTECTION .... ....... ........ ........... .........................:..... ... .. ......................13 11. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS .......... ............................... .. .... _. ............................... 15 ' Figures Figure A — Fill Slope Over Natural Ground or Cut Figure B — Transition and Undercut Lot Details Figure C — Canyon Subdrain Detail Figure D — Oversized Rock Placement Detail Figure E — Slope Drainage Detail Figure F — Shear Key Detail Figure G — Drain Detail 1�. 1! 1( 1[ T�p�cel EuvF.Rk Gw&l,nn Eon i -7�;i?c:0366�5 ,2:2 TYPICAL EARTMVORK GUIDELINES 1. GENERAL These Guidelines and the standard details attached hereto are presented as general procedures for ' earthwork construction. They are to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These Guidelines are considered a part of the geotechnical report, but are superseded by recom- mendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could super- sede these specifications and/or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It is the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these Guidelines as well as the geotechni- cal report and approved grading plans. The contractor shall not vary from these Guidelines without prior recommendations by the geotechnical consultant and the approval of the client or the client's author- ized representative. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant and /or client shall not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the jurisdictional agency prior to the execution of any changes. 1.2. The contractor shall perform the grading operations in accordance with these specifi- cations, and shall be responsible for the quality of the finished product notwithstanding the fact that grading work will be observed and tested by the geo- ' technical consultant. 1.3. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to notify the geotechnical consultant and the jurisdictional agencies, as required, prior to the start of work at the site and at ' any time that grading resumes after interruption. Each step of the grading operations shall be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant and, where neces- sary, reviewed by the appropriate jurisdictional agency prior to proceeding with ' subsequent work 1.4. If, during the grading operations, geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated or described in the geotechnical report, the geotechnical con- sultant shall be notified immediately and additional recommendations, if applicable, may be provided. ' 1.5. An as- graded report shall be prepared by the geotechnical consultant and signed by a registered engineer and certified engineering geologist. The report documents the geotechnical consultants' observations, and field and laboratory test results, and pro- vides conclusions regarding whether or not earthwork construction was performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations and the grading plans. Recom- mendations for foundation design, pavement design, subgrade treatment, etc., may ' also be included in the as- graded report '1 T,mJ Een kGwdcWe do, t kcv 1,98 4 ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 1.6. For the purpose of evaluating quantities of materials excavated during grading and /or ' locating the limits of excavations, a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall be retained. ' 1.7. Definitions of terms utilized in the remainder of these specifications have been pro- vided in Section 11. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES The parties involved in the projects earthwork activities shall be responsible as outlined in the following sections. ' 2.1. The client is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the project. The client or the ' client's authorized representative has a responsibility to review the findings and rec- ommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The client shall authorize the contractor and /or other consultants to perform work and /or provide services. During grading the client or the client's authorized representative shall remain on site or re- main reasonably accessible to the concerned parties to make the decisions necessary to maintain the Flow of the project ' 2.2. The contractor is.responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of grading and other associated operations, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and jurisdictional agency require- , ments. During grading, the contractor or the contractor's authorized representative shall remain on site The contractor shall further remain accessible at all times, in- cluding at night and during days off. ' 2.3. The geotechnical consultant shall provide observation and testing services and shall make evaluations to advise the client on geotechnical matters. The geotechnical con- sultant shall report findings and recommendations to the client or the client's authorized representative. 2.4. Prior to proceeding with any grading operations, the geotechnical consultant shall be notified at least two working days in advance to schedule the needed observation and testing services. ' 2.4.1. Prior to any significant expansion or reduction in the grading operation, the geo- technical consultant shall be provided with two working days notice to make ' appropriate adjustments in scheduling of on -site personnel . 2.4.2. Between phases of grading operations, the geotechnical consultant shall be pro- vided with at least two working days notice in advance of commencement of additional grading operations. Rv x/96 T,,iW Ea .,k G.L1.1 dot 2 M ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' 3. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the ' following sections. 3.1. The client, prior to any site preparation or grading, shall arrange and attend a pre- grading meeting between the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geo- technical consultant, and representatives of appropriate governing authorities, as well as any other involved parties. All parties shall be given at least two working days 1 notice. 3.2. Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the substantial removal of vegetation, brush, grass, wood, stumps, trees, tree roots greater than 1/2 -inch in diameter, and other deleterious materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing shall extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. 3.3. Demolition in the areas to be graded shall include removal of building structures, ' foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, etc.), and other manmade surface and subsurface im- provements, and the backfilling of mining shafts, tunnels and surface depressions. ' Demolition of utilities shall include proper capping or rerouting of pipelines at the project perimeter, and abandonment of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. 3.4. The debris generated during clearing, grubbing and /or demolition operations shall be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of off site at a legal dump site. ' Clearing, grubbing, and demolition operations shall be performed under the observa- tion of the geotechnical consultant. ' 3.5. The ground surface beneath proposed fill areas shall be stripped of loose or unsuit- able soil. These soils may be used as compacted fill provided they are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and approved for use by the geotechnical consultant. The resulting surface shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to proceeding. The cleared, natural ground surface shall be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 5. of these Guidelines 3 6. Where fills are to be constructed on hillsides or slopes, topsoil, slope wash, collu- vium, and other materials deemed unsuitable shall be removed. Where the exposed slope is steeper than 5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit, or where recommended by the geotechnical consultant, the slope of the original ground on which the fill is to be ' placed shall be benched and a key as shown on Figure A of this document shall be provided by the contractor in accordance with the specifications presented in Sec - '1 i Tyy¢al Eerthx�4 Gwddmc dot 3 Rol 1199 Wil ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' tion 7, of this document. The benches shall extend into the underlying bedrock or, where bedrock is not present, into suitable compacted fill as evaluated by the geo- technical consultant. 4. REMOVALS AND EXCAVATIONS ' Removals and excavations shall be performed as recommended in the following sections. 4.1. Removals 2. 4.1.1. Materials which are considered unsuitable shall be excavated under the observa- tion of the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic, compressible natural soils, fractured, weathered, soft bedrock, and undocumented or otherwise deleterious fill materials. 4.1.2. Materials deemed by the geotechnical consultant to be unsatisfactory due to moisture conditions shall be excavated in accordance with the recommendations ' of the geotechnical consultant, watered or dried as needed, and mixed to a gener- ally uniform moisture content in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 5. of this document. ' 4.2. Excavations 4.2.1. Temporary excavations no deeper than 5 feet in firm fill or natural materials may be made with vertical side slopes. To satisfy CAL OSHA requirements, any ex- cavation deeper than 5 feet shall be shored or laid back at a 1:1 inclination or flatter, depending on material type, if construction workers are to enter the exca- Ni vation. 5. COMPACTED FILL Fill shall be constructed as specified below or by other methods recommended by the geotechni- cal consultant. Unless otherwise specified, fill soils shall be compacted to 90 percent or greater relative compaction, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557 -91. '�. 5.1. Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor shall request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise recom- mended, the exposed ground surface shall then be scarified to a depth of [ approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a generally uni- form moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The scarified ' materials shall then be compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum density. The evaluation of compaction by the geotechnical consultant shall not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is Rev 1199 lTmW Eanh,k G.&o , da a 1 ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant and the appropfi- ate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. 5.2. Excavated on -site materials which are in general compliance with the recommenda- tions of the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill provided they are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and do not contain rock fragments greater than 6 inches in dimension. During grading, the contractor may encounter soil types other than those analyzed during the preliminary geotechnical study. The geotechnical consultant shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of any such soils for use as compacted fill. 5.3. Where imported materials are to be used on site, the geotechnical consultant shall be notified at least three working days in advance of importation in order that it may sample and test the materials from the proposed borrow sites No imported materials shall be delivered for use on site without prior sampling, testing, and evaluation by the geotechnical consultant. 5.4 Soils imported for on -site use shall preferably have very low to low expansion po- tential (based on UBC Standard 18 -2 test procedures). Lots on which expansive soils may be exposed at grade shall be undercut 3 feet or more and capped with very low to low expansion potential fill. Details of the undercutting are provided in the Tran- sition and Undercut Lot Details, Figure B of these Guidelines. In the event expansive soils are present near the ground surface, special design and construction considera- tions shall be utilized in general accordance with the recommendations of the ,} geotechnical consultant. '( 5.5 Fill materials shall be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils shall be generally uniform throughout the soil mass. 5.6. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill shall be pre - "' pared to receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, } and recompaction. { 5.7.Compacted fill shall be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift shall be watered or dried as needed to achieve near opti- mum moisture condition, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using ' sheepsfoot rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other appropriate com- pacting rollers, to the specified relative compaction. Successive lifts shall be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. ' 1 5.8. Fill shall be tested in the field by the geotechnical consultant for evaluation of gen- eral compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. T,yid EaM—I Gwdelmo doi 5 0.ev lISB /•If I I Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines Field density testing shall conform to ASTM D1556 -90 (Sand Cone method), D2937 -83 (Drive- Cylinder method), and/or D2922 -91 and D3017 -88 (Nuclear Gauge method). Generally, one test shall be provided for approximately every 2 ver- tical feet of fill placed, or for approximately every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition, on slope faces one or more tests shall be taken for approximately every 10,000 square feet of slope face and/or approximately every 10 vertical feet of slope height. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found to be out of conformance with the grading recommendations shall be removed, moisture con- ditioned, and compacted or otherwise handled to accomplish general compliance with the grading recommendations. w: 5.9. The contractor shall assist the geotechnical consultant by excavating suitable test pits for removal evaluation and /or for testing of compacted fill. ' 5.10. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall "shut down" or re- strict grading equipment from operating in the area being tested to provide adequate testing time and safety for the field technician. 5.11. The geotechnical consultant shall maintain a map with the approximate locations of field density tests. Unless the client provides for surveying of the test locations, the locations shown by the geotechnical consultant will be estimated. The geotechnical consultant shall not be held responsible for the accuracy of the horizontal or vertical control points. 5.12. Grading operations shall be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Testing and evaluation by the geotechnical consultant does not preclude the need for approval by or other requirements of the jurisdictional agencies. 5.13. Fill materials shall not be placed, spread or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rains, the filling operation shall not be resumed until tests indicate that moisture content and density of the fill meet the project specifications. Regrading of the near - surface soil may be needed to achieve proper moisture content and density. 5.14. Upon completion of grading and termination of observation by the geotechnical con- sultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, retaining walls or other features, shall be performed without the in- ,l volvement of the geotechnical consultant. 5.15. Fill placed in areas not previously viewed and evaluated by the geotechnical consult- ' ` ant may have to be removed and recompacted at the contractor's expense. The depth and extent of removal of the unobserved and undocumented fill will be decided based upon review of the field conditions by the geotechnical consultant. 1 T ymal EoMwik Gwdelmn dol 6 R<v 1199 ` %J ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' 5.16. Off -site fill shall be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifica- tions for on -site fills. Off -site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up gradient) shall be surveyed for future locating and connection. ' 5.17. Prior to placement of a canyon fill, a subdrain shall be installed in bedrock or com- pacted fill along the approximate alignment of the canyon bottom if recommended ' by the geotechnical consultant. Details of subdrain placement and configuration have been provided in the Canyon Subdrain Detail, Figure C, of these Guidelines. 5.18. Transition (cut/fill) lots shall generally be undercut 3 feet or more below finished grade to provide a generally uniform thickness of fill soil in the pad area. Where the depth of fill on a transition lot greatly exceeds 3 feet, overexcavation may be in- creased at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Details of the undercut for transition lots are provided in the Transition and Undercut Lot Detail, Figure B, of these Guidelines. 6. OVERSIZED MATERIAL ' Oversized material shall be placed in accordance with the following recommendations. ' 6.1. During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 6 inches in dimension (oversized material) may be generated. These materials shall not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed in general ac- ' cordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant 6.2. Where oversized rock (greater than 6 inches in dimension) or similar irreducible ' material is generated during grading, it is recommended, where practical, to waste such material off site, or on site in areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas." Rock designated for disposal areas shall be placed with sufficient sandy soil to generally fill voids. The disposal area shall be capped with a 5 -foot thickness of fill which is generally free of oversized material ' 6.3 Rocks 6 inches in dimension and smaller may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such a manner that nesting of rock is not permitted. Fill l shall be placed and compacted over and around the rock. The amount of rock greater than 3/4 -inch in dimension shall generally not exceed 40 percent of the total dry weight of the fill mass, unless the fill is specially designed and constructed as a "rock fill." �I 6.4. Rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 6 inches but less than 4 feet in t dimension generated during grading may be placed in windrows and capped with finer materials in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consult- ant, the approval of the governing agencies, and the Oversized Rock Placement t Detail, Figure D, of these Guidelines Selected native or imported granular soil (Sand Equivalent of 30 or higher) shall be placed and flooded over and around the wind- R,. rvs TM Eu ,,kG.&W -dot 7 /R19 I 11 I [1 I Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines rowed rock such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized materials shall be stag- gered so that successive windrows of oversized materials are not in the same vertical plane. Rocks greater than 4 feet in dimension shall be broken down to 4 feet or smaller before placement, or they shall be disposed of off site. 7. SLOPES The following sections provide recommendations for cut and fill slopes 7.1. Cut Slopes 7.1.1. Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 (hori- zontal:vertical). The maximum recommended height of a cut slope shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Slopes in excess of 30 feet high shall be provided with terrace drains (swales) in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Uniform Building Code, Section 3315 and the details provided in Figure E of these Guidelines. 7.1 2. The geotechnical consultant shall observe cut slopes during excavation The geoteclmical consultant shall be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations. 7.1.3. If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable materials, overexcavation of the unsuitable material and replacement with a compacted stabilization fill shall be evaluated and may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the geotechnical consultant, stabilization fill construction shall be in general accor- dance with the details provided on Figure F of these Guidelines 7.1.4. If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical con- ditions are encountered in the slope which were not anticipated in the preliminary evaluation report, the geotechnical consultant shall evaluate the conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. 7.2. Fill Slopes 72.1. When placing fill on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal vertical), topsoil, slope wash, colluvium, and other materials deemed unsuitable shall be removed. Near- horizontal keys and near- vertical benches shall be excavated into sound bedrock or firm fill material, in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical consultant. Keying and benching shall be accomplished in general accordance with the details provided on Figure A of these Guidelines. Compacted fill shall not be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been observed by the geotechnical consultant. Where the natural gradient of a slope is less than 5. 1, benching is generally not necessary. However, fill shall not T�yid EaMwi4 Gwddmes doi / � � Rm liog U-] I I n 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 11 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines be placed on compressible or otherwise unsuitable materials left on the slope face. 7.2.2. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a temporary slope, benching shall be conducted in the manner described in Section 7.2.1. A 3 -foot or higher near - vertical bench shall be excavated into the documented fill prior to placement of additional fill. 7.2.3. Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 (hori- zontal:vertical). The height of a fill slope shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Slopes in excess of 30 feet high shall be provided with terrace drains (swales) and backdrains in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Uniform Building Code, Section 3315 and the details provided in Figure E of these Guidelines. 7.2.4. Unless specifically recommended otherwise, compacted fill slopes shall be over- built and cut back to grade, exposing firm compacted fill. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes shall be overexcavated and reconstructed in accor- dance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding may be increased until the desired compacted slope face condition is achieved. Care shall be taken by the contractor to provide mechanical compac- tion as close to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface as practical. 7.2.5. If access restrictions, property line location, or other constraints prevent over- building and cutting back of the slope face, an alternative method for compaction of the slope face may be attempted by conventional construction procedures in- cluding backrolling at intervals of 4 feet or less in vertical slope height, or as dictated by the capability of the available equipment, whichever is less. Fill slopes shall be backrolled utilizing a conventional sh6eps foot -type roller. Care shall be taken to maintain the desired moisture conditions and/or reestablish the same, as needed, prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slope shall again be moisture conditioned and backrolled. 726. The placement, moisture conditioning and compaction of fill slope materials shall be done in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5. of these Guidelines. 7.17. The contractor shall be ultimately responsible for placing and compacting the soil out to the slope face to obtain a relative compaction of 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density and a moisture content in accordance with Section 5. The geotechnical consultant shall perform field moisture and density tests at intervals of one test for approximately every 10,000 square feet of slope face and/or ap- proximately every 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 1i�` Ea ,k6 &d -dm 9 Rcv V58 p ®0 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' 7.2.8. Backdrains shall be provided in fill slopes in accordance with the details pre- sented on Figure A of these Guidelines, or as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. t 7.2.9. Fill shall be compacted prior to placement of survey stakes. This is particularly important on fill slopes. Slope stakes shall not be placed until the slope is com- pacted and tested. If a slope face fill does not meet the recommendations presented in this specification, it shall be recognized that stakes placed prior to completion of the recompaction effort will be removed and/or demolished at such time as the compaction procedures resume. ' 7.3. Top -of -Slope Drainage 7.3.1. For pad areas above slopes, positive drainage shall be established away from the �. top of slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradient of 2 percent or steeper at the top -of -slope areas. Site runoff shall not be permitted to ' flow over the tops of slopes. 7.3.2. Gunite -lined brow ditches shall be placed at the top of cut slopes to redirect sur- face runoff away from the slope face where drainage devices are not otherwise ' provided. 7.4. Slope Maintenance ' 7.4.1. In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting shall be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope plants shall consist of deep- rooting, variable ' root depth, drought- tolerant vegetation. Native vegetation is generally desirable. Plants native to semiarid and and areas may also be appropriate. Large - leafed ice plant should not be used on slopes. A landscape architect shall be consulted re- ' garding the actual types of plants and planting configuration to be used. 7.4.2. Irrigation pipes shall be anchored to slope faces and not placed in trenches exca- vated into slope faces. Slope irrigation shall be maintained at a level just ' sufficient to support plant growth. Property owners shall be made aware that over watenng of slopes is detrimental to slope stability. Slopes shall be monitored regularly and broken sprinkler heads and/or pipes shall be repaired immediately. 7.4 3. Periodic observation of landscaped slope areas shall be planned and appropriate measures taken to enhance growth of landscape plants. ' 7.4.4. Graded swales at the top of slopes and terrace drains shall be installed and the property owners notified that the drains shall be periodically checked so that they may be kept clear Damage to drainage improvements shall be repaired immedi- ately. To reduce siltation, terrace drains shall be constructed at a gradient of 3 ' percent or steeper, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer. 7.4.5. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant shall be contacted immediately for field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair i I T�ywalEanhwTk GwdeWo dog to R'e 1198 ar) f 1 1 1 li. Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines 8. TRENCH BACKFILL The following sections provide recommendations for backfilling of trenches 8.1. Trench backfill shall consist of granular soils (bedding) extending from the trench bottom to 1 or more feet above the pipe. On -site or imported fill which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant may be used above the granular backfill. The cover soils directly in contact with the pipe shall be classified as having a very low expansion potential, in accordance with UBC Standard 18 -2, and shall contain no rocks or chunks of hard soil larger than 3/4 -inch in diameter. 8.2. Trench backfill shall, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means to 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D1557 -91. Backfill soils shall be placed in loose lifts 8- inches thick or thinner, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommenda- tions of Section 5 of these guidelines. The backfill shall be tested by the geotechnical consultant at vertical intervals of approximately 2 feet of backfill placed and at spacings along the trench of approximately 100 feet in the same lift. 8.3. Jetting of trench backfill materials is generally not a recommended method of densi- fication, unless the on -site soils are sufficiently free - draining and provisions have been made for adequate dissipation of the water utilized in the jetting process. 8.4. If it is decided that jetting may be utilized, granular material with a sand equivalent greater than 30 shall be used for backfilling in the areas to be jetted. Jetting shall generally be considered for trenches 2 feet or narrower in width and 4 feet or shal- lower in depth. Following jetting operations, trench backfill shall be mechanically compacted to the specified compaction to finish grade. 8.5. Trench backfill which underlies the zone of influence of foundations shall be me- chanically compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D1557 -91. The zone of influence of the foun- dations is generally defined as the roughly triangular area within the limits of a 1:1 projection from the inner and outer edges of the foundation, projected down and out from both edges. 8.6. Trench backfill within slab areas shall be compacted by mechanical means to a rela- tive compaction of 90 percent or more of maximum dry density, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D1557 -91. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be omitted or spot testing may be performed, as deemed appropriate by the geotech- nical consultant. 8.7. When compacting soil in close proximity to utilities, care shall be taken by the grading contractor so that mechanical methods used to compact the soils do not dam- age the utilities. If the utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use T)T1W I I Rav ❑98 �o� ' Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, then the grading con- tractor may elect to use light mechanical compaction equipment or, with the approval of the geotechnical consultant, cover the conduit with clean granular material. These ' granular materials shall be jetted in place to the top of the conduit in accordance with the recommendations of Section 8.4 prior to initiating mechanical compaction proce- dures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon ' review by the geotechnical consultant and the utility contractor, at the time of con- struction. 8.8. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding materials are not recommended for use in '.' slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential for buildup of seepage forces or piping of backfill materials. i8.9. The contractor shall exercise the necessary and required safety precautions, in accor- dance with OSHA Trench Safety Regulations, while conducting trenching ' operations. Such precautions include shoring or laying back trench excavations at 1:1 or flatter, depending on material type, for trenches in excess of 5 feet in depth. The geotechnical consultant is not responsible for the safety of trench operations or sta- biIity of the trenches 9. DRAINAGE ' The following sections provide recommendations pertaining to site drainage. ' 9.1. Canyon subdrain systems recommended by the geotechnical consultant shall be in- stalled in accordance with the Canyon Subdrain Detail, Figure D, provided in these ' Guidelines. Canyon subdrains shall be installed to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on project plans. The actual subdrain location shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant in the field during grading. Materials speci- fied in the attached Canyon Subdrain Detail shall not be changed or modified unless so recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrains shall be surveyed by a li- censed land surveyor /civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys prior to commencement of filling over the sub- drains. 9.2. Typical backdrains for stability, side hill, and shear key fills shall be installed in ac- cordance with the details provided on Figure A and Figure F of these Guidelines. 9.3. Roof, pad, and slope drainage shall be directed away from slopes and structures to ' suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g , gutters, downspouts, concrete swales, etc ). 9.4. Positive drainage adjacent to structures shall be established and maintained. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations of ' the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more out - T)y,ol Ea ,k GwddI d., 12 R,. 119E 011w 0ii I Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' side the building perimeter, further maintained by a graded swale leading to an ap- propriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and /or landscape architect. 9.5. Surface drainage on the site shall be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper shall be maintained over the pad area and drainage ' patterns shall be established to direct and remove water from the site to an appropri- ate outlet. 9.6. Care shall be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, '. drainage terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final ' grading shall be maintained for the life of the project. Property owners shall be made very clearly aware that altering drainage patterns may be detrimental to slope stabil- ity and foundation performance. ' 10. SITE PROTECTION The site shall be protected as outlined in the following sections. 10.1. Protection of the site during the period of grading shall be the responsibility of the contractor unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties. Completion of a portion of the project shall not be considered to ' preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the need for site protection, until such time as the project is complete as agreed upon by the geotechnical consultant, the client, and the regulatory agency. 10.2. The contractor is responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. Recommen- dations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations are made ' in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, shall not be con- sidered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant shall also not be considered to preclude more restrictive re- quirements by the applicable regulatory agencies. ' 10.3. Precautions shall be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavation, and grading to protect the site from flooding, pending, or inundation by surface runoff. Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season to adequately direct sur- face runoff away from and off the working site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps shall be provided to remove water as needed during periods of rainfall. 10.4. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting shall be used as needed to reduce the potential for unprotected slopes to become saturated. Where needed, the contractor shall install ' check dams, desilting basins, riprap, sandbags or other appropriate devices or methods to reduce erosion and provide safe conditions during inclement weather. Rcv I/98 13 W-1 Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' 10.5. During periods of rainfall, the geotechnical consultant shall be kept informed by the contractor of the nature of remedial or precautionary work being performed on site (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.). ' 10.6. Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the geotechnical consultant and arrange a walk -over of the site in order to visually assess rain - related damage. The geo- technical consultant may also recommend excavation and testing in order to aid in the evaluation. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall make exca- vations in order to aid in evaluation of the extent of rain - related damage. 10.7. Rain- or irrigation- related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other adverse conditions noted by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected shall be classified as "Unsuitable Material' and shall be subject to overexcavation and re- placement with compacted fill or to other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 10.8. Relatively level areas where saturated soils and /or erosion gullies exist to depths ' greater than 1 foot shall be overexcavated to competent materials as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Where adverse conditions extend to less than 1 foot in depth, saturated and /or eroded materials may be processed in- place. Overexcavated ' or in -place processed materials shall be moisture conditioned and compacted in ac- cordance with the recommendations provided in Section 5. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be overexcavated, moisture conditioned, ' and compacted until the specifications are met. 10.9. Slope areas where saturated soil and /or erosion gullies exist to depths greater than 1 ' foot shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where adversely affected materials exist to depths of I foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture condition- ing in -place and compaction in accordance with the appropriate specifications may tbe attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be overexcavated, moisture conditioned, and compacted until the specifications are met. As conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may also be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 10.10. During construction, the contractor shall grade the site to provide positive drainage away from structures and to keep water from ponding adjacent to structures. Water shall not be allowed to damage adjacent properties. Positive drainage shall be main- , tained by the contractor until permanent drainage and erosion reducing devices are installed in accordance with project plans. T),oW E h=tkG deWc dot t; Rev 1199 010+0 i,, lE�,k Gmd,W. da, 15 R" 1199 M Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' 11. DEFINTTIONS OF TERMS Unconsolidated detrital deposits deposited by flowing water; ALLUVIUM: includes sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes, and in estuaries. AS- GRADED (AS- BUILT): The site conditions upon completion of grading. ' A temporary construction slope at the rear of earth- retaining BACKCUT: structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilization fills, or retaining walls. BACKDRAIN: Generally a pipe- and - gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth- retaining structures such as buttresses, ' stabilization fills, and retaining walls. BEDROCK: Relatively undisturbed in -place rock, either at the surface or beneath surficial deposits of soil.._ BENCH: A relatively level step and near- vertical riser excavated into fill is to be placed. sloping ground on which ' BORROW (IMPORT). Any fill material hauled to the project site from off -site areas. BUTTRESS FILL- A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engi- neering calculations, to retain slopes containing adverse geologic features. A buttress Is generally specified by mini- mum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a back drainage system. ' firm CIVIL ENGINEER: The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting responsible for preparation of the grading plans and surveying, and veri- fying as- graded topographic conditions. The developer or a project - responsible authorized represen- CLIENT: tative. The client has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant and authorizing the contractor and/or other con - sultants to perform work and/or provide services. COLLUVUUM: Generally loose deposits, usually found on the face or near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity ,!. through slow continuous downhill creep (see also Slope Wash) 1r 1- COMPACTION: The densification of a fill by mechanical means. i,, lE�,k Gmd,W. da, 15 R" 1199 M Ninyo & Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines ' CONTRACTOR: A person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the client to perform demolition, grading, and other site improvements. DEBRIS: The products of clearing, grubbing, and /or demolition, or contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted ' fill, and/or any other material so designated by the geotech- nical consultant. ENGINEERED FILL: A fill which the geotechnical consultant or the consultant's representative has observed and/or tested during placement, enabling the consultant to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant and the governing agency re- quirements. ' ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST: A geologist certified by the state licensing agency who ap- plies geologic knowledge and principles to the exploration and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil, as re- lated to the design of civil works. EROSION: The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the ' movement of wind, water, and /or ice EXCAVATION: The mechanical removal of earth materials. ' EXISTING GRADE: The ground surface configuration prior to grading, original grade. FILL: Any deposit of soil, rock, soil -rock blends, or other similar materials placed by man. FINISH GRADE: The final as- graded ground surface elevation that conforms to the grading plan. GEOFABRIC: An engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications such as subgrade stabilization and filtering. GEOTECFWICAL CONSULTANT: The geotechnical engineering and engineering geology con- sulting firm retained to provide technical services for the ' project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the geotechnical consultant include observations by the geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist and other per- ' sons employed by and responsible to the geotechnical consultant. ' Typical EaMvnA Gwddmc d., 16 ko Vog _r�eO43 065 FA] Typical Earthwork Guidelines Ninyo & Moore r ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: A licensed civil engineer and geotechnical engineer, ap- who applies scientific proved by the state licensing agency, methods, engineering principles, and professional experience to the acquisition, interpretation, and use of knowledge of ' materials of the earth's crust to the resolution of engineering problems. Geotechnical engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology, and related sciences. Any operation consisting of excavation, filling, or combina- ' GRADING: tions thereof and associated operations. LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: Material, often porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural or manmade slopes. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Un- ' less otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557 -91. ' OPTIMUM MOISTURE: The moisture content at the maximum dry density. COMPACTION: The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of a RELATIVE material as compared to the maximum dry density of the material. ' The ground surface configuration at which time the surface ROUGH GRADE: elevations approximately conform to the approved plan. ' Similar to a subsurface buttress; however, it is generally con- SHEAR KEY: structed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without encroach- ' ing into the lower portion of the slope. The particular parcel of land where grading is being per- SITE: formed. An inclined ground surface, the steepness of which is gener- ' SLOPE: ally specified as a ratio of horizontal units to vertical units. Soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a SLOPE WASH: slope by gravity assisted by the action of water not confined to channels (see also Colluvium). rSLOUGH: Loose, uncompacted fill material generated during grading r operations. ' T)7d E�,t Guidcl. dot Ro 1198 17 r I Tly,ai �.,k cwa'w' eon 18 Nev 1199 i Ninyo &Moore Typical Earthwork Guidelines Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or com- ' SOIL: binations thereof. STABILIZATION FILL: A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. A minimum stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A sta- bilization fill may or may not have a back drainage system specified. SUBDRAIN: Generally a pipe- and - gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill along the alignment of buried canyons or former drainage channels. TAILINGS: Non - engineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to ' equipment haul roads. A relatively level bench constructed on the face of a graded ' TERRACE: slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. The upper zone of soil or bedrock materials, which is usually ' TOPSOIL: dark in color, loose, and contains organic materials. WINDROW: A row of large rocks buried within engineered fill in accor- dance with guidelines set forth by the geotechnical consultant. r I Tly,ai �.,k cwa'w' eon 18 Nev 1199 i 1� 1; 1� i 1, III 11� II� ifs 11i 11� FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL GROUND SWALE AT TOP of SLOPE 2 � COMPACTED FILL-- 1 / / OUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE i OUTLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE / RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE / µpTER1Pi / CIVIL ENGINEER � / t,E / UN5L1Tt F6 / REN,pVf / BENCH INCLINED NATURAL GROUND / / 4' TYP. SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE DI F.-10' TYP -� BEDROCK OR / / COMPETENT MATERIAL, 3' MIN 2% AS EVALUATED BY THE T� BACKDRAIN rGEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT 15' MIN. AND T- CONNECTION (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) FILL SLOPE OVER CUT NATURAL GROUND 20' MIN.* OUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE OUTLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER SWALE AT TOP OF SLOPE 2 ,'- COMPACTED FILL" 1 / µPT LRIPi �i REMOVE U/ BENCH INCLINED / 4 TYP. SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE 0' TYP BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BACKDRAIN AND T- CONNECTION (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) *MINIMUM KEY WIDTH DIMENSION. ACTUAL WIDTH SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON EVALUATION OF SITE - SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS. NOTES: CUT SLOPE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E /�/inw &*uure NOT TO SCALE FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL GROUND OR CUT FIGURE A a4® 1 1� 1� i 1� i� II 1 �f 1., 11 TRANSITION (CUT -FILL) LOT ` COMPACTED FILL / NATURAL GROUND / II 5' MIN. -- 1 3' MIN. f T OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT / BEDROCK OR COMPETENT - MATERIA AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NATURAL GROUND UNDERCUT LOT / /y / M / / vN5 / R / 5' MIN.► -I ` COMPACTED FILL --/ OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT lolr BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS EVALUATED BY THE -� GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE' DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE DETAILS ABOVE ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY BE MODIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AS CONDITIONS DICTATE. eorthib.dvg 3' TMIN. i NOT TO SCALE ���®& q/1 ®ur .�� TRANSITION AND I / ®� UNDERCUT LOT DETAILS FIGURER of /AO 1 (r 'I 'I 11 CANYON SUBDRAIN NATURAL GROUND \ COMPACTED FILL / 4e \ REMOVE / BEDROCK OR SEE FIGURE A UNSUITABLE FOR DETAILS OF BENCHES MATERIAL FOR MATERIAL, j 912 AS EVALUATED BY THE fGEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT LOWEST BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN SUBDRAIN L— (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINATION SUBDRAIN PIPE OUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE OUTLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER e.,Ihtcd�, 0 DESIGN FINISH GRADE COMPACTED FILL) CUTOFF WALL CONSTRUCTED _ OF GROUT, CONCRETE, BENTONITE, OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NON - PERFORATED PIPE- PERFORATED PIPE 20' MIN. - ►ice , MIN. I Eq �- FILTER MATERIAL NOT TO SCALE CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL FIGURE C '0A 1 'I WINDROW 30 S.E. SOIL (FLOODED) 6 " -48" L� ,I IWINDROW (TYPICAL) I 'I I I PAD SE ZONE A MATERIAL 15' MIN. 2 / i� 0 0 CTION J I i i i J W' OR RECTANGULAR TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET DEEP AND 5 FEET WIDE EXCAVATED INTO COMPACTED FILL OR NATURAL GROUND I .o FINISH GRADE STREET 0 ZONE B MATERIAL 0 0 o� o 5' MIN. o , c-r. 15' MIN. --+ lo- 8' DEEP OR 2' BELOW DEEPEST PROPOSED UTILITY, WHICHEVER IS GREATER BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIALI AS EVALUATED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. ZONE A: COMPACTED FILL WITH ROCK FRAGMENTS NO GREATER�THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER. MAY BE PLACED IN STAGGERED ZONE B: COMPACTED INDROWS WITH LONG IN THFRAGMENTS S TZONET AND SURROUNDED SURRfOUNDED INCHES EGRANULAR SOIL (30 SAND EQUIVALENT) DENSIFIED BY ' FLOODING. ROCK FRAGMENTS LESS THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE PLACED IN COMPACTED FILL SOIL. ' NOTE: SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E. NOT TO SCALE earinitl.tlwg � ®r� CY OVERSIZED ROCK PLACEMENT DETAIL FIGLIRE D I MID -SLOPE BACKDRAIN (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE TERRACE WIDTH' -�'��j�• REINFORCED CONCRETE- _.__I PAVED TERRACE (SWALE) COMPACTED FILL I #� 2% ! c 2% 1 I I MAXIMUM VERTICAL SLOPE HEIGHT, H (FEET) ' I LESS THAN 30 ' 60 I 120 I ' I I GREATER THAN 120 SWALE AT TOP OF SLOPE 15 MIN. K BENCH INCLINED I SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE H tZr BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WHEN POSSIBLE, LOWEST BACKDRAIN SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE BASE OF KEY (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) _ * TERRACE WIDTH AND LOCATION NO TERRACE REQUIRED ONE TERRACE AT LEAST 6 FEET WIDE AT MIDHEIGHT ONE TERRACE AT LEAST 12 FEET WIDE AT APPROXIMATELY MIDHEIGHT AND 5 -FOOT WIDE TERRACES CENTERED IN REMAINING SLOPES DESIGNED BY CIVIL ENGINEER WITH APPROVAL OF GOVERNING AUTHORITIES NOTES- 1. MID -SLOPE BACKDRAINS SHOULD BE PLACED IN FILL SLOPES IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH TERRACE 2. TCRRACES SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST A 5- PERCENT GRADIENT, AND RUN OFF SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO AN APPROPRIATE SURFACE DRAINAGE COLLECTOR. _. TERRACES SHOULD BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AND VEGETATION TO ALLOW UNRESTRICTED FLOW OF WATER. A. TERRACES SHOULD BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR. `L 5. REFER TO UBC CHAPTER 70 FOR ADDITIONAL RCOUIREMENTS. at of 1— Affificya &" ► 'DOr e §l NOT TO SCALE SLOPE DRAINAGE DETAIL FIGURE E of /# I, �1 COMPACTED FILL UNSTABLE MATERIAL PLANE OF WEAKNESS I BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, J AS EVALUATED BY THE ' GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT I \ BENCH INCLINED SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE (SEE FIGURE A) BACKDRAIN (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) r i r I j PROPOSED GRADED SURFACE COMPACTED FILL L I KEY WIDTH EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 5 T DEPTH OF KEY -z %�� T NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE I NOTES: 1. THE DEPTH AND WIDTH OF KEY WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON ANALYSIS f OF SITE- SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS. p. AN ADDITIONAL MID -SLOPE BACKDRAIN AND TERRACE DRAIN MAY BE RECOMMENDED FOR SLOPES OVER 30 FEET HIGH. SEE SLOPE DRAINAGE DETAIL, FIGURE E. f I f I F r is 3. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E. NOT TO SCALE eorthff.dvg (%/'� ® &� ®OCe SHEAR KEY DETAIL FIGURE F Jiff I \ \ UNSTABLE MATERIAL PLANE OF WEAKNESS I BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, J AS EVALUATED BY THE ' GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT I \ BENCH INCLINED SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE (SEE FIGURE A) BACKDRAIN (SEE DRAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) r i r I j PROPOSED GRADED SURFACE COMPACTED FILL L I KEY WIDTH EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 5 T DEPTH OF KEY -z %�� T NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE I NOTES: 1. THE DEPTH AND WIDTH OF KEY WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON ANALYSIS f OF SITE- SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS. p. AN ADDITIONAL MID -SLOPE BACKDRAIN AND TERRACE DRAIN MAY BE RECOMMENDED FOR SLOPES OVER 30 FEET HIGH. SEE SLOPE DRAINAGE DETAIL, FIGURE E. f I f I F r is 3. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E. NOT TO SCALE eorthff.dvg (%/'� ® &� ®OCe SHEAR KEY DETAIL FIGURE F Jiff wt SUBDRAIN CONFIGURATION BACKDRAIN CONFIGURATION ALTERNATIVE A* ALTERNATIVE B FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL (3 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAR FOOT) (9 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAR FOOT) T— CONNECTION (SEE DETAIL) \ 24" MIN. III ?9, M 12" MIN. .\. II. IF r IEE �- ` OUTLET P 'I -�24" MIN NON_PERf ORATED 2 PERFORATED PIPE INSTALLED WITH I PERFORATION DOWN (SEE SCHEDULE BELOW) ALTERNATIVE A SUBDRAIN CONFIGURATION I MAY BE USED IN FILLS LESS THAN 25 FEET DEEP T- CONNECTION DETAIL U - J j PERFORATED PIPE SLOPED AT 1% MIN. Ii TOWARD OUTLET PIPE NON- PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE 1( MAXIMUM ON CENTER HORIZONTALLY I - I FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS It PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED ALTERNATE GEOFABRIC DRAIN SYSTEM. CLASS II GRADATIONS SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1" 100 3/4" 90 -100 3/8" 40 -100 No. 4 25 -40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5 -15 No. 50 0 -7 No. 200 0 -3 NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATIVE THE FILTER MATERIAL MAY CONSIST OF I' MAXIMUM OPEN - GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC WITH A MINIMUM 6 -INCH OVERLAP. ' ! I ..dhlg.d.g yin�v &�n ®re 1 I'° 4' MIN. PERFORATED PIPE, 4" MIN. SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUIVALENT INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN END CAP PIPE SCHEDULE PERFORATED AND NON- PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PVC OR ACRYLONITRILE BUTADIENE STYRENE ABS3 OR EQUIVALENT, AND WILL HAVE A MINIMUM CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1000 PSI FOR DEPTHS OF FILL UP TO 50 FEET. FOR DEEPER FILLS, PERFORATED AND NON- PERFORATED PIPE SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH ADEOUATE CRUSHING STRENGTH. THE PIPE DIAMETER WILL GENERALLY MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, BUT MAY BE MODIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AS CONDITIONS DICTATE. THE LENGTH OF RUN IS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST ELEVATION. LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER 0 -500' 4" 500 -1500' 6" > 1500' 8" NOT TO SCALE DRAIN DETAIL FIGURE G HYDRAULIC BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT FOR REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065-2 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA October 22, 2001 JN:15- 100312 1. r I r' 1 r r r I i� if.. r!. Il HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 -2 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA October 22, 2001 Prepared for. Garrett Group, LLC 43529 Ridge Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared By. W . M o■ ■ CONSULTING JN: 15- 100312 PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION H:\PDATA\15100312\HD\HYDRA-RPT.DOC 14725 ALTON PARKWAY IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 -2027 949.472.3505 ■ FAX 949.472.8373 ■ www.RBF.com 2 Table of Contents SECTION1 — INTRODUCTION ............................................. ..............................1 �. 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................... ..............................1 1.2 EXISTING WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ............................... ..............................1 i1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................... ..............................1 SECTION 2 — ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY .....................3 2.1 HYDROLOGY .................................................................. ..............................3 j` 2.2 STREET FLOW ................................................................ ..............................3 2.3 CATCH BASINS ............................................................... ..............................3 2.4 STORM DRAINS .............................................................. ..............................3 2.5 WATER QUALITY ............................................................. ..............................4 2.5.1 Basin Sizing ......................................................... ............................... 4 2.5.2 Water Quality Outlet Calculation ........................... ..............................5 2.5.3 Stage- Storage Data ..........................:................... ..............................6 SECTION3 — SUMMARY ...................................................... ..............................7 i SECTION 4— TECHNICAL APPENDIX ................................. ..............................8 i List of Figures 1 FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP .......................................................... ..............................2 ,I List of Tables i! I 11 . TABLE 1 - WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME FOR BASIN A ....... ..............................5 TABLE 2 - WATER QUALITY BASIN OUTLET CALCULATION ............ ..............................6 TABLE 3 - WATER QUALITY BASIN STAGE - STORAGE DATA .......... ..............................6 i 3 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope ' This report summarizes the hydraulic analysis performed for Redhawk Communities Tract No. 23065 -2, a proposed 220 -acre residential development and high school. This report provides the basis of design for the onsite surface and underground storm drain system and water quality facilities required to service Tract No. 23065 -2. 1.2 Existing Watershed Description The project watershed has a tributary drainage area of 411 acres. The land is fairly covered with open brush and sparse development. The watershed runoff drains from the east to the west. Runoff travels along Pala Road to Temecula Creek. Approximately 240 acres of the watershed is in the Pechanga Indian Reservation, which is sparsely developed. Three holes from the Redhawk Golf Course are currently within the project boundaries of the watershed. 1.3 Project Description The project site is located in an unincorporated area Riverside County. The vicinity map with the project site location is displayed in Figure 1. The development area is bound by the Pechanga Indian Reservation on the East, Pechanga Road on the South, Pala Road on the West and Dear Hollow Road on the North. The proposed land uses for the development include Y4 -acre single family homes, multi - family apartments, and a high school. Redhawk Tract No. 23065 October 22,2oo7 Hydraulic Analysis 1 Garrett Group �[ [L' 111Th.,_ NORTH VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SECTION 2 - ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY I 2.1 Hydrology ' Flow rates used for the hydraulic analysis in this report were obtained from the RBF Report titled Hydrologic Analysis for Redhawk Tract No. 23065 dated February 28, 2001. The 10 -year flow rates were used to design the flow -by or on -grade type catch basins and assure the flow conveyed by the streets will not exceed the top of curb. The 100 -year flow rates were used to design the catch basins in sump or sag conditions. The 100 -year flows conveyed by the streets remain within the right -of way. 2.2 Street Flow The depth and velocity of flow in the streets were calculated using the computer program FlowMaster v6.0 by Haestad Methods, Inc. Street flow calculations and cross - sections for the 10- and 100 -year flows are provided in Appendix A of this report. 2.3 Catch Basins Catch basins were designed using the computer program FlowMaster v6.0 by Haestad Methods, Inc. Catch basin calculations and summary tables are provided in Appendix B of this report. 2.4 Storm Drains The Water Surface Pressure Gradient (WSPG) Hydraulic Analysis Computer Program was utilized to design the proposed storm drains. WSPG was developed by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The program computes and plots uniform and non - uniform steady flow water surface profiles and pressure gradients in open channels or closed conduits with irregular of regular sections. The flow in a system may alternate between supercritical, subcritical or pressure flow in any sequence. The computational procedure is based on solving Bernoulli's equation for the total energy at each section and Manning's formula for friction loss between the sections in a reach. Confluences are analyzed using pressure and momentum theory. The WSPG input and output files are provided in Appendix C of this report. Redhawk Tract No. 23065 October 22, 2007 Hydraulic Analysis 3 Garrett Group 91 2.5 Water Quality A hydrologic analysis was performed to estimate the volume of water assumed as the water quality volume for the water quality basin. The water quality basin has been sized to accommodate the volume of water to be treated, also referred to as the water quality capture volume. The numeric sizing criteria assumed for the sizing of the water quality basins are based on criteria defined by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region. Several BMP sizing criteria have been defined which may be applicable to constructed BMPs within the San Diego region. One criteria used for sizing BMPs is defined as.... "The volume of runoff produced from each and every storm event up to and including a historical record -based reference 24 -hour rainfall criterion for 'treatment' (0.6 inch approximate average for the San Diego County area) that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads achieved by the 85th percentile 24 -hour event. This criteria was used for sizing the water quality basin within the Redhawk project. Hydrodynamic separators will be used for catch basins downstream of the water quality basin. 2.5.1 Basin Sizing ' The volume of runoff was calculated using the method prescribed in the Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice No. 231ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87 — An Approach for Estimating Storm Water Quality Capture Volume (Pg. 175). The analytical procedure is based on a simple transformation of each storm's volume of precipitation to a runoff volume using a ' coefficient of runoff. A third -order regression equation to calculate the runoff coefficient was derived for this transformation. The runoff coefficient is calculated with the following equation. C= 0.858? -0.78 +0.7741+0.04 Where iC = runoff coefficient, and i = watershed imperviousness ratio. ' The following equation uses the prescribed precipitation depth of 0.6 inch and relates it to the "maximized" detention volume. Po =(a ` C) ` Ps Where ' Po = maximized detention volume determined using the volume capture ratio as its basis, watershed inch; a = 24 hour drain time regression constant from least- squares analysis; rHydraulic lc k Tract No. Analysis 23065 4 October 22, Garrett Group I 1 C = watershed runoff coefficient; and P6 = mean storm precipitation volume (0.6 inch), watershed inch. Table 1 below summarize the water quality basin volume calculated using the procedure above. Table 1 — Water Quality Capture Volume for Basin A Description Values I Notes Imperviousness Ratio i 1 0.50 JPlate E -6.3 RCFCD Hydrology Manual Runoff Coefficient C 0.34 IC = 0.858i3 -0.78i2 + 0.774i + 0.04 Drain Time of Capture Volume, hrs t 24 Regression Constant a 1.582 Table 5.4 ASCE Manual No. 87 Mean Storm Precipitation, in P6 0.6 Figure 5.3 ASCE Manual No. 87 Maximized Detention Volume, in Po 0.32 Po = a ' C ' P6 Po converted to ac -ft/ac Po 0.027 Watershed Area, Acre A 151.5 Total Tributary Area to System "A" Basin Volume, ac -ft Vo 4.07 Additional 20% for sediment, ac -ft I V 4.88 The water quality basin is designed as a flow- through type basin. The water quality capture volume of 4.88 ac -ft will fill the basin to a depth of 5.4 feet. Larger storms through the 100 -year event will flow over a weir at the 5.5 -foot depth and into the 72" storm drain Line "A -1 ". 2.5.2 Water Quality Outlet Calculation An orifice at the basin outlet structure will hydraulically control the outflow of the water quality capture volume to meet required 24 hour drain time. The orifice is sized using the following equation from the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide. 2A(H —Ho)"' _7x10- 5)A(H— H0)0.5 a — os — 3600CT�2g� CT where: a = area of orifice (ft2) A = average surface area of the pond (ft2) C= orifice coefficient T= drawdown time of full pond (hrs.) g = Gravity (32.2 ft/s2) H = elevation when the pond is full (ft) ' Redhawk Tract No. 23065 October 22, 2001 Hydraulic Analysis 5 Garrett Group I 'E 'j ,I ,1 '1 '( IL '! Ho = final elevation when pond is empty (ft) Orifice diameter for Basin A is 0.72 ft. Table 2 below shows the calculation for the orifice size. Table 2 - Water Quality Basin Outlet Calculation a = area of orifice (ft2) 0.406 d = diameter of orifice ft 0.719 A = average surface area of the pond ft2 39,640 C = orifice coefficient 0.66 T = drawdown time of full and hrs. 24 = Gravity 32.2 ft/s2 32.2 H = elevation when the pond is full ft 1151.50 Ho = final elevation when and is empty ft 1146.00 2.5.3 Stage- Storage Data The Stage- Storage data for the water quality basin is given in Table 3 below. Table 3 - Water Quality Basin Stage- Storage Data Depth Elevation Surface Area Volume Total Volume ft ft ac ac -Pt ac -ft 0. 1146 0.6249 0.00 0 1 1147 0.7171 0.67 0.67 2 1148 0.8138 0.77 1.44 3 1149 0.9226 0.87 2.30 4 1150 1.0318 0.98 3.28 5 1151 1.1423 1.09 4.37 6 1152 1.2540 1.20 5.57 7 1153 1.3703 1.31 6.88 8 1154 1.5283 1.45 8.33 9 1155 1.6606 1.59 9.92 10 1156 1.7667 1.71 11.64 Redhawk Tract No. 23065 October 22, 2001 Hydraulic Analysis 6 Garrett Group 6 SECTION 3 - SUMMARY 11 1 [_ 1( Redhawk Tract No. 23065 ') Hydraulic Analysis 7 October 22, 2001 Garrett Group This hydraulic study provides guidance to the development of the project on drainage and runoff management/water quality issues as individual phases are constructed during the development period of the project. This study consists of '( I two general components: 1. Design of the storm drain system to adequately convey the 10 -year storm runoff in the street and the 100 -year runoff within the right -of -way. 2. Estimates of the stormwater quality capture volume to be used in designing i the water quality facilities. Runoff from the watershed will discharge into the Pala Road Channel currently I under design by Lohr & Associates. Overflow from Pechanga Creek will also add i to the runoff discharging into the Pala Road Channel. References ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, Urban Runoff Quality Management, 1998. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, Water Quality Control Basin Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Hydrology Manual, 1978. 1l' State of California Department of Transportation, Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide, May 2000 11 1 [_ 1( Redhawk Tract No. 23065 ') Hydraulic Analysis 7 October 22, 2001 Garrett Group 1 1 1 r 1 1 i r r 1 r 1 1 r I SECTION 4 - TECHNICAL APPENDIX APPENDIX A — STREET /GUTTER FLOW CALCULATIONS APPENDIX B — CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C — WSPG STORM DRAIN HYDRAULICS APPENDIX D — WATER QUALITY BASIN OUTLET CALCULATIONS Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Hydraulic Analysis October 22, ZUU7 8 Garrett Group J( 1 1 1 1 1 .1 APPENDIX A STREET /GUTTER FLOW CALCULATIONS REDHAW K TRACT NO. 23065 ' Redhawk Tract No. 23065 October22, 2001 Hydraulic Analysis A Garrett Group Gutter Report Gutter Location Slope (Itift) Discharge (cis) Gutter Width (ft) Gutter Cross Slope (ft/ft) Road Cross Slope (Wft) Spread (ft) Mannings Coefficient Flow Area (its) Depth (ft) Gutter Depression (in) Velocity (1Vs) 10 -Year Deer Hollow N/E of Pala Road 0.005000 910 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 18.03 0.015 3.3 0.46 1.1 2.74 10 -Year Deer Hollow Road S/W of Peach Tree 0.030000 6.30 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 10.89 0.015 1 3 0.31 1 1 5.02 10 -Year Pala Road S/E of Deer Hollow N/W Side 0019200 7.50 2.00 0.083000 0.020000 12.42 0015 1.7 0.37 1.5 4.50 10 -Year Peach Tree Rd. S/E of Deer Hollow 0.006500 1.60 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 8.41 0 015 0.6 0.26 1.1 2.06 10 -Year Peach Tree Road East of Primrose North Side 0.009000 12.90 1.50 0083000 0.020000 18.42 0.015 3.5 0.46 1.1 3.73 10 -Year Peach Tree Road East of Primrose South Side 0.009000 6.40 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 13.98 0.015 2.0 0.37 1.1 3.16 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 41 East Side 0.005000 7.50 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 16.72 0.015 2.9 0.43 1.1 2.62 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 42 East Side 0.005000 6.00 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 17.14 0.015 3.0 0.44 1.1 2.66 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 43 East Side 0.007000 9.70 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 17.31 0.015 3.1 0.44 1.1 3.16 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 North Side 0007000 090 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 6.33 0.015 0.5 0.22 1.1 1.91 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 South Side 0.007000 15.80 1.50 0083000 0.020000 20.91 0.015 4.4 051 1.1 3.56 100 -Year Deer Hollow N/E of Pala Road 0.005000 14.20 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 21.41 0.015 4.7 0.52 1.1 3.05 100 -Year Deer Hollow Road S/W of Peach Tree 0030000 9.80 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 13.03 0.015 1.8 0.36 1.1 5.54 100 -Year Pala Road S/E of Deer Hollow N/W Side 0.019200 11.80 200 0.083000 0.020000 15.02 0.015 2.4 0.43 1.5 4.96 100 -Year Peach Tree Rd. S/E of Deer Hollow 0006500 2.50 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 10.18 0.015 1.1 0.30 1.1 2.26 100 -Year Peach Tree Road East of Primrose North Side 0.009000 20.20 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 21.90 0.015 4.9 0.53 1.1 4.15 100 -Year Peach Tree Road East of Primrose South Side 0.009000 10.00 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 16.68 0.015 2.9 0.43 1.1 3.51 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 41 East Side 0005000 11.70 1.50 0.083000 0020000 19.87 0.015 4.0 0.49 1.1 2.91 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 42 East Side 0.005000 12.50 .1.50 0.083000 0.020000 20.38 0.015 4.2 0.50 1.1 2.96 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 43 East Side 0.007000 15.20 1.50 0.083000 0020000 20.60 0.015 4.3 0.51 1.1 3.52 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 North Side 0.007000 1.50 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 8.04 0.015 0.7 0.26 1.1 1 209 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 South Side 0.007000 31.00 1.50 0.083000 0.020000 27.06 0.015 7.4 0.64 1.1 4.19 Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer RHE h: \pdata\ 15100312 \hd\flowmstr\3121m05120i.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 6 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 (614b) _ 05/12/01 05:25:02 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Deer Hollow N/E of PALA Ro. Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0050 ft /ft Discharge 9.10 cis Gutter Width 1.50 If Gutter Cross SIol1.0830 tt/ft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 ft/ft Spread 18.03 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.50' 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 ,0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 0 +20 VA 0.0 HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hd\flowmstr\312fm051201.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 8 Associates 05/12/01 05:34:55 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06706 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster v6 0 16141hj Page 1 of i f• f• � � � iii � f• � i� f• inner � iii innt� � � i� � Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section W 4 Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Deer Hollow Road S/W of PFA4A TV-6E- Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0300 Wit Discharge 6.30 cis Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slott 0830 Wit Road Cross Slop 1.0200 Wit Spread 10.89 ft Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 VAO.ON HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:ipdata\ 15100312 \hd\flowmstr\312fmO512O1.fm2 Robert Bain, William Frost 6 Associates 05/12/01 05:35:17 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster v6.0 (614b) Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Pala Road S/E of Deer Hollow jJ /W 51 PE. Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0192 Wft Discharge 7.50 cfs Gutter Width 2.00 ft Gutter Cross Slo11.0830 fl/fl Road Cross Slop 1.0200 ft/ft Spread 12.42 ft Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 V: 10.0 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group , h:l pdata% 1 51 0031 21hdVIowmstA312fm051201 .fm2 Robert Bela, William Frost & Associates 05112101 05:35:31 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster v6 0 [614bj Page 1 of 1 iN't iii � ® iiii� iiii� iiii� iii■ iii i� ross ectfon Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Peach Tree Rd. S/E of DE r Pk 140LA.0w0 Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 10065 Wit Discharge 1.60 cfs Gutter Width 1.50 If Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 Wit Road Cross Slop 1.0200 Wit Spread 8.41 If Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0. 0. 0.� 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 VA 0.0 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata\ 75100312 \hd\flowmstr\312fmO5 /201.1m2 Robert Belo, William Frost & Associates 05/12/01 05:36:09 PM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster v6 0 1614bj Page 1 of 1 M = = = M = M M = M M M M M A � Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Peach Tree Road East of PrimroSE NortTH 5 i V c Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0090 ft /ft Discharge 12.90 cis Gutter Width 1.50 If Gutter Cross Slof 1.0830 Wit Road Cross Slop 1.0200 ft /ft Spread 18.42 It Mannings Coelfic 0.015 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 0 +20 V:1 0.0 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata\ 75100312 \hd\flowmstr\312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates ` 05/12/01 05:36:26 PM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster v6.0 1614bj Page 1 of 1 M .M M = M M � Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Peach Tree Road East of Primrose- 50v ?N St vF_ Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0090 Will , Discharge 6.40 cis Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slot .0830 Hitt Road Cross Slop 1.0200 ft/ft Spread 13.98 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 VA 0.0 HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer RHE h:\pdata\ 75100312 \hd \flowmstr\312fm051201.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost d Associates FlowMaster v6.0 1614b] 05/12101 05:36:47 PM 0 Hassled Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 41 FJ.sv- SI vF_ Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0050 ft/ft Discharge 7.50 cis Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slof 1.0830 Wft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 fl/ft Spread 16.72 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 V:1 0.0 H:1 NITS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hdV[owmstr\312fm051201.fm2 Robert Bain, William Frost 6 Associates wak 05/12/01 05:37:02 PM m Hassled Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster v6.0 (614b) Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet Type Solve For 10-Year Primerose Ave. at Node 42 r Aar *101!L Gutter Section Spread Section Data Slope 1.0050 ft/ft Discharge 8.00 cis Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 Wit Road Cross Slop 1.0200 ft/ft Spread 1714 it Mannmgs Coeffic 0.015 0. W0 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 0 +20 VA 0.0 HA' NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:lpdata\ 75100312 1hdV1owmstr1312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Bela, William Frost 8 Assoclates 05/12101 05:37:15 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Protect Engineer: RHE FlowMasler v6.0 (614b] Page 1 of 1 � � � � � � � � i■�■ � iii � i� � � i� � � i� Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 43 EAST Sipe_ Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope W070 tt/ft Discharge 9.70 cfs Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slol1.0830 101 Road Cross Slop 1.02(0 Wilt Spread 17.31 It Mannmgs Coefhc 0.015 [Ia ilm 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 0 +20 V: 1 0.0 HA NITS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdala\ 15100312 \hdVlowmstr\312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost & Associates 05/12/01 05:37:44 PM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer RHE FlowMaster v6.0 1614b] Page 1 of 1 �v Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 Uo RTH Sraf_ Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0070 Wit Discharge 0.90 cts Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slo110830 Wtt Road Cross Slop 1.0200 Wit Spread 6.33 It Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 V:1 0.0L H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\pdata\ 75100312 \hd\flowmstA312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 i614bj 05112/01 05:37:54 PM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 � r � � r � ■� i� iii � i� � r■ r i� it it i� r Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 -5 oV T A S t v E Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0070 ft/ft Discharge 15.80 cfs Gutter Width 1.50 It Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 tt/ff Spread 20.91 If Mannings Coeffic 0 015 0.55 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 VA 0.0 N HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE hApdata\ 15100312 \hWlowmstr\312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 6 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614b) 05/12/01 05:38:07 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 f! ! i! ! ! ! it f• ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Deer Hollow N/E of PAL-A {10A4 Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0050 ft/ft Discharge 14.20 cts Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slop 0830 1`1/111 Road Cross Slop ).0200 ft/ft Spread 21.41 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.55 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 VAO.ON H:1 NITS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\ pdata\ 15100312 thcrVlowmstr\312fmO512Ot.fm2 Robert Sam, William Frost 8 Associates p� 05/12101 05:39:05 PM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA 1203) 755 -1666 `A Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster V6 01614b] Page 1 of 1 � r ■■� � ire �■ i� � iril it ire i� i� i� � a. riii � r Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Deer Hollow Road S/W of FEACH 'I-RA—EE- Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0300 Wit Discharge 9.80 cis Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 fl/ft Spread 13.03 ft Mannings Coelfic 0.015 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 V:1 0.0 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\ pdata \75100312\hdVlowrnst6312fmO5l2O I.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6 0 1614b) 05/12101 05:39:33 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page t of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Pala Road S/E of Deer Hollow S 1 or Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope . 1.0192 Wit Discharge 11.80 cis Gutter Width 2.00 it Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 fttft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 Wit Spread 15.02 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.50.1 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 v:10.0[�' H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hdVlowmstr\312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 6 Associates 05/12/01 05:40:20 PM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Project Engineer: RHE FlowMaster v6.0 [614b) Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Peach Tree Rd. S/E of DEEP— 40,L Ow Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 10065 Wit Discharge 2.50 cis Gutter Width 1.50 It Gutter Cross Slo)1.0830 Wit Road Cross Slop 1.0200 Wit Spread 10.18 It Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 VA O.0 N H:1 N TS N Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group - Project Engineer: RHE tolN h:\pdata \15100312\hdVioW str\312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Belo, William Frost & Associates r FlowMaster v6.0 1614b) ... ..�....,, -, o.. T Naoetnd Methnd¢ Inr- 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 iiiia ia� a_ a ia_ a:. iiiia iiia- a■ a- �a. ia. a_ a� a iiiia. a_ i�a- � Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Peach Tree Road East of Primrosq OvtR- A 91 DE Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 10090 Rift Discharge 20.20 cis Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 ft1tt Road Cross Stop 10200 Wit Spread 21.90 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 AM 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 V: 10.0 HA NTS �► Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h: 1pdata11 5 1 003 1 21hcrViowmstr1312fmO512O1 .fm2 Robes Beln, William Frost d Assoelates FtowMasfer v6 O (614bj 05112/01 05:41:19 PM 0 Hassled Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 i� �: r i� �_ �_ � ice■ �■ �■ �_ �. �_ r. r ii�r. ir. r i� Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Peach Tree Road East of Primrose. SovTµ 51 yr Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0090 fUtt Discharge 10.00 cis Gutter Width 1.50 If Gutter Cross Slol 1.0830 ft /ft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 It/ft Spread 1668 It Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 VA 0.0 N HA NTS W Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE lZit h:\pdata\ 15100312 V1ddlowmstA312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 6 Associates FlowMasler v6.0 1614b] nsrl gin1 (15.41:41 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 r it iir r r� i� iiir r r r i1r ii�r ire r� r r it Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 42 EA%T sroE Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0050 fit Discharge 12.50 cis Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 fl/ft Spread 20.38 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.55 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 v:10.0 H:1 NITS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hd\flowmstA312fm051201.fm2 Robert Belo, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614b[ 05/12101 05:42:05 PM 0 Hassled Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page i of 1 i• i• i� � i� i• � i� i� � i� f• i� iii i� i� i� s � Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 43 EAST S IM6 Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 10070 ft/ft Discharge 1520 cfs Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 ft/ft Spread 20.60 ft Mannings Coeffic 0.015 0.55 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 V: 1 0.0 HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata \75100312\hdV[ow str\312fm051201.lm2 Robert Beln, William Frost IN Associates ` - 05/12101 06:01:44 PM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 M Project Engineer: RHE FlowMasler v6.0 1614b] Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Protect Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 NoV40 S, Pm Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0070 Wit Discharge 1.50 cis Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slol 1.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 ft/ft Spread 8.04 it Mannings Coeffic 0.015 v 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 VA 0.0 H:1 NITS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hd\flowmstr\312fm051201.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost b Associates 05112101 05:42:39 PM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 W Project Engineer RHE FlowMaster v6.0 (614b( Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Gutter Section Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primerose Ave. at Node 44 your rF S r pE Type Gutter Section Solve For Spread Section Data Slope 1.0070 ft/ft Discharge 31.00 cis Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slot 1.0830 fVft Road Cross Slop 1.0200 tt/tt Spread 27.06 it Mannmgs Coefhc 0.015 0.70 0.60 0.501` 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 0 +30 VA 0.0 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\pdata \15100312\hdVIOw str\312fmO5l2Ol.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 6 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614b[ n51121n1 [A -42:51 PM 0 Haeslad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06709 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Date: 05/12/01 File name: 312ST100.RES CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 22.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = 0.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) = 0.03125 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) = 0.12500 FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE. STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: _____________________________________________ _______________________________ WARNING: STREET FLOW SPLITS OVER STREET - CROWN. NOTE: STREET FLOW EXCEEDS TOP OF CURB. THE FOLLOWING STREET FLOW RESULTS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NEGLIBLE FLOW OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE STREET CHANNEL. THAT IS, ALL FLOW ALONG THE PARKWAY, ETC., IS NEGLECTED. STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.57 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.00 HALFSTREET FLOW(CFS) = 15.61 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.07 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.75 ............... a.... ..... . DESCRIPTION OF STUDY x ... ...a........x.a....... • REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RBF ON: 15- 100312 PRE 5/12/01 • 100 -YEAR STREET FLOW IN PRIMROSE AVENUE AT NODE NO. 44 ` • THIRD MODEL SHOWS FLOW WILL EXCEED CROWN ON NORTH SIDE WITH SOUTH SPLIT ` C . x... a.........x.. ...x....a..axxx..ax...a..x...xu x.a.xx....r..... aaa.xx.x.a ' »» STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION«« __________________ _______________________ ________ _______ - CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) = 0.007000 15.6 )5.4 �-- SPUT TO Aof.TA CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 16.90 _ ' AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = 0.015000 -1 j- (, p.ck F- FLOW 1-1 4n1uTA CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIOTH(FEET) = 22.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000 ' OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = 0.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) = 0.03125 ' CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) = 0.12500 FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS "'STREET FLOW SPLITS OVER STREET-CROWN... ' FULL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.57 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.00 FULL HALF - STREET FLOW(CFS) = 14.97 FULL HALF - STREET VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.02 I - -- _SPLIT DEPTH( FEET)_=---- 0 32__- SPLIT - FLOOD - WIDTH(FEET) - = 9.51--- _ - -___ SPLIT FLOW(CFS) = 1.93 SPLIT VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.88 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: NOTE STREET FLOW EXCEEDS TOP OF CURB. THE FOLLOWING STREET FLOW RESULTS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NEGLIBLE FLOW OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE STREET CHANNEL. THAT IS, ALL FLOW ALONG THE PARKWAY, ETC., IS NEGLECTED. I STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.57 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.00 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY)FEET /SEC.) = 3.02 ' PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.71 15 Date: 05/12/01 File name: 312ST100.RES Page 3 ' .......................... DESCRIPTION OF STUDY -- ................... ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RBF JN: 15- 100312 RHE 5/12/01 100 -YEAR STREET FLOW IN PRIMROSE AVENUE AT NODE NO. 44 ' •' FOURTH ` MODEL * SHOWS` DEPTH• OF STREET. FLOW WITH FLOWe SPLIT. EVENLYefiY*fe.'•e' ' »» STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION «« CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) = 0.007000(pTq ST REST F CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 32.50 31.0 + k•5 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = 0.015000 — CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 22.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 / INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000 32-5 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000 I . ZS LFS ul �.5 ODE Z CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = 0.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) = 0.03125 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) = 0.12500 FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET EVENLY ON BOTH SIDES '— STREET FLOWING FULL— STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: _____________________________________________ ___ _______________ _____________ NOTE: STREET FLOW EXCEEDS TOP OF CURB. THE FOLLOWING STREET FLOW RESULTS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NEGLIBLE FLOW OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE STREET CHANNEL. THAT IS, ALL FLOW ALONG THE PARKWAY, ETC., IS NEGLECTED. STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.58 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.00 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.14 PRODUCT OF DEPTHSVELOCITY = 1.81 3G Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Hydraulic Analysis APPENDIX B CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS REDHAW K TRACT NO. 23065 October 22, 2001 B Garrett Group 32 Redhawk Tract 23065 JN: 1 5- 1 0031 2 Garrett GrouD Curb Inlet Catch Basins On -Grade Discharcle Calculation Curb Discharge Discharge Modified Depth at Catch Total Opening from Clogging Depth at Storm Discharge + Intercepted Bypass Hydrology Factor Storm Catch Catch Opening Basin Invert from Bypass Flow Flow Efficiency Interception CB -1 Basin ID Basin Type Length 50% Hydrology 0.74 T CB -2 Sump Length 10.0 50% 20.0 ft ft (cis) cis cis cis tt CB -3 On -Grade 14 0.43 7.5 7.5 6.3 1.2 0.84 21.9 CB -4 On -Grade 14 0.46 8.0 9.2 7.2 2.0 0.78 24.6 m > C13-5 On -Grade 21 0.47 9.7 11.7 10.3 1.4 0.88 30.3 0 CB -8 On -Grade 21 0.37 7.5 7.5 7.2 0.3 0.96 25.3 CB -9 On -Grade 21 0.46 9.1 9.1 8.8 0.3 0.97 24.4 `m CB -3 On -Grade 14 0.49 11.7 11.7 8.3 3.4 0.71 28.1 d Y CB -4 On -Grade 14 0.54 12.5 15.9 10.0 5.9 0.63 33.2 0 ° CB -5 On -Grade 21 0.56 15.2 21.1 15.1 6.0 0.71 41.9 Curb Inlet Catch Basins in Sump Dischar a Calculation Curb Discharge Modified Depth at Catch Catch Opening from Clogging Storm Basin ID Basin Type Length Hydrology Factor Discharge Basin Invert tt (cis) cfs ft CB -1 Sump 21 20.2 50% 40.4 0.74 T CB -2 Sump 7 10.0 50% 20.0 0.72 °o CB -6 Sump 14 17.3 50% 34.5 0.88 CB -7 Sump 14 17.3 50% 34.5 0.88 W VA -- Redhawk Tract 23065 JN: 15- 100312 Detailed Catch Basin Output Storm 10 -Year 100 -Year Catch Basin Location CB -3 CB -4 I CB -5 I CB-8 CB -9 CB -1 I CB -2 T CB -3 CB -4 I CB -5 I CB -6 CB -7 Basin Type On -Grade On -Grade On -Grade On -Grade On-Gradel Sump I Sum On -Grade On -Grade On -Grade Sump Sum Discharge cfs 7.5 9.2 11.7 7.5 9.1 40.4 20 11.7 15.9 21.1 34.5 34.5 Slope fVft 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.0192 0.005 0 0 0.005 0.005 0.007 0 0 Spread ft 16.72 18.1 18.62 12.42 18.03 15.79 14.66 19.87 22.36 23.37 22.46 22.46 Gutter Width ft 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Gutter Cross Slo a fVft 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 Road Cross Slope fUft 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Mannin sCoefficient 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 Efficiency 0.84 0.78 0.88 0.96 0.97 " 0.71 0.63 0.711.1, Curb Opening Length ft 14 141 21 21 21 21 7 14 14 21 14 14 Opening Height/Width (t 0.83 0.83 -'„ 0.83 0.83 Curb Throat Type Inclined Inclined , , Inclined Inclined Local Depression in 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Local Depression Width 11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Throat Incline Angle (degrees) 56.31 56.31 - "" 56.31 56.31 Intercepted Flow cfs 6.3 7.19 10.3 7.19 8.84 - ; "i ?=': -; r_: °'. 8.33 9.97 15.07 Bypass Flow cfs 1.2 2.01 1.4 0.31 0.26 :.,! = s;:7w': i' - -: >;; " 3.37 5.93 6.03 =' Depth ft 0.43 0.46 0.47 0.37 0.46 0.74 0.72 0.49 0.54 0.56 0.88 0.88 Flow Area ft2 2.9 3.3 3.5 1.7 3.3 , - S!4 -,- a 'a• " 4 5.1 5.5 Gutter Depression in 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Total Depression in 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Velocity If s) 2.62 2.75 3.31 4.5 2.74 2.91 3.14 3.81 " Equivalent Cross Slo a tuft 0.0481 0.0459 0.0451 0.0742 0.046 t'tiu:::`. `; "6�+� 0.0435 0.0407 0.0398 'P Len [h Factor 0.64 0.57 0.69 0.83 0.86 - - 0.5 0.42 0.5 Total Interce lion Length (fl 21.9 24.55 30.34 25.29 24.4 '. ' -'d' ?F ; : " 28.05 33.17 47.9 . %O m ! M M m m m = m m m m m m mm iii m m Catch Basin Summary Catch Basin Location 3ischarge (cfs) nterceptec Flow (cfs) Bypass Flow (cfs) Efficiency Depth (tt) Curb Opening Length (ft) Total nterceptio Length (fl) Spread (ft) Slope (ft/ft) Local epressior (in) Local Depressiot Width (ft) Opening eight/Width (tt) 10 -Year Deer Hollow Rd N/E of Pala Rd. CB- 910 8.84 0.26 0.97 0.46 21.00 24.40 18.03 0.0050 4.0 4.00 10 -Year Pala Road S/E of Deer Hollow N/W 7.50 7.19 0.31 0.96 037 21.00 25.29 12.42 0.0192 40 400 10 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 41 CB -3 750 6.30 1.20 0.84 0.43 14.00 21.90 16.72 0.0050 4.0 4.00 10 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 42 CB -4 9.20 7.19 2.01 0.78 0.46 14.00 24.55 18.10 0.0050 4.0 4.00 10 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 43 CB -5 11.70 10.30 1.40 0.88 0.47 21.00 30.34 1862 0.0070 4.0 4.00 100 -Year Peach Tree East of Primrose North 40.40 0.74 21.00 15.79 0.0000 4.0 400 0.83 100 -Year Peach Tree East of Primrose Soul 20.00 0.72 700 14.66 0.0000 4.0 4.00 0.83 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 41 CB -3 11.70 8.33 3.37 0.71 0.49 14.00 28.05 19.87 0.0050 4.0 4.00 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 42 CB -4 15.90 997 5.93 063 0.54 14.00 33.17 2236 0.0050 4.0 4.00 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 43 CB -5 21.10 15.07 6.03 0.71 0.56 21.00 41.90 23.37 0.0070 4.0 4.00 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 44 North Si 34.50 0.88 14.00 22.46 0.0000 4.0 4.00 0.83 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 44 South Si 34.50 1 0.88 14.00 22.46 0.0000 4.0 4.00 0.83 Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hd\flowmstr\312fm051201.fm2 Robert Sein, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 (614bj 05/14101 01:21:31 PM C Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 2 d Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 'A, C-13 -3 Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 7.50 cis Efficiency 0.84 Slope 1.0050 Wit Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slope 1.0830 fVtt Road Cross Slope 1.0200 Wtt Mannings Coefficie 0.015 Curb Opening Len! 14.00 it Local Depression 40 in Local Depression \ 4.00 It 0.50,i' 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 VA 0.01�1 HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\ pdata\ 15100312VxdV klwmstl\312Im051201.im2 Robert Beln, William Frost R Associates Flow Master v6.0 1614bj ` 05/12/01 05:38:21 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 M 1111111110111111110 M M M iIII� III Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node WL C— f, — tA Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 9.20 cis Efficiency 0.78 Slope ).0050 Wft Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Gross SIOPE 1.0830 Wit Road Gross Slope ).0200 ft/ft Mannings Coeff ick 0.015 Curb Opening Len! 14.00 it Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression 1 4.00 it 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0+00 0+02 0+04 0+06 0+08 0+10 0+12 0+14 0+16 0+18 0+20 v:10.0 LNI HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group h:\pdata\l 51 003121idViowmstr1312IM051201.fm2 Robert Bain, William Frost & Associates -zz 05/12101 05:38:34 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Project Engineer: HHE FlowMaster v6.0 1614b) Page 1 of 1 Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 45 Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 11.70 cis Efficiency 0.88 Slope 1.0070 Wit Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross SlopE 1.0830 111111 Road Cross Slope 1.0200 Wit Mannings CoefficiE 0.015 Curb Opening Len! 21.00 it Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression \ 4.00 It Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade G6 -S 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 0 +20 v:t 0.0 HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\pdata\ 15100312 V1dVlowmstr\312fm051201.fm2 Robert Bain, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 j614b) w 05/12/01 05:38:50 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Pala Road S/E of Deer Hollow N/W S r V E Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 7.50 cis Efficiency 0.96 Slope 1.0192 ft/h Gutter Width 2.00 It Gutter Cross SlopE 1.0830 ft /ft Road Cross Slope 10200 ft /ft Mannings COeffiCIE 0.015 Curb Opening Leno 21 00 ft Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression \ 4.00 It 0.50;' 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 V :1 0.0 N H:1 NITS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\ pdata\ 75100312Vid \ilowmstr\312fmO512O1.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost d Associates FlowMaster v6.0 j614b) 05112101 05:35:54 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description Worksheet 10 -Year Deer Hollow Rd N/E of PaIA fLP Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 9.10 cis Efficiency 0.97 Slope 1.0050 tuft Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slope 1.0830 fl/ft Road Cross Slope 1.0200 ft /ft Mannings CoefficiE 0.015 Curb Opening Len. 21.00 it Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression % 4.00 it 11111110 11111110 = Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 0+20 v:10.o L�' H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\ pdata\ 15100312V1d \flowmstr\312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 j614b) 05/14/01 01:35:38 PM — ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet In Sag Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Peach Tree East of Primrose NWA 5ir76 L$- Type Curb Inlet In Sag Solve For Spread Section Data Discharge 40.40 cis --a Flow 9ot76t -t? D FOR- 50% Gl.o (,t(ar r-1 GL FaL'r -oR Spread 15.79 It Gutter Width 1.50 It Gutter Cross SIopE 0.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.0200 ft/ft Curb Opening Lem 21.00 R Opening Height 0.83 If Curb Throat Type Inclined Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression \ 4.00 It Throat Incline Angl 56.31 degree 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 0 +18 V:i 0.0� HA NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE w h:\pdata\15100312\hd\ilowmsft\312fmOS120l.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 8 Associates FlowMaster v6.01614b) A 05/12/01 05:40:32 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 III III IIII� I� 1. r I. r II. r � a■ � a� r ® ® o I® Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet In Sag Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Peach Tree East of Primrose Sou'rN SIDE G6 - -z- Type Curb Inlet In Sag Solve For Spread Section Data Discharge 20.00 cfs FLOw I; tOb :T-D Fop- S0% GLO44rr -1C� FACTOR Spread 14.66 It Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross SlopE 0 0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.0200 Wit Curb Opening 7.00 it \ \�lOpening Height 0.83 it Curb Throat Type Inclined Local Depression 4.0 in (� Local Depression \ 4.00 it �V Throat Incline Angl 56.31 degree -V O 0.50' ' (^ 0.40 V t 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +02 0 +04 0 +06 0 +08 0 +10 0 +12 0 +14 0 +16 VA 0.0 1�1 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE v h:\pdata\ 75100312 \hdV1owmstA312fm051201.fm2 Robert Bain, William Frost 8 Assmiates FlowMaster v6.0 1614bj - -•• ^• ^• ^ �� ^•• C Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of I Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node C- 115 -3 Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 11.70 cis loo -YPL- F1a v.1 To e-A-< -• QY -PASS T-0 som? DAS 1050 C.6 -G MaD C-5 -7 Efficiency 0.71 Slope 10050 ft/fl Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross SlopE1.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 10200 fUft Mannings CoefficiE 0.015 Curb Opening Len! 14.00 R Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression \ 4.00 It 0.55 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 v:10.01�1 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hdViowmslr\312fm0512g1.fm2 ,Robert Beln, William Frost 6 Associates FlowMaster v6.01614b) 05/12/01 05:43:06 PM ® Hassled Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Nod¢ 17- C-Qi -`i Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 15.90 cis —3w too -Ytt- PLc> .J Tm c.AL (.. gy -PASS -to .SL1NP 545,55, Efficiency 0.63 Slope ).0050 tt/ft Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slope 1 0830 Wft Road Cross Slope 1.0200 ft/ft Mannings CoetticiE 0.015 Curb Opening Lend 14.00 It Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression l 4.00 It 1 .1 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 VA 0.0 1�1 HA NITS C B -G Auo C.6-7 Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE y� h:Wdatakl51003l2\hdVio mstr\312fmO5l2Ol.fm2 Robert Beln, William Frost 6 Associates FlowMaster v6A (614b) V 05112101 05:43:22 PM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet On Grade Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node Y 3 CJ$ - 5 Type Curb Inlet On Grade Solve For Efficiency Section Data Discharge 21.10 cls —V loo - KR-. FLOW To GA-C- Efficiency 0.71 Slope 1.0070 Wit Gutter Width 1.50 it Gutter Cross Slopet.0830 Wit Road Cross Slope 1.0200 ft/ft Mannings Coefficie 0.015 Curb Opening Leni 21.00 it Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression \ 4.00 R 0.60 0.501 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 sy-PAss TO S ✓Hi 6ASIIJS CO -G A,up ta_7 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 VA O.0 L H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE h:\pdata \15100312\hd\fiow str\312fm051201.fm2 Robert Bain, William Frost & Associates FlowMaster v6.0 (614b) 09/19/011 05:43:35 PM C Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet In Sag Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 44 Sou v% SrpE Gi5 - Type Curb Inlet In Sag Solve For Spread Section Data Discharge 3450 cis VLOL A ppVlS• V-p Fop- l30%. C4- 04CgI06t FAC,TOF Spread 22.46 It Gutter Width 1.50 It Gutter Cross SIopE 0.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.0200 iVft Curb Opening Len, 1400 ft Opening Height 0.83 N Curb Throat Type Inclined Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression \ 4.00 It Throat Incline Angl 56.31 degree ' 1 •1 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 VA 0.0 H:1 NTS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE (w h:\pdata\ 15100312 \hd\flowmstr\312fmO51201.fm2 Robert Bein, William Frost 6 Assacletes FlowMaster v6.0 [614b) \l 05/12/01 05:44:00 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page t of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Curb Inlet In Sag Project Description Worksheet 100 -Year Primrose Ave. at Node 44 NorTN S I VE- C-13 - % Type Curb Inlet In Sag Solve For Spread Section Data Discharge 34.50 cis VaOISL -£I> Foe $o'f. c- f— ot:.tC,I (1 F- .Ae_T-,p Spread 22.46 it Gutter Width 1.50 R Gutter Cross SIOpE 0.0830 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.0200 ft/ft Curb Opening Len, 14.00 it Opening Height 083 it Curb Throat Type Inclined Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression % 4.00 it Throat Incline Angl 56.31 degree 0.60 0.50' 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 +00 0 +05 0 +10 0 +15 0 +20 0 +25 VA 0.0 L HA N TS Title: Redhawk Tract No. 23065 Garrett Group Project Engineer: RHE `^ h:\pdata\ 75100312 \hd\flOWmstA312fm051201.im2 Robert Rein, William Frost 6 Associates FlowMaster v6.0 (614bj "�`) 05/12101 05:43:50 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 LJ 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C WSPG STORM DRAIN HYDRAULICS REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 ' Redhawk Tract No. 23065 October 22, 2001 Hydraulic Analysis C Garrett Group 53 :DHANK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP COUNTY, t CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LINE A-1 FROM BASIN A TO CHANNEL FERSIDE JN. 15- 100312 RHE APRIL 2001 1039.901127.80 1 1132.53 1187.711128.24 1 .013 1187.711128.24 1 2 .013 9.9 1133.16 90.00 1250.661128.22 1 .013 17255.331129.22 1695.331135.12 1 3 1 67.5 1130.24 60.00 1700.001135.17 1 7 2196.091140.74 1 '2200.761140.93 1 1 2292.741143.23 1 2312.221143.74 1 .024 2312.221143.74 1 1153.26 1 4 6.00 2 4 1.50 ,3 4 3.00 1 1 1 1 Sy ' 10/21/2001 21:47 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 i SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(B) Y(9) Y(10) j NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP 1 4 6.00 2 4 1.50 3 4 3.00 i ti tI 1 ss 1 SING LINE NO 1 IS - �ING LINE NO 2 IS - ,ING LINE NO 3 IS - 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LINE A-1 FROM BASIN A TO CHANNEL RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE APRIL 2001 PAGE NO 3 i ✓ (O ' F 0 5 1 5 P ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N $ ELEV 1039.90 1127.80 1 1132.53 LENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N 1187.71 1128.24 1 0.013 PAGE NO 2 RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 �NT NO 3 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N 03 04 INVERT -3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 1187.71 1128.24 1 2 0 0.013 9.9 0.0 1133.16 0.00 90.00 0.00 'BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING ENT NO 4 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1250.66 1128.22 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ,BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING 'ENT NO 5 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT -3 INVERT -4 PHI 3 PHI 4 ' 1255.33 1129.22 1 3 0 0.014 67.5 0.0 1130.24 0.00 60.00 0.00 IENT NO 6 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H ' 1695.33 1135.12 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 IENT NO 7 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1700.00 1135.17 1 0.014 0 -00 0.00 0.00 1 ENT NO 8 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE, ANG PT MAN H 2196.09 1140.74 1 0 -014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ,ENT NO 9 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 2200.76 1140 -93 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0 -00 1 'ENT NO 10 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 2292.74 1143.23 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PENT NO 11 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1 2312.22 1143.74 1 0 -024 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1 F O S 1 5 P ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING MENT NO 12 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT 2312.22 1143.74 1 DIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED - COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING 1 1 1 W S ELEV 1153.26 PAGE NO 3 i SS LICENSEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO 1 F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LINE A -1 FROM BASIN A TO CHANNEL RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE APRIL 2001 `ATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH CIA ID NO. PIER �ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR w +rtxx xrtrtwfxx+ +rtrt sffttxffrt +rtrtttxx wweee tfrtwtxw wwrxwrtftf +rtrtrtrwwrtrtrtf rxf+ rttrtrtrtrtrt +rtrt +xw +rtrtsfftrtrtwrf +rtttwrtwrrr x +rtrtfffwwxww +wx +rtww + +srrtrfrt '1039.90 1127.80 5.111 1132.911 357.2 13.92 3.009 1135.920 0.00 5.111 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 13.39 0.00298 .006456 0.09 6.000 0.00 '11053.29 1127.84 5.431 1133.271 357.2 13.27 2.735 1136.006 0.00 5.111 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 76.46 0.00298 .006396 0.49 6.000 0.00 1129.75 1128.07 5.941 1134.008 357.2 12.65 2.486 1136.494 0.00 5.111 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 13.29 0.00208 .006797 0.09 6.000 0.00 1143.04 1128.11 6.000 1134.107 357.2 12.63 2.478 1136.585 0.00 5.111 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 44.67 0.00298 _ .007075 0.32 6.000 0.00 1187.71 1128.24 6.185 1134.425 357.2 12.63 2.478 1136.903 0.00 5.111 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 INCT SIR 0.00000 L AT. A - 1 .006920 0.00 0.00 1187.71 1128.24 6.456 1134.696 347.3 12.28 2.343 1137.039 0.00 5.053 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 62.95 - .00032 .006725 0.42 0.000 0.00 1250.66 1128.22 6.899 1135.119 347.3 12.28 2.343 1137.462 0.00 5.053 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 �NCT SIR 0.21413 (- !kT )1 - Z- .006431 0.03 0.00 1255.33 1129.22 7.220 1136.440 279.8 9.90 1.521 1137.961 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 146.10 0.01341 .005034 0.74 3.400 0.00 1401.43 1131.18 6.000 1137.179 279.8 9.90 1.521 1138.700 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 2.83 0.01341 .004895 0.01 3.400 0.00 1404.26 1131.22 5.973 1137.190 279.8 9.90 1.522 1138.712 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 DRAULIC JUMP 0.00 1404.26 1131.22 3.431 1134.648 279.8 16.74 4.352 1139.000 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 99.03 0.01341 .012934 1.28 3.400 0.00 ' .S9 '.SEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP! RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LINE A-1 FROM BASIN A TO CHANNEL RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE APRIL 2001 ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. O VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH CIA ID NO. PIER �EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR !liiii #fffffffi!!# #! ##iffffff if## i# iftlflff #ffffff # #fffffffffff #kf ffffffflR! # # # #ifffffffffffff kkf iii #f #fffffff # # # #ffffffff!# ## 3.29 1132.55 3.446 1135.991 279.8 16.65 4.304 1140.295 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 72.04 0.01341 .012098 2.32 3.400 0.00 15.33 1135.12 3.585 1138.705 279.8 15.87 3.912 1142.617 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4.67 0.01071 .011366 0.05 3.655 0.00 10.00 1135.17 3.583 1138.753 279.8 15.88 3.918 1142.671 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 16.55 0.01123 .011849 3.04 3.599 0.00 i6.55 1138.05 3.492 1141.542 279.8 16.38 4.169 1145.711 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 8.47 0.01123 .013133 1.95 3.599 0.00 35.02 1139.72 3.358 1143.076 279.8 17.18 4.586 1147.662 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 11.07 0.01123 .014873 1.35 3.599 0.00 6.09 1140.74 3.231 1143.971 279.8 18.02 5.044 1149.015 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4.67 0.04068 .015479 0.07 2.461 0.00 0.76 1140.93 3.273 1144.203 279.8 17.74 4.887 1149.090 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 21.95 0.02500 .014507 0.32 2.821 0.00 12.71 1141.48 3.364 1144.843 279.8 17.14 4.564 1149.407 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3.41 0.02500 .013051 0.31 2.821 0.00 46.12 1142.06 3.499 1145.563 279.8 16.35 4.149 1149.712 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 '17.54 0.02500 .011540 0.20 2.821 0.00 63.66 1142.50 3.640 1146.143 279.8 15.59 3.772 1149.915 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 12.97 0.02500 .010217 0.13 2.821 0.00 76.63 1142.83 3.791 1146.618 279.8 14.86 3.429 1150.047 0.00 4.579 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 9.52 0.02500 .009063 0.09 2.821 0.00 GL/ 'EE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LINE A -1 FROM BASIN A TO CHANNEL RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE APRIL 2001 ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. D VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH IM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH I.15 1143.07 3.951 1147.016 279.8 14.17 3.117 1150.133 0.00 4.579 i.59 0.02500 6.00 0.00 0.00 .008055 0.05 3.891 �.74 1143.23 4.123 1147.353 279.8 13.51 2.834 1150.187 0.00 4.579 i 67 0.02618 0.00 " .021874 0.15 0.00 0.00 �.41 1143.40 4.182 1147.587 279.8 13.30 2.745 1150.332 0.00 4.579 0.00 0.02618 0 0.00 .020311 0.21 ?31 .72 1143.67 4.371 1148.046 279.8 12.68 2.496 1150.542 0.00 4.579 1.50 0.02618 .018182 0.05 2.22 1143.74 4.579 1148.319 279.8 12.08 2.268 1150.587 0.00 4.579 ' Eri I LOSS PAGE 3 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER i ZR ................. + + + + + + + + ++ ++ 1. Z_ Imo.. ° I , z. ( 7 ,""S) = Z. l Z_ l wS EL. liLA SZ tZ -.7z- = IISI•o`i 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 2.821 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3.891 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3.891 0.00 " 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3.891 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1. Z_ Imo.. ° I , z. ( 7 ,""S) = Z. l Z_ l wS EL. liLA SZ tZ -.7z- = IISI•o`i DHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A -1 F JN. 15-100312 RHE NAY 2001 102.171133.16 1 1134.70 103.711135.64 1 .013 103.711135.64 1 1 4 1.50 i - I I I Y'j 1oi2tizool 22: 5 FOSiSP WATER SURFACE PROFILE CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(B) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 1.50 1 ING LINE NO i IS - IN G LINE NO 2 IS - IN G LINE NO 3 IS - 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -1 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 S% F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 102.17 1133.16 1 1134.70 NO 2 IS A REACH 'ENT U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 103.71 1135.64 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 'ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 103.71 1135.64 1 - 0.00 IT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING RNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC i 'SEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-1 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 '!ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR' ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER i 'EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR rrrxtwrrrrerr +rtwrrrrexrtrrtrrr rt+ wwwrrrrr+ rtrtrrttrwwr+ trtrrr++ rtetrwrerrrw+ rt+ rtrtrrrrrxrx+ rrxrw+ wrrrre r + +wrtrrrraxxwrtrrxxrtxwrtrrrrx rw 2.17 1133.16 0.659 1133.819 11.8 15.78 3.864 1137.683 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.08 1.61039 .077182 0.01 0.300 0.00 12.25 1133.30 0.668 1133.963 11.8 15.51 3.733 1137.696 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.61039 .070738 0.01 0.300 0.00 '0.21 72.46 1133.62 0.693 1134.317 11.8 14.77 3.387 1137.704 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.18 1.61039 .062211 0.01 0.300 0.00 32.64 1133.92 0.719 1134.636 11.8 14.08 3.079 1137.715 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.16 1.61039 .054735 0.01 0.300 0.00 i 1134.18 0.746 1134.925 11.8 13.44 2.805 1137.730 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 12.80 0.15 1.61039 .048201 0.01 0.300 0.00 2.95 1134.41 0.775 1135.187 11.8 12.81 2.549 1137.736 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.13 1.61039 .042488 0.01 0.300 0.00 3.08 1134.62 0.805 1135.424 11.8 12.22 2.317 1137.741 0.00 1.306 1.50 "- 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.11 1.61039 .037466 0.00 0.300 0.00 ,03.19 1134.80 0.836 1135.639 11.8 11.65 2.107 1137.746 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.10 1.61039 .033082 0.00 0.300 0.00 03.29 1134.96 0.870 1135.833 11.8 11.10 1.913 1137.746 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.09 1.61039 .029254 0.00 0.300 0.00 03.38 1135.11 0.905 1136.010 11.8 10.58 1.739 1137.749 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.07 1.61039 .025891 0.00 0.300 0.00 ' 03.45 1135.23 0.942 1136.170 11.8 10.09 1.582 1137.752 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.07 1.61039 .022958 0.00 0.300 0.00 �,w iSEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -1 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER �EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR rttatawwrrrerrtt axawwrrteeextaawrwrrrrrr ttwawrreetrwrrtrwrwrttwrrttttarwrwwrrrwwwrtxtwwwwwtwrwrataaar wwwxxxaa awwwrtxaaaaawwwra 3.52 1135.33 0.982 1136.315 11.8 9.62 1.438 1137.753 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.06 1.61039 .020398 0.00 0.300 0.00 3.58 1135.42 1.024 1136.447 11.8 9.18 1.307 1137.754 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 III 1.61039 .018169 0.00 0.300 0.00 3.62 1135.50 1.070 1136.567 11.8 8.75 1.188 1137.755 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.04 1.61039 .016237 0.00 0.300 0.00 73.66 1135.56 1.119 1136.676 11.8 8.34 1.080 1137.756 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.03 1.61039 .014568 0.00 0.300 0.00 3.69 1135.60 1.173 1136.774 11.8 7.95 0.982 1137.756 0.00_ 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.01 1.61039 .013158 0.00 0.300 0.00 3.70 1135.63 1.234 1136.864 11.8 7.58 0.893 1137.757 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.01 1.61039 .012008 0.00 0.300 0.00 j 3.71 1135.64 1.306 1136.946 11.8 7.23 0.811 1137.757 0.00 1.306 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 rl� �SE� -• = 1 \36.95 +0,97 = It37.9z I EDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP �VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -2 F JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 103.001130.24 1 1136.44 '215.001130.80 1 .013 215.001130.80 1 1 4 3.00 1 1 1 Gf ' 1072172001 22: 5 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 'SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 3.00 1 1 - 1 1 (Y I ING LINE NO 1 IS - ING LINE NO 2 IS - �NG LINE NO 3 IS - 1 1 1 1 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -2 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 PAGE NO 3 7� PAGE NO 2 F 0 5 1 5 P 'WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N S ELEV ' 103.00 1130.24 1 1136.44 ELEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 215.00 1130.80 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ELEMENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 215.00 1130.80 1 0.00 0 EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING ' * WARNING NO. 2 " - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV .+ DC 1 7i2a3o�S -=V �i IEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P 00 1130.24 6.200 1136.440 2.00 0.00500 �.00 1130.80 6.787 1137.587 t 1 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 67.5 9.55 1.416 1137.856 0.00 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING .010242 1.15 REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP 1.416 ' 2.623 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 -_ RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -2 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE SEPT 2001 ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH �M SO SF AVE HF _-- NORM DEPTH 00 1130.24 6.200 1136.440 2.00 0.00500 �.00 1130.80 6.787 1137.587 t 1 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 67.5 9.55 1.416 1137.856 0.00 2.623 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .010242 1.15 3.000 0.00 67.5 9.55 1.416 1139.003 0.00 2.623 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 -_ ' EA' 7. L_oSS 1 1,2 kv = 1,2- (1.y1(�) = I. -7 r I 6-)S EL . = 1 \3 -T.51 +-1.70 = 113`I,7- 1l 2 EDHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LINE A-2 F JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 2441.731146.12 1 1153.12 1 .013 1 '2870.901147.41 2875.571148.11 3 2 2 12.3 12.31149.831149.83 90.00 90.00 3010.291149.01 3 / 3010.291149.01 3 2 15.1 1152.10 60.00 '3250.061150.62 3 3254.731151.14 5 4 10.0 1152.62 60.00 3524.091152.60 5 3524.091152.60 5 4 8.3 1154.60 60.00 3783.411154.03 5 3788.081154.05 5 1 3950.001156.30 5 4107.891159.49 5 4131.841160.77 6 7 97.2 1160.77 30.00 4178.931161.22 4225.391161.67 6 6 4225.391161.67 6 4 9.9 1163.00 60.00 4256.061161.97 6 4256.061161.97 6 2 4.9 1164.30 90.00 4579.021165.00 6 4579.021165.00 6 4 7.50 '1 2 4 2.00 3 4 6.00 4 4 1.50 '5 4 5.50 6 4 4.50 7 4 3.50 i �f 1 ` I 10/12/2001 9:43 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE 2L 2R INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 7.50 2 4 2.00 3 4 6.00 4 4 1.50 ' 5 4 5.50 6 4 4.50 7 4 3.50 ?y ING LINE NO 1 IS - �NG LINE NO 2 IS - �NG LINE NO 3 IS - 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LINE A -2 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE SEPT 2001 PAGE NO 3 i ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 2441.73 1146.12 1 1153.12 ENT NO 2 IS A REACH * ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 2870.90 1147.41 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 ENT NO 3 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT -3 INVERT -4 PHI 3 PHI 4 2875.57 1148.11 3 2 2 0.014 12.3 12.3 1149.83 1149.83 90.00 90.00 �tENT NO 4 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 3010.29 1149.01 3 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 RENT NO 5 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT -3 INVERT -4 PHI 3 PHI 4 . 3010.29 1149.01 3 2 0 0.014 15.1 0.0 1152.10 0.00 60.00 0.00 �BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING ABOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING ENT NO 6 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 3250.06 1150.62 3 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 RENT NO 7 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT -2 N 03 04 .INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 ' 3254.73 1151.14 5 4 0 0.014 10.0 -0.0 1152.62 0.00 60.00 0.00 :MENT NO 8 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 3524.09 1152.60 5 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 :MENT NO 9 IS A JUNCTION ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT -4 PHI 3 PHI 4 3524.09 1152.60 5 4 0 0.014 8.3 0.0 1154.60 0.00 60.00 0.00 ABOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING 'ABOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 3 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING iNT NO 10 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 3783.41 1154.03 5 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 INT NO 11 IS A REACH I U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 3788.08 1154.05 5 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 �NT NO 12 IS A REACH * r U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 3950.00 1156.30 5 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 �NT NO 13 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 4107.89 1159.49 5 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 INT NO 14 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT-2 N 03 04 INVERT -3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 ' 4131.84 1160.77 6 7 0 0.014 97.2 0.0 1160.77 0.00 30.00 0.00 ENT NO 15 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 4178.93 1161.22 6 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 16 IS A REACH * .* * - ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 4225.39 1161.67 6 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 �NT NO 17 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT -4 PHI 3 PHI 4 4225.39 1161.67 6 4 0 0.014 9.9 0.0 1163.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING OVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING F ENT NO 18 IS A REACH ` r 1 k, U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 4256.06 1161.97 6 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 'ENT NO 19 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 4256.06 1161.97 6 2 0 0.014 4.9 0.0 1164.30 0.00 90.00 0.00 .BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING IBOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING .77 ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 4 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ENT NO 20 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H ' 4579.02 1165.00 6 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 NO 21 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS ;NT U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 4579.02 1165.00 6 0.00 IT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED - COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING 'NING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 1 1 1 1 1 7t ISEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P 11.73 1146.12 7.000 1153.120 365.1 8.51 1.124 1154.244 0.00 4.943 9.74 0.00301 0.00 0.00 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING 1 0.68 REDHAWK TRACT N0.23065 GARRETT GROUP 5.396 11.47 1147.14 6.547 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LINE A-2 8.92 1.236 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 4.943 ZION INVERT DEPTH W.S. O VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL 0.00 ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH 'EM SO 0.00 SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH 11.73 1146.12 7.000 1153.120 365.1 8.51 1.124 1154.244 0.00 4.943 9.74 0.00301 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .002004 0.68 0.00 5.396 11.47 1147.14 6.547 1153.688 365.1 8.92 1.236 1154.924 0.00 4.943 5.91 0.00301 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .002078 0.18 0.00 5.396 7.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 17.38 1147.40 6.431 1153.830 365.1 9.06 1.273 1155.103 0.00 4.943 IULIC JUMP 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 X7.38 1147.40 3.745 1151.144 365.1 16.55 4.255 1155.399 0.00 4.943 13.52 0.00301 '0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .009126 0.03 0.00 5.396 '0.90 1147.41 3.734 '1151.144 365.1 16.62 4.287 1155.431 0.00 4.943 1 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.04 0.00 STR 0.14989 L.PT /� S A �� 0 .008949 0.00 15.57 1148.11 5.010 1153.120 340.5 13.50 2.830 1155.950 0.00 5.010 '4.53 0.00668 .006985 0.87 5.328 10.10 1148.94 5.305 1154.247 340.5 12.87 2.573 1156.820 0.00 5.010 0.19 0.00668 .006709 0.07 5.328 2.572 1156.888 0.00 5.010 0.29 1149.01 5.306 1154.316 340.5 12.87 STR 0.00000 (- AT fi - 5 .006652 0.00 10.29 1149.01 5.988 1154.998 325.4 11.51 2.057 1157.055 0.00 4.912 18.17 0.00671 .006400 1.27 4.972 )8.46 1150.34 5.910 1156.251 325.4 11.54 2.070 1158321 0.00 4.912 11ULIC JUMP 1)8.46 1150.34 4.017 1154.358 0.60 0.00671 1 1 325.4 16.17 4.060 1158.418 0.00 4.912 .011584 0.48 4.972 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 7.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 6.00 '0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 cj�5-a if ISEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LINE A -2 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE SEPT 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD ' GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER M SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR rtrtrxerrrrrrtrtwrrrrwrerrrwrwrwrrrtwxwrtxrtxrrrrrrrrrxwrtxrtrrrrwxrrrterwwxrtrrrrrrrxrtxrrxrrrrrrrrrxrrtrrtrrtrrrrerrrrwrrxrtxrrrrrrrrrrwrrw 06 1150.62 3.878 1154.498 325.4 16.83 4.400 1158.898 0.00 4.912 6.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 F STR 0.11135 (- A A - ` .010666 0.05 0.00 �.73 1151.14 4.856 1155.996 315.4 14.21 3.134 1159.130 0.00 4.856 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 19.81 0.00542 .009013 0.18 5.500 0.00 14.54 0.00 4.856 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1151.25 5.212 1156.459 315.4 13.55 2.849 1159.308 3.13 0.00542 .009483 0.41 5.500 0.00 17.67 1151.48 5.500 1156.981 315.4 13.28 2.737 1159.718 0.00 4.856 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 16.42 0.00542 .010173 2.10 5.500 0.00 24.09 1152.60 6.493 1159.093 315.4 13.28 2.737 1161.830 0.00 4.856 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 STR 0.00000 ( fl�-r A -- .009965 4.09 1152.60 6.752 1159.352 307.1 12.93 2.595 1161.947 0.00 4.808 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 59.32 0.00551 .009699 2.52 5.500 0.00 13.41 1154.03 7.837 1161.867 307.1 12.93 2.595 1164.462 0.00 4.808 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4.67 0.00428 .009699 0.05 5.500 0.00 18.08 1154.05 7.992 1162.042 307.1 12.93 2.595 1164.637 0.00 4.808 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.92 0.01390 .009699 1.57 3.844 0.00 0.00 1156.30 7.313 1163.613 307.1 12.93 2.595 1166.208 0.00 4.808 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 7.89 0.02020 .009699 1.53 3.368 0.00 07.89 1159.49 5.654 1165.144 307.1 12.93 2.595 1167.739 0.00 4.808 5.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 STR 0.05344 (- A-r A-8 .011456 0.27 0.00 1160.77 5.195 1165.965 209.9 13.20 2.705 1168.670 0.00 4.098 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 I (1.84 7.09 0.00956 .013213 0.62 4.500 0.00 I SEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 3 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LINE A -2 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. C VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH CIA ID NO. PIER M SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR ++ fwwwrtrtrrf+ xxwrrtr+ rttxxr++ rtrfrf+ xf+ twrtr +r ++fxrr +r +xwr +fffxrtrtrfetrtrrrff txxtrtrrrt++ frrtrf+ rfrtrtrrr+ x +xxwrtrrrt + + +rrrrxfwwxrrwrr + +fff �.93 1161.22 5.367 1166.587 209.9 13.20 2.705 1169.292 0.00 4.098 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 46.46 0.00969 .013213 0.61 4.500 0.00 15.39 1161.67 5.531 1167.201 209.9 13.20 2.705 1169.906 0.00 4.098 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 STR 0.00000 LAT A - 0� .012605 0.00 0.00 .39 1161.67 5.975 1167.645 200.0 12.58 2.456 1170.101 0.00 4.036 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.67 0.00978 .011996 0.37 4.500 0.00 56.06 1161.97 6.043 1168.013 200.0 12.58 2.456 1170.469 0.00 4.036 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' STR 0.00000 [-A-r A- 10 .011706 0.00 0.00 56.06 1161.97 6.281 1168.251 195.1 12.27 2.337 1170.588 0.00 4.003 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 12.96 0.00938 .011416 3.69 4.500 0.00 9.02 1165.00 6.937 1171.937 195.1 12.27 2.337 1174.274 0.00 4.003 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 m HANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-3 AT CB-6 JR. 15- 100312 FINE MAY 2001 103.751150.85 1 1153.12 '117.861152.24 1 .013 117.861152.24 1 4 2.00 1 1 1 V- 10/11/2001 ' 9: 1 F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 'SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 2.00 1 1 PAGE NO 3 a F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING NG LINE NO i IS - ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP �G LINE NO 2 IS - RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-3 AT CB-6 'G LINE NO 3 IS - RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 1 1 1 1 PAGE NO 3 a ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING NT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 103.75 1150.85 1 1153.12 NO 2 IS A REACH �T U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 117.86 1152.24 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 �T NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 117.86 1152.24 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING ING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 1 1 ii(s I ;EE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 ' REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 WATER GARRETT SURFACE GROUP PROFILE LISTING RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A -3 AT CB -6 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 IN INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID N0. PIER SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR '!!f#ff 4 #if # # #f # #ilff #tlfff #t #f # # ##fff fftff# tf# Rfff} f}}#! t# ff}f f##!# ff# # # # #!! #RRlfltffli# #i ## }4!f } }!Rf }Rff }f }!l441f #!R! # #!f !f# �75 1150.85 0.909 1151.759 17.3 12.46 2.409 1154.168 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .47 0.09851 .031462 0.05 0.670 0.00 22 1150.99 0.926 1151.921 17.3 12.14 2.289 1154.210 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 �48 0.09851 .028547 0.07 0.670 0.00 .70 1151.24 0.961 1152.200 17.3 11.58 2.082 1154.282 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 �07 0.09851 .025129 0.05 0.670 0.00 1.77 1151.44 0.998 1152.441 17.3 11.04 1.893 1154.334 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 76 0.09851 0.04 0.670 0.00'' .022132 1151.62 1.036 1152.652 17.3 10.52 1.720 1154.372 0.00 1.499 - 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 �53 .47 0.09851 .019502 0.03 0.670 0.00 00 1151.76 1.076 1152.837 17.3 10.03 1.564 1154.401 _0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .23 0.09851 .017201 0.02 _ 0.670 0.00 23 1151.88 1.118 1153.001 17.3 9.57 1.422 1154.423 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 01 0.09851 .015190 0.02 0.670 0.00 ' 24 1151.98 1.163 1153.145 17.3 9.12 1.293 1154.438 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 �83 0.09851 .013431 0.01 0.670 0.00 .07 1152.06 1.210 1153.274 17.3 8.70 1.175 1154.449 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 �66 0.09851 .011891 0.01 0.670 0.00 73 1152.13 1.260 1153.388 17.3 8.29 1.068 1154.456 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 '.50 0.09851 .010545 0.01 0.670 0.00 �23 1152.18 1.313 1153.491 17.3 7.91 0.971 1154.462 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .35 1 0.09851 .009371 0.00 0.670 0.00 ' O CO i NSEE: R.B.F. & ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A-3 AT CB-6 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 tION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH IIEM SO SF AVE HF 7.58 1152.21 1.370 1153.582 0.21 0.09851 17.79 1152.23 1.431 1153.664 0.07 0.09851 7.86 1152.24 1.499 1153.739 1 17.3 7.54 0.883 1154.465 0.00 1.499 .008349 0.00 17.3 7.19 0.803 1154.467 0.00 1.499 .007459 0.00 17.3 6.85 0.728 1154.467 0.00 1.499 1 �. T. L055 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 PAGE 2 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER NORM DEPTH ZR tt!!llliif YltYttltlf tk!lf if t!!ltRlYtff tlk 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.670 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 _ 0.670 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 (0.72.8) = O. B-7 1 wS- EL.. = o.87' + 1153.7N = I15Li.�l `77eco�,3o6s -=;:? 87 HAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A -4 AT CS-7 JR. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 103.751150.85 1 1153.12 137.771152.09 1 .013 137.771152.09 1 4 2.00 1 1 10/11/2001 9: 1 F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 'SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(b) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 2.00 1 ' O / ING LINE NO 1 IS - �NG LINE NO 2 IS - 'NG LINE NO 3 IS - 1 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A -4 AT CB -7 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 9a F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING NT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 103.75 1150.85 1 1153.12 NO 2 IS A REACH �T U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE AND PT MAN H 137.77 1152.09 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 �T NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 137.77 1152.09 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING ING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC _ 1 ' 91 'SEE: R.B.F. & ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A -4 AT CB-7 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. O VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH �M SO SF AVE LLLLLL`HF NORM DEPTH 75 1150.85 2.270 1153.120 4.96 0.03645 2.00 1.71 1151.03 2.119 1153.150 .005848 0.03 JUMP 0.880 �LIC .71 1151.03 1.022 1152.053 �.90 0.03645 0.471 1153.621 2.61 1151.17 1.036 1152.209 �.87 0.03645 0 0.00 - - 48 1151.42 1.076 1152.499 .20 0.03645 68 1151.61 1.118 1152.731 3.96 0.03645 1.784 1153.837 �.64 1151.76 1.163 1152.920 3.07 0.03645 0 0.00 �.71 .021247 0.08 1151.87 1.210 1153.079 31 0.03645 :.02 1151.95 1.260 1153.213 1.70 0.03645 2.00 5.72 1152.02 1.313 1153.328 �.16 0.03645 .019502 0.13 88 1152.06 1.370 1153.427 ).68 0.03645 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR CIA ID NO. PIER ZR 17.3 5.51 0.471 1153.591 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .005848 0.03 0.880 0.00 17.3 5.51 0.471 1153.621 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 - - 0.00 17.3 10.72 1.784 1153.837 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .021247 0.08 0.880 0.00 17.3 10.52 1.720 1153.929 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .019502 0.13 0.880 0.00 17.3 10.03 1.564 1154.063 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .017201 0.09 0.880 0.00 17.3 9.57 1.422 1154.153 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .015190 0.06 0.880 0.00 17.3 9.12 1.293 1154.213 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .013431 0.04 0.880 0.00 17.3 8.70 1.175 1154.254 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .011891 0.03 0.880 0.00 -- 17.3 8.29 1.068 1154.281 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .010545 0.02 0.880 0.00 17.3 7.91 0.971 1154.299 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .009371 0.01 0.880 0.00 j 17.3 7.54 0.883 1154.310 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .008349 0.01 0.880 0.00 LICENSEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F05 15P PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING 'I REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -4 AT CB -7 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 ' ;TATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER L /ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR +s: exwwrrrrtrxrerrwwwrrrxwwwrrrtxrxwrrwxxwwrrwerwwwrrtrtxrtrwwexxrtrtrrtrweexxxr •rrrrwwxwrrtrrrrwrtrxxrterwrtr wewrrtrrwrrrxwxrtrtrtrrxwwwrrrrrterrww ' 137.56 1152.08 1.431 1153.513 17.3 7.19 0.803 1154.316 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.21 0.03645 .007459 0.00 0.880 0.00 137.77 1152.09 1.499 1153.589 17.3 6.85 0.728 1154.317 0.00 1.499 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 t + cL = o.sv i�53,5a = IlSy.�t� / 1 'i 1 {' jt ZEDHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP �VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -5 AT CB -5 F JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 103.461152.10 1 1155.00 '119.301154.01 1 .013 119.301154.01 1 1 4 1.50 I 1 i C1 h 1 1 10/12/2001 9:50 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 I ' SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP c ' 1 4 1.50 ! fi I i 1 ! I I 1 i I 1 � lo-s�� Qs' 1 NG LINE NO 1 IS - �G LINE NO 2 IS - �G LINE NO 3 IS - F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -5 AT CB -5 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 I 2 F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO i I ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 103.46 1152.10 1 1155.00 NT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 119.30 1154.01 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS �NT U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 119.30 1154.01 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED- COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING f �T NING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC I I I t it ' 9? ISEE: PAGE 1�i R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A-5 AT CB-5 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER �EM SO SF AVE HF *ff NORM DEPTH #rt *ff #t *ff#if ff tf #li tff #*!t ZR *f # #kf #ff #f k!lliiff k! liiffllirttf fflf iiiifffliif *f ff itf ff #itff #irttff # # #itfff!# iiif fflk * *i #frtfk * *rt 3.46 1152.10 2.900 1155.000 15.2 8.60 1.149 1156.149 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 9.39 0.12058 .020939 0.20 0.680 0.00 '12.85 1153.23 1.976 1155.209 15.2 8.60 1.149 1156.358 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 ULIC JUMP 12.85 7753.23 1.017 1154.250 15.2 11.91 2.203 1156.453 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .I ' 0.66 0.12058 .031938 0.02 0.680 0.00 113.51 1153.31 1.030 1154.341 15.2 11.74 2.139 1156.480 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 7.63 0.72058 .029666 0.05 0.680 0.00 175.14 1153.51 1.076 1154.584 15.2 11.19 7.945 1156.529 0.00 1.470 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.680 0.00 1.35 0.12058 .026523 0.04 16.49 1153.67 1.126 1154.797 15.2 10.67 1.769 1156.566 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 G 1.09 0.12058 .023822 0.03 0.680 0.00 ,17.58 1153.80 1.181 1154.984 15.2 10.17 1.607 1156.591 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.85 0.12058 .021542 0.02 0.680 0.00 18.43 1153.90 1.243 1155.148 15.2 9.71 1.463 1156.611 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00- ' 0.61 0.12058 .019701 0.07 0.680 0.00 119.04 1153.98 1.315 1155.293 15.2 9.25 1.329 1156.622 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.26 1 0.12058 .018495 0.00 0.680 0.00 ' i 119.30 1154.01 1.410 1155.420 15.2 8.82 1.207 1156.627 0.00 1.410 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 l 1 ` 1 £nY Lo55 1% i �'8 DHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A-6 AT CB-4 JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 103.461153.13 1 1156.00 1119.371156.69 1 .013 119.371156.69 1 1 4 1.50 1 Y: 1 h: Q �n 10/11/2001 9: 2 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 'SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 1.50 ii 1 1 1 � i I /DO NG LINE NO 1 IS - �G LINE NO 2 IS - �G LINE NO 3 IS - F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-6 AT CB-4 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 /D/ PAGE NO 2 F 0 5 1 5 P i ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET " • ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 103.46 1153.13 1 1156.00 ENT NO 2 IS A REACH " • ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 119.37 1156.69 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS 'ENT U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 119.37 1156.69 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED - COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING ,IT RNING NO. 2 •` - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC _ I i I 1 , ISEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-6 AT CB -4 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 ]ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO I AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER �EM SO SF AVE H NORM DEPTH *rti *!ff *irtfff ZR *irtfff j Rii kRffffff* iff!# rtrt!! f* ff tf#fff! #Rfffff # *rtrtfffff *tffff i * *rt *! *i #ff Rf lRiflfilff rtfff#rtrtf i rtf *irtrtklfrt *rtrtrtlff k44ff 13.46 1153.13 0.662 1153.792 12.5 16.62 4.290 1158.082 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.56 0.22376 .084082 0.13 0.510 0.00 15.02 1153.48 0.676 1154.154 12.5 16.15 4.050 1158.204 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 = 0.22376 .075871 0.18 0.510 0.00 12,31 7.33 1154.00 0.702 1154.698 12.5 15.39 3.680 1158.378 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 i 1 1.96 0.22376 .066751 0.13 0.510 0.00 109.29 1154.44 0.728 1155.164 12.5 14.67 3.342 1158.506 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 I 1 1.68 0.22376 .058745 0.10 0.510 0.00 110.97 1154.81 0.756 1155.566 12.5 14.00 3.043 1158.609 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.44 0.22376 .051750 0.07 0.510 0.00 I 2.41 1155.13 0.785 1155.917 12.5 13.34 2.763 1158.680 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.23 0.22376 .045628 0.06 0.510 0.00 13.64 1155.41' 0.816 1156.225 12.5 12.73 2.516 1158.741 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.08 0.22376 .040267 0.04 0.510 0.00 114.72 1155.65 0.848 1156.496 12.5 12.14 2.287 1158.783 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 i. ' 0.92 0.22376 .035567 0.03 0.510 0.00 115.64 1155.86 0.882 1156.737 12.5 11.56 2.076 1158.813 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.79 0.22376 .031460 0.02 0.510 0.00 116.43 1156.03 0.918 1156.951 12.5 11.03 1.890 1158.841 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.69 0.22376 .027865 0.02 0.510 0.00 17.12 1156.19 0.956 1157.142 12.5 10.51 1.716 1158.858 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 i 0.58 1 0.22376 .024716 0.01 0.510 0.00 �v3 i ,SEE: R.B.F. & ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-6 AT CB -4 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 I ,ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER �EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR *itf #iiffff * #ii **Rff # #i #if k * # *f # #if # *#i! * #tf ** tiff*** ff* iiRfR#* itff# i! i** # #i *f *ff # * # #i *# # * #iff #i! * *iiR1f *i!i * #iiif lff k #iiff **t i 7.70 1156.32 0.996 1157.312 12.5 10.02 1.560 1158.872 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 i 0.48 0.22376 .021978 0.01 0.510 0.00 I 8.18 1156.42 1.040 1157.465 12.5 9.56 1.418 1158.883 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1*41 0.22376 .019595 0.01 0.510 0.00 t 8.59 1156.52 1.086 1157.602 12.5 9.12 1.291 1158.893 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 i ' 0.32 0.22376 .017527 0.01 0.510 0.00 18.91 1156.59 1.137 1157.724 12.5 8.69 1.173 1158.897 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.24 0.22376 .015766 0.00 0.510 0.00 19.15 1156.64 1.194 1157.835 12.5 8.28 1.066 1158.901 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.16 0.22376 .014284 0.00 0.510 0.00 ,19.31 1156.68 1.257 1157.934 12.5 7.90 0.969 1158.903 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.06 0.22376 .013105 0.00 0.510 0.00 ' 0.00 19.37 1156.69 1.334 1158.024 12.5 7.53 0.880 1158.904 0.00 1.334 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 1 I 1 f ' f I I :DHAYK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -7 AT CB-3 JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 103.461154.60 1 1159.35 1119.321158.31 1 .013 119.321158.31 1 1 4 1.50 1 i 1 i i 1 1 1 1 /oS i 10/11/2001 9: 3 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT i BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(b) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) ' NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP 1 4 1.50 1 1 I 1 , I 1 i I I t I I I 1 i i t � !oG l It. HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - 1 _ADING LINE NO 2 IS - 1' :ACING LINE NO 3 IS - 1 i 1�. 1i. 1! 1� 1� 1� t 1� 1� 1� i 1! F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-7 AT CB-3 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 W 1 PAGE NO 2 I F 0 5 1 5 P ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING .MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 103.46 1154.60 1 1159.35 ENT NO 2 IS A REACH N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT 119.32 1158.31 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV j 119.32 1158.31 1 0.00 !I IT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING �> ; FINING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELE VATION IN HDWKDS, = W.S.EIEV INV + DC i. i t I 1 i I`. 1 I �d � IEEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P '3.46 1154.60 4.750 1159.350 13.18 0.23392 t6.64 1157.68 1.831 1159.515 ULIC JUMP 6.64 1157.68 0.893 1158.577 ' 0.25 0.23392 116.89 1157.74 0.903 1158.645 0.57 0.23392 117.46 1157.88 0.940 1158.816 0.49 0.23392 7.95 1157.99 0.980 1158.969 0.40 0.23392 118.35 1158.08 1.022 1159.106 0.34 0.23392 118.69 1158.16 1.067 1159.230 ' 0.26 0.23392 118.95 1158.22 1.116 1159.340 ' 0.20 0.23392 119.15 1158.27 1.170 1159.440 ' 0.12 0.23392 ,119.27 1158.30 1.231 1159.53C 0.05 0.23392 11.7 6.62 0.681 1160.031 0.00 1.302 .012406 0.16 0.490 11.7 6.62 0.681 1160.196 0.00 1.302 11.7 10.68 1.770 1160.347 0.00 1.302 .027683 0.01 11.7 10.52 1.719 1160.364 0.00 1.302 .025614 0.01 11.7 10.03 1.563 1160.379 0.00 1.302 .022713 0.01 11.7 9.57 1.421 1160.390 0.00 1.302 .020181 0.01 11.7 9.12 1.291 1160.397 0.00 1.302 .017968 0.01 11.7 8.69 1.173 1160.403 0.00 1.302 .016049 0.00 11.7 8.29 1.068 1160.408 0.00 1.302 .014399 0.00 11.7 7.91 0.970 1160.410 0.00 1.302 .013004 0.00 11.7 7.54 0.882 1160.412 0.00 1.302 .011860 0.00 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR CIA ID NO. PIER ZR 1.50 0.00 0.00 • WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP 1.50 ' 0.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A-7 AT CB -3 0.00 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 0.00 0.00 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH ,EM SO 0.00 SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH '3.46 1154.60 4.750 1159.350 13.18 0.23392 t6.64 1157.68 1.831 1159.515 ULIC JUMP 6.64 1157.68 0.893 1158.577 ' 0.25 0.23392 116.89 1157.74 0.903 1158.645 0.57 0.23392 117.46 1157.88 0.940 1158.816 0.49 0.23392 7.95 1157.99 0.980 1158.969 0.40 0.23392 118.35 1158.08 1.022 1159.106 0.34 0.23392 118.69 1158.16 1.067 1159.230 ' 0.26 0.23392 118.95 1158.22 1.116 1159.340 ' 0.20 0.23392 119.15 1158.27 1.170 1159.440 ' 0.12 0.23392 ,119.27 1158.30 1.231 1159.53C 0.05 0.23392 11.7 6.62 0.681 1160.031 0.00 1.302 .012406 0.16 0.490 11.7 6.62 0.681 1160.196 0.00 1.302 11.7 10.68 1.770 1160.347 0.00 1.302 .027683 0.01 11.7 10.52 1.719 1160.364 0.00 1.302 .025614 0.01 11.7 10.03 1.563 1160.379 0.00 1.302 .022713 0.01 11.7 9.57 1.421 1160.390 0.00 1.302 .020181 0.01 11.7 9.12 1.291 1160.397 0.00 1.302 .017968 0.01 11.7 8.69 1.173 1160.403 0.00 1.302 .016049 0.00 11.7 8.29 1.068 1160.408 0.00 1.302 .014399 0.00 11.7 7.91 0.970 1160.410 0.00 1.302 .013004 0.00 11.7 7.54 0.882 1160.412 0.00 1.302 .011860 0.00 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 0.490 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR CIA ID NO. PIER ZR 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 UHQC 10 Is EE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING t REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A-7 AT CB-3 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. D VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH ,EM SO SF AVE HF 9.32 1158.31 1.302 1159.612 ' i- �j'r LO SS 1 NORM DEPTH PAGE 2 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR tw 11.7 7.18 0.801 1160.413 0.00 1.302 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 I.Z k,/ = I.2 (0'%Vo ) = - u) S EL = + 115`I. 6� = Il 60.57 //D .DHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-8 JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 124.381160.77 1 1165.97 1 .013 '196.381161.25 196.381161.25 1 1 4 3.50 f I i i i t 10/11/2001 9: 5 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 'SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE 2L 2R INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 3.50 t l.t:p I I: I i n� j�r F 0 5 1 5 P ' ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP -FADING LINE NO 2 IS - A -8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT ADING LINE NO 3 IS - _ RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 t PAGE NO 3 1l3 IF 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING I MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 124.38 1160.77 1 1165.97 ENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 196.38 1161.25 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 196.38 1161.25 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED - COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING �IT RNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC >_ it 1 1 1 ! 1 L' 1 1 ISEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P 14.38 1160.77 5.200 1165.970 72.00 0.00667 96.38 1161.25 5.641 1166.891 1 1 1 i PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 113.8 11.83 2.172 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING 0.00 0.00 0 0 -00 REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP 3.500 0.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-8 3.203 3.50 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 �F1 ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH FM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH 14.38 1160.77 5.200 1165.970 72.00 0.00667 96.38 1161.25 5.641 1166.891 1 1 1 i PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 113.8 11.83 2.172 1168.142 0.00 3.203 3.50 0.00 0.00 0 0 -00 .012794 0.92 3.500 0.00 113.8 11.83 2.172 1169.063 0.00 3.203 3.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 115 1'0 T1 REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A -9 AT CB -1 1 I.S RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 SO 102.151163.00 1 1167.65 1 f 147.281164.28 1 .013 1 147.281164.28 1 CD 1 4 2.00 1! If I 1 II If If 1! 1f° 1! 1� 1 �- 1� 1� Rio 11 i DATE: 10/11/2001 1 ME: 9: 4 F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 1iARD SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1), Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) ODE NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP II_D 1 4 2.00 1 1! Il 1! 11 11 1! 11 1!. 1f� 1t 1� 1( 11 HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - ADING LINE NO 2 IS - ' ADING LINE NO 3 IS - i ,!t ,I 't 't 'I. F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A-9 AT CB-1 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 //1 1 PAGE NO 2 F 0 5 1 5 P 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET ( U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1 102.15 1163.00 1 1167.65 _LEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1 U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N 147.28 1164.28 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1 ELEMENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 147.28 1164.28 1 0.00 7 EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING ^ WARNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 1 , I( i� IJ 1( 1 1 f` 11 11 If 'LICENSEE: R.B.F. & ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A -9 AT CB -1 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 ' NATION INVERT DEPTH W. S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER .. /ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR feffrtrtrtrrrrrttrtrtrtferxrtrtrte xxrtrtrtxx rtrtrrxrtrtfrrrtrtrtrrtrtrrfrxrtffrfffrtrtrererxrrtrtrtrxrtrtrrxtrtrtfxxrtrtxrt rtfxxrtrtxxrtrtefxrtrtrtr rx trtrtrtrtttrtrtrtrtrerrtrtrf» ' 102.15 1163.00 4.650 1167.650 20.2 6.43 0.642 1168.292 0.00 1.614 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 45.13 0.02836 .007973 0.36 1.033 0.00 147.28 1164.28 3.730 1168.010 20.2 6.43 0.642 1168.652 0.00 1.614 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' ENT. Lr�ss, 0.77 1 toy SL_ 0.77 + IILg•c1 1168.74 �k �� Sao I 0 1T1 REDHAUK TRACT NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ei RBF JN. 15-100312 SO 102.251164.30 104.831165.28 t + 104.831165.28 CD 1 4 1� it 1i 11 11 11. 11 11 il. if 1� 23065 GARRETT GROUP CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT A-10 AT CB -2 RHE MAY 2001 1 1168.25 2.00 14Pi i 1 ING LINE NO 1 IS - G LINE NO 2 IS - IN G LINE NO 3 IS - i i i 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT A-10 AT CB -2 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 /?A F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING EMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 102.25 1164.30 1 1168.25 ENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 104.83 1165.28 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 I ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 104.83 1165.28 1 0.00 IT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING - FINING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC i I� 1 1 1 i.: 1 � 1 � ��3 1 LICENSEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO FO515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING 1 REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10O-YEAR LAT A-1O AT CB -2 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 1 STATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH . /ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH .............. .. .............. ................. 1 102.25. 1164.30 3.950 1168.250 2.58 0.37984 1 104.83 1165.28 2.976 1168.256 1� 1 1' Ir IC 1,. 1 1! 1� F 1!. f t 1► 1(. PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ 2L NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER tk1 10.0 3.18 0.157 1168.407 0.00 1.132 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .002266 0.01 0.370 0.00 10.0 3.18 0.157 1168.413 0.00 1.132 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 \.Z \-�,j = 1,7- (0.1 57) = O. 1 a I I 0,1q 4- 1tG$.7- b_ki6g,4 5 I 0 TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP Ii1.REDHAWK RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LINE B �u RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 SO 989.451127.80 1 1017.511127.97 1 1039.901128.10 1 JX 1039.901128.10 1 4 12.3 1088.201128.39 1 II 1092.871128.42 1 R 1503.921130.89 1 "K 1503.921130.89 1 4 423 1 1548.871131.16 1 1553.541131.18 1 R 2015.801133.96 1 2015.801133.96 1 4 42.6 2049.541134.16 1 R 2054.211134.19 1 2550.211136.66 1 Ii^ I 2554.881136.69 1 lR 2970.881139.19 1 R 2975.551139.21 1 3385.141141.67 1 ( -; 3396.141142.74 2 3 37.1 R 3490.391143.31 2 3571.991143.80 2 I� 3576.661143.83 2 4 22.8 R 4072.661146.81 2 4077.331146.83 2 4 22.6 I( 4407.161148.81 2 x 4411.831148.84 2 R 4722.661150.70 2 1� ( 4727.331150.73 2 4 22.1 5058.871152.72 2 JX 5072.871154.72 5 6 153.7 5 1�5098.011156.03 1 5098.011156.03 5 CD 1 4 8.00 fD J 2 4 3 4 7.00 3.00 uD 4 4 2.00 CD 5 4 5.00 E J i_ 6 4 4.50 11 If 1!. 1� It 1132.53 1132.09 60.00 45.00 1133.64 90.00 1136.71 90.00 1144.50 45.00 60.00 1146.32 60.00 1149.32 60.00 1153.33 60.00 1154.19 30.00 1 1 1 i 1 1 ias i DATE: 10/21/2001 TIME: 21:30 'I F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 ARD SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) -'ODE NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP 'D 1 4 8.00 CD 2 4 7.00 CD 3 4 3.00 CD 4 4 2.00 1 CD 5 4 5.00 CD 6 4 4.50 'I 'I '1 1� 't 'FE t 12.. 1 ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 3 HEADING LINE NO 1 IS I. :ADING LINE NO 2 IS - AGING LINE NO 3 IS - I 1, ,I 1� WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LINE 6 RBF JN. 15- 100312 FINE SEPT 2001 --t�C�-tl.34::v6s -aw-) la ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING MENT NO i IS A SYSTEM OUTLET ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 989.45 1127.80 1 1132.53 ENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1017.51 1127.97 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 3 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1039.90 1128.10 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 'ENT NO 4 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT-1 LAT-2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 1039.90 1128.10 1 4 0 0.014 12.3 0.0 1132.09 0.00 60.00 0.00 �BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING 'ENT NO 5 IS A REACH ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1088.20 1128.39 1 0.014 45.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 6 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1092.87 1128.42 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 [ENT NO 7 IS A REACH * ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE AND PT MAN H ' 1503.92 1130.89 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 EMENT NO 8 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 1503.92 1130.89 1 4 0 0.014 42.3 0.0 1133.64 0.00 90.00 0.00 BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING ABOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING LENT NO 9 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1548.87 1131.16 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 I' EMENT NO 10 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H ' 1553.54 1131.18 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 11 1 / ?8 F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 3 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING :MENT NO 11 IS A REACH r r r U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H ' 2015.80 1133.96 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 12 IS A JUNCTION r r r r r r r � U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 2015.80 1133.96 1 4 0 0.014 42.6 0.0 1136.71 0.00 90.00 0.00 ABOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV - WARNING �BOVE ELEMENT CONTAINED AN INVERT ELEV WHICH WAS NOT GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS INVERT ELEV -WARNING EMENT NO 13 IS A REACH r r r i U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE AND PT MAN H ' 2049.54 1134.16 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 14 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 2054.21 1134.19 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 ENT NO 15 IS A REACH r r r N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT 2550.21 1136.66 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 16 IS A REACH r r r H U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN 2554.88 1136.69 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 LENT r r r NO 17 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H ' 2970.88 1139.19 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 _ EMENT NO 18 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H ' 2975.55 1139.21 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 j MENT NO 19 IS A REACH r r r U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 3385.14 1141.67 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 MENT NO 20 IS A JUNCTION r`- U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT-2 N 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 -- 3396.14 1142.74 2 3 0 0.014 37.1 0.0 1144.50 0.00 45.00 0.00 MENT NO 21 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE AND PT MAN H 3490.39 1143.31 2 0.014 60.00 0.00 0.00 0 I 1 I ��9 ' F 0 5 1 5 P 'WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING EMENT NO 22 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N 3571.99 1143.80 2 0.014 ENT NO 23 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N 3576.66 1143.83 2 4 0 0.014 ENT NO 24 IS A REACH ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N 4072.66 1146.81 2 0.014 [ENT NO 25 IS A JUNCTION * * ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT-2 N 4077.33 1146.83 2 4 0 0.014 .EMENT NO 26 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N ' 4407.16 1148.81 2 0.014 .EMENT NO 27 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N 4411.83 1148.84 2 0.014 MENT NO 28 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N 4722.66 1150.70 2 0.014 ,MENT NO 29 IS A JUNCTION U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT-2 N 4727.33 1150.73 2 4 0 0.014 MENT NO 30 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N 5058.87 1152.72 2 0.014 IMENT NO 31 IS A JUNCTION * ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT LAT -1 LAT -2 N ' 5072.87 1154.72 5 6 0 0.014 1 PAGE NO 4 RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 03 04 INVERT -3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 22.8 0.0 1146.32 0.00 60.00 0.00 RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 w * 03 04 . INVERT -3 INVERT -4 PHI 3 PHI 4 22.6 0.0 1149.32 0.00 60.00 0.00 RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 w * * 03 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3 PHI 4 22.1 0.0 1153.33 0.00 60.00 0.00 RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 03 * 04 INVERT-3 INVERT-4 PHI 3* PHI 4 L :;. 153.7 0.0 1154.19 0.00 30.00 0.00 /PI, i F O S 1 5 P PAGE NO 5 i WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING _MENT NO 32 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 5098.01 1156.03 5 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 33 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 5098.01 1156.03 5 0.00 IT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING RNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 I t i �3/ `ICENSEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LINE B RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 I 'TATION INVERT DEPTH W.S. D VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER /ELEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR 989.45 1127.80 6.702 1134.502 704.2 15.66 3.808 1138.310 0.00 6.702 28.06 0.00606 .006521 0.18 1017.51 1127.97 6.896 1134.866 704.2 15.28 3.627 1138.493 0.00 6.702 22.39 0.00581 .006337 0.14 1039.90 1128.10 6.973 1135.073 704.2 15.15 3.562 1138.635 0.00 6.702 'INCT STR 0.00000 L aT 5 - 1 .006032 0.00 ' 1039.90 1128.10 7.564 1135.664 691.9 14.06 3.071 1138.735 0.00 6.652 48.30 0.00600 .005772 0.28 1 1088.20 1128.39 7.544 1135.934 691.9 14.09 3.081 1139.015 0.00 6.652 ' 4.67 0.00642 .005770 0.03 1092.87 1128.42 7.539 1135.959 691.9 14.09 3.083 1139.042 0.00 6.652 411.05 0.00601 .005784 2.38 ' 1503.92 1130.89 7.345 1138.235 691.9 14.32 3.184 1141.419 0.00 6.652 'UNCT SIR 0.00000 L Pr'f" '() _ Z .005841 0.00 1503.92 1130.89 8.298 1139.188 649.6 12.92 2.593 1141.781 0.00 6.469 ..,I 44.95 0.00601 .005883 0.26 ' 1548.87 1131.16 8.293 1139.453 649.6 12.92 2.593 1142.046 0.00 6.469 4.67 0.00428 .005883 0.03 1553.54 1131.18 8.430 1139.610 649.6 12.92 2.593 1142.203 0.00 6.469 ' 462.26 0.00601 .005883 2.72 2015.80 1133.96 8.369 1142.329 649.6 12.92 2.593 1144.922 0.00 6.469 JUNCT STR 0.00000 .005510 0.00 /0 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 42 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 41 0.00 - - 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 '05 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 136 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 X83 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 100 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .79 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 /0 ASEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LINE B RBF JR. 15-100312 FINE SEPT 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH N.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR , ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER �EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR j rxrrrrxxx+rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr +x+ rtrtrt+ rtxrtxrrrrxxrrtrtrtrtx+ rrrrrrrtrrrr+ r+ xerrxrrtrrrrrrrrxr +xxrrrtxrrtrrr +rrrx + +xrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt rxr x + + +rtrtrtrtr +rtx+x +rrrt ++ I ' 5.80 1133.96 9.027 1142.987 607.0 12.08 2.264 1145.251 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 33.74 0.00593 .005137 0.17 6.109 0.00 `9.54 1134.16 9.001 1143.161 607.0 12.08 2.264 1145.425 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 14,61 0.00642 .005137 0.02 5.901 0.00 4.21 1134.19 9.108 1143.298 607.0 12.08 2.264 1145.562 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 6.00 0.00498 .005137 2.55 6.676 0.00 50.21 1136.66 9.186 1145.846 607.0 12.08 2.264 1148.110 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4.67 0.00642 .005137 0.02 5.901 0.00 54.88 1136.69 9.293 1145.983 607.0 12.08 2.264 1148.247 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 'I I 6.00 0.00601 .005137 2.14 6.072 0.00 10.88 1139.19 8.930 1148.120 607.0 12.08 2.264 1150.384 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 I 4.67 0.00428 .005137 0.02 8.000 0.00 15.55 1139.21 9.047 1148.257 607.0 12.08 2.264 1150.521 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ,09.59 0.00601 .005137 2.10 6.074 0.00 15.14 1141.67 8.691 1150.361 607.0 12.08 2.264 1152.625 0.00 6.269 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 STR 0.09727 L A-r 13, -LA .006603 0.07 0.00 ;96.14 1142.74 6.747 1149.487 569.9 14.98 3.485 1152.972 0.00 6.155 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17.67 0.00605 .008602 0.58 7.000 0.00 ',63.81 1143.15 7.000 1150.149 569.9 14.81 3.405 1153.554 0.00 6.155 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 '26.58 0.00605 .009183 0.24 7.000 0.001 I 0.39 1143.31 7.085 1150.395 569.9 14.81 3.405 1153.800 0.00 6.155 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 I 81.60 0.00600 .009230 0.75 7.000 0.00 � r33 �EE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 3 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LINE 8 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE SEPT 2001 ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR j ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER j i M SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR wrtrt++++ refrrrrxxfrtxtrtrt++ erfrrrxwxw++++ rtxrxrtrt++ rtxw++ ffftrt+ etrwrtrtrt+ rreffrrrftttxxwtrtrt++ rt+ rtrrrrrxxrtrt + + + + + +rrrfwxrt+ + + + +r +rrrrrt �.99 1143.80 7.348 1151.148 569.9 14 -81 3.405 1154.553 0.00 6.155 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 STR 0.00642 L. A-i B - 5 .008868 0.04 0.00 �.66 1143.83 7.826. 1151.656 547.1 14.22 3.138 1154.794 0.00 6.061 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 - 00 0.00601 .008506 4.22 7.000 0.00 .66 1146.81 9.065 1155.875 547.1 14.22 3.138 1159.013 0.00 6 -061 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 STR 0.00428 L-AT l!) -(o .008162 0.04 0.00 7.33 1146.83 9 -526 1156.356 524.5 13.63 2.884 1159.240 0.00 5.960 7.00 0 -00 0.00 0 0.00 I �.83 0.00600 .007818 2.58 7.000 0.00 7.16- 1148.81 10.124 1158.934 524.5 13.63 2.884 1161.818 0.00 5.960 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .67 0.00642 .007818 0.04 7 -000 0.00 - 83 1148.84 10 -275 1159.115 524.5 13.63 2.884 1161.999 0.00 5.960 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10.83 0.00598 .007818 2.43 7.000 0.00 I -66 1159.70 10.845 1161.545 524.5 13.63 2.884 1164.429 0.00 5.960 7.00 0 -00 0.00 0 0.00 I STR 0.00642 L -7 .007496 0.04 0.00 7.33 1150.73 11.263 1161.993 502.4 13.05 2.646 1164 -639 0.00 5.855 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.54 0.00600 .007173 2.38 7.000 0.00 58.87 1152.72 11.651 1164.371 502.4 13.05 2.646 1167.017 0.00 5.855 7.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' STR 0.14286 L A T 15 - g .013981 0.20 0.00 72.87 1154.72 8.864 1163.584 348 -7 17.76 4.897 1168.481 0 -00 4.807 5.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15.14 0.05211 .020790 0.52 2.883 0.00 18.01 1156.03 8.076 1164.106 348.7 17.76 4.897 1169.003 0.00 4.807 5.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 /jr 1 -DHAVK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B-1 AT CB-9 F JN. 15-100312 RHE SEPT 2001 104.561132.09 1 1135.64 1 159.061134.10 1 .013 159.061134.10 1 1 4 2.00 1 1 1 [] 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 7,e 62 -1�0 6s -c=,-) /3S ' 10/ 9/2001 16:46 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 2.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ING LINE NO 1 IS - IN G LINE NO 2 15 - IN G LINE NO 3 IS - 1 1 1 F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 3 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B -1 AT CB -9 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE SEPT 2001 i, 137 �3� F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING °MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEVI ' 104.56 1132.09 1 1135.64 NO 2 IS A REACH �MENT U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 159.06 1134.10 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 'MENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS * ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 159.06 1134.10 1 0 -00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED - COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING 'DIT ARNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 I 1 - 1 1 �3� 'ISEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B-1 AT CB-9 RBF JN. 15-100312 FINE SEPT 2001 ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH CIA ID NO. PIER EM SO SF AVE H NORM DEPTH ZR xrxwrtwrrrre+ +xxrtwwrrrrrffrtrtx rtrrrrfe+ xrtrtwrfrfrtwrr +xrtwwrr +xrtrtre +rtrtrtxrtwr+ +fxxrtrt rtfrtxrtrwrtwrrwrrrr+ xrtwwrrrrrrxwwrrrtwx +xxrtrtrr +ffxxrtww 74.56 1132.09 3.550 1135.640 12.3 3.91 0.238 1135.878 0.00 1.261 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ;5.69 0.03688 .002928 0.13 0.730 0.00 'i0.25 1133.78 2.000 1135.775 12.3 3.91 0.238 1136.013 0.00 1.261 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4.72 0.03688 .002743 0.01 0.730 0.00 154.97 1133.95 1.814 1135.763 12.3 4.11 0.262 1136.025 0.00 1.261 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 2.39 0.03688 .002675 0.01 0.730 0.00 57.36 1134.04 1.706 1135.743 12.3 4.31 0.288 1136.031 0.00 1.261 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 1.70 0.03688 .002891 0.00 0.730 0.00 59.06 1134.10 1.621 1135.721 12.3 4.51 0.316 1136.037 0.00 1.261 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 loss 2_ 63 16) ws = 0.315 , 1155,Tz - 1 136.10 I ,'DHAUK TRACT 10. 23065 GARRETT GROUP VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B-2 F JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 104.001133.64 1 1139.18 '152.001134.12 1 .013 152.001134.12 1 1 4 2.00 1 1 1 /0,D ' 9/24/2001 15:52 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) 1(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP 1 4 2.00 i t NG LINE NO 1 IS - �G LINE NO 2 IS - �G LINE NO 3 IS - 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B-2 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 >y'A i ' I ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING I i MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET 1 U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 104.00 1133.64 1 1139.18 i I ENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE AND PT MAN H 152.00 1134.12 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 152.00 1134.12 1 0.00 �IT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING FINING NO. 2 " - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 �y3 'SEE: R.B.F. & ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAY B-2 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER 'EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR ii!!!!ff!!llf Ott' Ff Mt lffi!llittlkklfffffi!!llfittfll tlYfifftlfiillRtf } ifif iii ilififlit!lftlft!!it! if Ylf lif!ltlf Rff ifi!!l lff tiff if'k 4.00 1133.64 5.540 1139.180 42.3 13.46 2.814 1141.994 0.00 1.961 2.00 0.00 0.00 ''0 0.00 8.00 0.01000 .034963 1.68 2.000 0.00 ,2.00 1134.12 6.738 1140.858 42.3 13.46 2.814 1143.672 0.00 1.961 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 i II i 1 /y� EDHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT 8-3 F JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 104.001136.71 1 1142.98 '152.001137.19 1 .013 152.001137.19 1 1 4 2.00 [1 /yS 9/24/2001 : 15:52 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 iSECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP i1 4 2.00 1 i 1 i i 1 i i 1 Nk i 1 HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - i =ADING LINE NO 2 IS - 1 -ADING LINE NO 3 IS - i 1 i i i 1 1 i 1� i i i 1 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT e-3 RBF ON. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 Iy7 F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 104.00 1136.71 1 1142.98 "LEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 152.00 1137.19 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 :LEMENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 152.00 1137.19 1 0.00 '7 EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING • WARNING NO. 2 •' - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 I tHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B -4 JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 105.661144.50 1 1150.39 '153.661144.98 1 .013 153.661144.98 1 1 4 3.00 I 1 1 1 1 ' /y9 ' 9/24/2001 15:52 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 'SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT i BASE ZL ZR INV Y(i) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(b) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 3.00 1 1 1 150 ' F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING NG LINE NO 1 IS - ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP 'NG LINE NO 2 IS - RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B -4 'NG LINE NO 3 IS - RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 1 1 PAGE NO 3 151 ' NO 2 F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE I WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1 105.66 1144.50 1 1150.39 = LEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH ' U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 153.66 1144.98 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ' ELEMENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 153.66 1144.98 1 0.00 EDIT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING t0 " WARNING NO. 2 " - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC 1 HAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B -5 JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 104.041146.32 1 1151.63 136.041146.96 1 .013 136.041146.96 1 4 2.00 1 1 1 9/24/2001 15:53 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(B) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP ' 1 4 2.00 = i 1 �sy 1 'NG LINE NO 1 IS - �NG LINE NO 2 IS - ,NG LINE NO 3 IS - 1 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDNAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B -5 RBF JN. 15-100312 RNE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 i i I,Ss PAGE NO 2 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET ` • ` U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N S ELEV ' 104.04 1146.32 1 1151.63 MENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 136.04 1146.96 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 136.04 1146.96 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING �IT FINING NO. 2 "' - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC REE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 ,04 1146.32 5.310 1151.630 22.8 7.26 0.818 1152.448 0.00 1.700 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 0.02000 .010158 0.33 1.250 0.00 �.04 1146.96 4.995 1151.955 22.8 7.26 0.818 1152.773 0.00 1.700 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 cl EN i , toss 1 — a�s 1\51.86 t o,9� = 1152.9`1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B -5 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 ' ON INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER ' M SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR ' rtrtrtrtrtrtffffxtxx+ rtrtrtrefeftxrtrtrtfrtrfffrtttrttrtrtrrxt +rtrtfefftrrtrfff rrerfx++ rtrfr »f »frfrrrrrtrfffffff +r+rrrtrtrtr rffff + +rt +rtrferfff +rrtrrtrf ,04 1146.32 5.310 1151.630 22.8 7.26 0.818 1152.448 0.00 1.700 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 0.02000 .010158 0.33 1.250 0.00 �.04 1146.96 4.995 1151.955 22.8 7.26 0.818 1152.773 0.00 1.700 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 cl EN i , toss 1 — a�s 1\51.86 t o,9� = 1152.9`1 .r )HANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP �ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B-6 JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 104.041146.32 1 1156.33 '142.051153.00 1 .013 142.051153.00 1 1 4 2.00 r r r r r r r r - r r r r r r r r 4 is8 1 9/24/2001 15:53 1 F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 1 SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(b) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP 1 1 4 2.00 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 � 15f 1 NG LINE NO 1 IS - �G LINE NO 2 IS - �G LINE NO 3 IS - 1 1 1 1 t 1 F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B-6 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 VS ' F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 ' WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING NENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 104.04 1146.32 1 1156.33 i ENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H I 142.05 1153.00 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 142.05 1153.00 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING lIT RNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC I 1 1 1 i� ISEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P 1.04 1146.32 10.010 1156.330 ;8.01 0.17574 '2.05 1153.00 3.754 1156.754 ' ear. Loss 1 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 23.9 7.61 0.898 1157.228 0.00 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' 0.42 REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP 0.898 1157.652 0.00 1.732 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 _ RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B-6 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W. S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH 'EM 50 SF AVE HF _____________'__,LLLLNORM DEPTH 1.04 1146.32 10.010 1156.330 ;8.01 0.17574 '2.05 1153.00 3.754 1156.754 ' ear. Loss 1 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 23.9 7.61 0.898 1157.228 0.00 1.732 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 .011161 0.42 0.681 0.00 23.9 7.61 0.898 1157.652 0.00 1.732 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 _ 1.L. % 1.2 (O.898) = I.08 1 ` 1os E.L. _ 115 .75 + 1• os 11 57.83 lip; DHANK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP VERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT 9 -7 F JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 105.201153.30 1 1161.97 '135.911163.00 1 135.911163.00 1 1 4 2.00 1 1 1 1 'DATE: 10/12/2001 "ME: 13:32 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING ':ARD SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE :ODE NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH :D 1 4 2.00 PAGE 1 ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) DROP /W r r NG LINE NO 1 IS - r rNG LINE NO 2 IS - ING LINE NO 3 IS - r r r r r r r. r r r r r r F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B -7 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 APs F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING f 4ENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 105.20 1153.30 1 1161.97 4ENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 135.91 1163.00 1 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 135.91 1163.00 1 0.00 IT ERRORS ENCOUNTERED-COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING RNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC I 1 1 i I Ito b IIISEE: R.B.F. & ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B-7 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH 'EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH 15.20 1153.30 8.670 1161.970 14.63 0.31586 1.826 0.00 ,9.83 1157.92 4.314 1162.235 ULIC JUMP 27.9 19.89 9.83 1157.92 0.903 1158.824 1.03 0.31586 0.00 0 ?0.86 1158.25 0.915 1159.162 '2.32 0.31586 2.00 5.586 X3.18 1158.98 0.950 1159.928 '1.99 0.00 .079010 0.16 2.00 0.31586 27.9 18.08 ,5.17 1159.61 0.986 1160.593 1.72 0.31586 2.00 0.00 16.89 1160.15 1.023 1161.174 1.49 0.31586 4.611 18.38 0.00 1.826 1161.685 0.00 1160.62 1.063 0.09 11.30 0.31586 27.9 16.43 29.68 1161.03 1.104 1162.136 ' 1.13 0.31586 50.81 1161.39 1.148 1162.537 0.98 0.31586 3.815 1.79 1161.70 1.195 1162.893 0.85 0.31586 .047687 0.05 27.9 8.88 1.224 1163.194 0.00 1.826 .017640 0.26 0.660 27.9 8.88 1.224 1163.459 0.00 1.826 27.9 20.28 0.00 6.384 1165.208 0.00 1.826 0.00 .098086 0.10 0.00 0 27.9 19.89 6.141 1165.303 0.00 1.826 0.00 0.00 0 .089772 0.21 0.00 27.9 18.97 2.00 5.586 1165.514 0.00 1.826 0.00 .079010 0.16 2.00 0.00 27.9 18.08 0.00 5.077 1165.670 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 .069546 0.12 0.00 27.9 17.23 4.611 1165.785 0.00 1.826 0 0.00 .061270 0.09 27.9 16.43 0.00 4.192 1165.877 0.00 1.826 0.00 .054031 0.07 0.00 0 27.9 15.67 3.815 1165.951 0.00 1.826 0.00 0.00 0 .047687 0.05 0.00 27.9 14.94 2.00 3.468 1166.005 0.00 1.826 0.00 .042158 0.04 27.9 14.25 3.153 1166.046 0.00 1.826 .037318 0.03 0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 PAGE 1 HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR DIA ID NO. PIER ZR 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 SEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B -7 RBF JR. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. D VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER �EM SO SF AVE H NORM DEPTH ZR wrrxrxrxxrwxrrxwwwwwwrwrrxrwrrr wx rwwwrerrrrtrxwwrwwrrrrwweerxxx rwwerwrrrrrewwxwxxwrxxxrwxwrwwwxxrwwwwwwwwwwxwwwwwrrrrrrxxrxrwr 2.64 1161.97 1.244 1163.212 27.9 13.58 2.865 1166.077 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.74 0.31586 .033076 0.02 0.660 0.00 3.38 1162.20 1.296 1163.496 27.9 12.95 2.605 1166.101 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 - 0.31586 .029365 0.02 0.660 0.00 11,63 4.01 1162.40 1.351 1163.752 27.9 12.35 2.369 1166.121 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.54 0.31586 .026136 0.01 0.660 0.00 34.55 1162.57 1.411 1163.981 27.9 11.77 2.152 1166.133 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ' 0.45 0.31586 .023334 0.01 0.660 0.00 35.00 _1162.71 -1.475 1164.187 27.9 11..23 1.957 1166.144 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.01 0.660 0.00 0.36 0.31586 .020916 5_.36 1162.83 1.546 1164.373 27.9 10.70 1.778 1166.151 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.28 0.31586 .018863 0.01 0.660 0.00 15.64 1162.91 1.625 1164.540 27.9 10.20 1.617 1166.157 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.19 0.31586 .017157 0.00 0.660 0.00 15.83 1162.98 1.714 1164.690 27.9 9.73 1.471 1166.161 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.08 0.31586 .015883 0.00 0.660 0.00 - 35.91 1163.00 1.826 1164.826 27.9 9.28 1.336 1166.162 0.00 1.826 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 AWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B -8 JN. 15. 100312 RHE MAY 2001 107.001154.19 1 1164.35 45.001162.00 1 .013 45.001162.00 1 I 4 4.50 1 J�9 ' 9/24/2001 15:54 ' F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 'SECT CNN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(B) Y(9) Y(10) NO TYPE PIERS WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP 1 4 4.50 1 1 :NG LINE NO 1 IS - ING LINE NO 2 IS - 'NG LINE NO 3 IS - 1, F 0 5 1 5 P WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B -8 RBF JN. 15-100312 RHE MAY 2001 PAGE NO 3 171 F 0 5 1 5 P PAGE NO 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING I i MENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV ' 107.00 1154.19 1 1164.35 ENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 145.00 1162.00 1 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 i ENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 145.00 1162.00 1 0.00 ERRORS ENCOUNTERED - COMPUTATION IS NOW BEGINNING �IT RNING NO. 2 ** - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION GIVEN IS LESS THAN OR EQUALS INVERT ELEVATION IN HDWKDS, W.S.ELEV = INV + DC . I i I i I � »y i 'SEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P PAGE 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT N0. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100-YEAR LAT B-8 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. 0 VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL HGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH DIA ID NO. PIER JEM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH ZR ............. ------------------ ....... .....+.r.. + + +rr + + + + +xr+++rr + + ++ +rrr +rxrxxrrr + ++ + +rre +rrr +rrxxxrr +rrerx 7.00 1154.19 10.160 1164.350 156.0 9.81 1.494 1165.844 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 !0.82 0.20553 .006293 0.13 1.273 0.00 7.82 1158.47 6.012 1164.481 156.0 9.81 1.494 1165.975 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ULIC JUMP 0.00 7.82 1158.47 2.154 1160.623 156.0 20.74 6.681 1167.304 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 2.41 0.20553 .027799 0.07 1.273 0.00 ;0.23 1158.96 2.219 1161.184 156.0 19.96 6.189 1167.373 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 ,2.64 0.20553 .024807 0.07 1.273 0.00 52.87 1159.51 2.304 1161.812 156.0 19.04 5.627 1167.439 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 i 0.00 12.31 0.05 1.273 0.00 I 0.20553 .021854 ,5.18 1159.98 2.392 1162.374 156.0 18.15 5.115 1167.489 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.99 0.20553 .019270 0.04 1.273 0.00 7.17 1160.39 2.486 1162.877 156.0 17.30 4.650 1167.527 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.72 0.20553 .017014 0.03 1.273 0.00 18.89 4.227 1167.556 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1160.74 2.585 1163.329 156.0 16.50 ' 1.47 0.20553 .015036 0.02 1.273 0.00 :0.36 1161.05 2.689 1163.735 156.0 15.73 3.843 1167.578 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 t1.25 0.20553 .013306 0.02 1.273 0.00 ;1.61 1161.30 2.799 1164.101 156.0 15.00 3.494 1167.595 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.03 0.20553 .011793 0.01 1.273 0.00 2.64 1161.52 2.916 1164.431 156.0 14.30 3.176 1167.607 0.00 3.658 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.84 0.20553 .010471 0.01 1.273 0.00 � � 73 ISEE: R.B.F. 8 ASSOC. - SAN DIEGO F0515P WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING ' REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 GARRETT GROUP RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 100 -YEAR LAT B -8 RBF JN. 15- 100312 RHE MAY 2001 'ION INVERT DEPTH W.S. D VEL VEL ENERGY SUPER CRITICAL ELEV OF FLOW ELEV HEAD GRD.EL. ELEV DEPTH ,EM SO SF AVE HF NORM DEPTH 3.48 1161.69 3.041 1164.729 0.65 0.20553 1.273 ,4.13 1161.82 3.176 1164.997 156.0 0.20553 2.625 1167.622 11,48 4.61 1161.92 3.321 1165.240 0.29 0.20553 X4.90 1161.98 3.480 1165.459 '0.10 0.20553 1.273 X5.00 1162.00 3.658 1165.658 1 11.82 2.169 1167.628 0.00 3.658 1.273 156.0 13.64 2.887 1167.616 0.00 3.658 1.273 .009322 0.01 156.0 13.00 2.625 1167.622 0.00 3.658 1.273 .008324 0.00 156.0 12.40 2.386 1167.626 0.00 3.658 1.273 .007462 0.00 156.0 11.82 2.169 1167.628 0.00 3.658 1.273 .006726 0.00 156.0 11.27 1.971 1167.629 0.00 3.658 F-OT. truss t 1.5 h,v = I.S ( I,cV7 1> _ Z.9(' PAGE 2 MGT/ BASE/ ZL NO AVBPR CIA ID NO. PIER ZR t ,\WS EL• = 1165.(06 +Z -•°1�0 1 �� 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.273 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.273 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.273 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.273 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 t ,\WS EL• = 1165.(06 +Z -•°1�0 1 �� 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY BASIN OUTLET CALCULATIONS REDHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 Redhawk Tract No. 23065 October 22, 2001 Hydraulic Analysis D Garrett Group X30 SOS 0 175 11 it 1� 1! 1. 11 II 11 11 1� If. 1( 1.. 1( II 1? 1� ■ L. WF ■ CONSULTING PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 800.479.3808 www.RBF.CDM JOB PAD4IA 1 -- 15 - loo 3 / -L SHEET NO 1 OF C CALCULATED BY P—HE DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE OU'iL':T 'FLovj Loill -R-ot, GA"L -A71Dj A = O. (a2 ac AZ O.C, Z + Llq 0,ql Ac. _ ;9,6640 sr- o. 5 0 5 o. = 2A ( H - No� - 2- ('1,6'+i(115 i,5 - 11yb.o> . 0.5 3Cov CT (Z�\o.s ✓6o0 �p.6��t [z�(3z. C. = D,yD& SF A = 0.12 �} = 2- 54 IaL� H = 115i 5 Ho= 1�yb.n 0,ql Ac. _ ;9,6640 sr- o. 5 0 5 o. = 2A ( H - No� - 2- ('1,6'+i(115 i,5 - 11yb.o> . 0.5 3Cov CT (Z�\o.s ✓6o0 �p.6��t [z�(3z. C. = D,yD& SF A = 0.12 �} = 2- 54 IaL� ' I oSTAGE /DISCHARGE TABLE FOR WATER QUALITY BASIN OUTLET I. BASIN WATER BASIN RISER BOX WATER TAILWATER OUTLET CULV. oELEVATION,ft. OUTFLOW,cfs. ELEVATION,ft. ELEVATION,ft. CONTROL 1151.50 0.00 1151.04 1151.04 N/A ' 1151.60 2.15 1151.06 1151.04 INLET CONT 1151.70 6.09 1151.08 1151.04 INLET CONT 1151.80 11.19 1151.09 1151.04 INLET CONT f ' 1151.90 17.23 1151.11 1151.04 INLET CONT 1152.00 24.08 1151.12 1151.04 INLET CONT 1152.10 31.66 1151.13 1151.04 INLET CONT ' 1152.20 39.89 1151.14 1151.04 INLET CONT 1152.30 48.74 1151.15 1151.04 INLET CONT 1152.40 58.16 1151.16 1151.04 INLET CONT 1152.50 68.11 1151.18 1151.04 OUTLET CONT ' d 1152.60 78.58 1151.23 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1152.70 89.54 1151.29 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1152.80 100.96 1151.36 1151.04 OUTLET CONT t 1152.90 112.83 1151.44 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.00 125.13 1151.53 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.10 137.85 1151.63 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.20 150.97 1151.75 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.30 164.49 1151.88 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.40 178.39 1152.03 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.50 192.65 1152.19 1151.04 OUTLET CONT ' I 1153.60 207.28 1152.38 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.70 222.26 1152.58 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1153.80 237.59 1152.80 1151.04 OUTLET CONT ' 1153.90 253.25 1153.04 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.00 269.24 1153.30 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.10 285.56 1153.58 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.20 302.19 1153.88 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.30 319.13 1154.21 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.40 336.38 1154.40 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.50 353.93 1154.50 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.60 371.77 1154.60 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.70 389.90 1154.70 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1154.80 408.32 1154.80 1151.04 OUTLET CORI ' 1154.90 427.02 1154.90 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.00 446.00 1155.00 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.10 465.25 1155.10 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.20 484.77 1155.20 1151.04 OUTLET CONT ' 1155.30 504.55 1155.30 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.40 524.60 1155.40 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.50 544.90 1155.50 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.60 562.53 1155.60 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.70 569.35 1155.70 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1155.80 576.09 1155.80 1151.04 OUTLET CONT f 1155.90 582.75 1155.90 1151.04 OUTLET CONT 1156.00 589.33 1156.00 1151.04 OUTLET CONT GOUT LET STRUCTURE GEOMETRY FOR WATER QUALITY BASIN OUTLET ' ( STAGE 1 - --> RISER PIPE DROP INLET opS of Two S4" GMP RISE-¢ -S ' I CREST ELEVATION = 1151.50 EFFECTIVE PERIMETER 21.98 ft. EFF. FLOW AREA = 38.47 sq.ft DISCHARGE COEFF. //j7 1 ' OUTFALL CULVERT FµvN Y -lSE.R To )01N (d L-t1.0E- A -t ETA. Z'5 Ir1 7- UPSTREAM INVERT ELEVATION = 1144.00 DIAMETER = 6.00 ft. LENGTH = 10.45 ft. SLOPE = 0.0250 ft /ft. ' -S n = 0.0240 ENTRANCE CONDITION = SEH, K = 0.50 /MANNING / S ' OUTFALL CHANNEL ' CONSTANT TAILNATER ELEVATION = 1151.04 —'s WS Et- LZ Lw E_ A-I STA. 7- 3-*I7•LZ W�t- °SSES� 1 Q = QT L� F Lo W R, Z Z t Q = ILA 0 LFS WS E.L. _ 1153.17- XO - SE.I: NF-cT FP c�E F-0I- LOCP.TIOrJ OF /Ig i 'I ,I ,f 1� 'I. 4' w 0AL II--f 5A-C, a o�-ri,Er si evwv� LOG�"i to iJS Fot� A�at_�{�'is Co�,J7RJo� -- . , �7 1153.26 MAX WS EL I ` I JviO oF- -roo 7v' C.P+P To 7V'cmP 2 -?f" CMP RISER EL. 1151.50 cZ'J i?(SE.K -- Ilxe-1 ' SCREEN 0.72' DIA ORIFICE ON ONE RISER 1146. 2 7?-"(-PAP F"o Risejr-TD 30111 CONC. ANCHOR BLOCK PER DETAIL PER APWA STD PLAN NO. 380 -3 L =24 ", T =12" /7,p k 1 Redhawk Tract 23065 -2 Geometry /Outlet Structure Design Summary 'I JN: 15- 100312 Garrett Group 11 11 F] J q'i gio- 1� DA (Onslte /Onsite) ac. 151.50 212 °o Bottom Surface Area sq. ft. 30,796 Time Step ac. 0.71 5 z to 1 n. 4.0 5 �? He ft. 24.75 4lnvert ft. 0.00 Diameter/Length Maximum Height n. 10.00 Applied Geometry - Actual Effective Diameter A H ft. 0.05 PNA Storm Event 100Y -1H 100Y -1H 100Y -3H 100Y -6H 100Y -24H 100Y -24H Time Step minutes 5 5 5 5 5 5 Outlet Type Weir NA NA NA NA Diameter/Length n. 44.00 Effective Diameter n. 44.00 PNA Discharge Coefficient - 2.60 - - - - Teilwater ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Outlet Height ft. 0.00 - - " Storm Volume ac: n 14.93 14.93 24.12 30.78 53.57 53.57 Inflow cfs 322.4 322.4 245.3 227.4 105.5 105.5 Outflow cfs 278.9 278.9 232.0 2174 104.1 104.1 oNon - mitigated cfs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outflow +Non - mitigated cfs 278.9 278.9 232.0 217.4 104.1 104.1 Existing cfs 222.6 222.6 170.0 168.5 58.1 58.1 Maximum Stage 1.81 1.81 1 1.60 1.53 0.94 0.94 Maximum Surface Area ac. 1.42 1.42 1.39 1.38 1.31 1.31 sq. tt. 61,834 61,834 60,394 59,925 56,849 56,849 Maximum Storage Volume7 ac. ft. 2.36 2.36 2.07 1.97 1.17 1.17 C.Y. 3,807 3,807 3,333 3,182 1,895 1,895 Im Date: 05/16/01 File n : 100Y1HA HIS Page 1 .................................... ............................... I........ F L O 0 D R O U T I N G A N A L Y S I S ACCORDING TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTURL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC4WCD) 1970 HYDROLOGY HANUAL (C) Copyright 1989 -99 Advanced Engineering software laes) V¢. 7 0 Release Date: 01/01199 License ID 1261 Analysis prepared by Robert Bain, William Frost 6 Associate. 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92610 ....•.••.•••••......•••••• DESCRIPTION OF STUDY - ............... ....•••• • REDHAWE TRACT NO. 23065 -6 TMECULA, CALIFORNIA GARRETT GROUP • 100 -YEAR 1 -HOUR HYDROGRAPH FOR AREA •A' PROJECT CONDITIONS • RBF .1N: 15- 100312 RHR FEBRUARY 2001 BASIN A ' ......................................... ................................. FILE NAME: 100YIRA.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10 O6 03 /30/2001 ....... .................................... ................................ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 1.00 15 CODE = 1 ____ » »-SUBAREA RUNOFF (UNIT- HYDROGRIUM ANALYSIS)<u« (UNIT- HYOROMAPH ADDED TO STREAM 41) WATERSHED AREA = 151.500 ACRES BASEFLOW = 0.000 CFS /SQUARE -MILE 'USER ENTERED 'LAG- TIME = 0 221 HOURS CAUTION: LAG TIME IS LESS THAN 0.50 HOURS. THE 5- MINUTE PERIOD UH MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE TOO LARGE FOR PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES. VALLEY S -GRAPH SELECTED UNIFORM MEAN SOIL- LOSS(INCH /HOUR) = 0.200 LOW SOIL -LOSS RATE PERCEUP(DECIMAL) = 0.500 USER - ENTERED RAINFALL = 1.40 INCHES RCFC&WCD 1 -Hour Storm 15- Minute period) SELECTED (SLOPE OF INTENSITY- DUMTION CURVE = 0.55) RCFC&WC0 DEPTH -AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR(PLATE E -5.0) = 1.0000 UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNIT = 5.000 MINUTES UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG -TIME = 37.707 UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION _____________________________________________ ___ _________ ___________________ INTERVAL S. GRAPH UNIT HYDROGRAPH NUMBER MEAN VALUES ORDINATES(CFS) _____________________________________________ __________ ______ _____ __________ 1 3.921 71.945 2 19.644 287.960 Date- 05116/01 File name 100Y1RA.RES 3 45 525 174.201 4 63 858 335.099 5 73 125 169 793 6 78 913 106 018 7 83 002 76.381 8 86.251 58 056 9 BB 680 44.490 10 90.706 37.125 11 92.358 30.265 12 93 768 25 101 13 91 922 21 501 11 95.978 - 19.351 15 96.753 11 108 16 97 185 13 111 17 90.071 10 735 18 98.351 5 132 19 98 621 4.960 20 90.892 4.956 21 99.163 1.960 22 99 433 4.956 23 99.704 4.956 24 99.971 41956 25 100.000 0 175 Date: 05116101 name I00Y1HA.RES ............................................. UNIT UNIT ............................... UNIT EFFECTIVE PERIOD RAINFALL SOIL -LOSS RAINFALL (UMBER? (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) 1 0 0543 0.0167 0.0376 2 0.0578 0.0167 0.0411 3 0.0620 0.0167 0.0453 1 O.0691 0 0167 0 0527 _ 5 0 0738 0.0167 0 0571 6 0.0855 0.0167 0.0608 7 0.1020 0 0167 0 0862 0 0 -lldd 0.0167 0.0977 9 0 1831 0.0167 0.1664 10 0 4421 0.0167 0 4254 11 0 0941 0 0167 0 0774 12 o.O609 0.0161 0 0442 13 0 -0000 0.0000 0.0000 14 0.0000 _ 0.0000 0 0000 15 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 12 0.0442 0 0167 0.0275 TOTAL STORH MINFALL(INCHES) = 1.44 TOTAL SOIL- LOSS(INCHES) = 0.22 TOTAL EFFECTIVE RAINFALL(INCHES) = 1 23 _____________________________________________ __________ ___________________ __ TOTAL SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 2.7354 TOTAL STORM RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 14.9319 _______________________________________________ _________ ____________________ h� Date: 05/16/01 File name- 100YlM RES Page d 3 - H O U R S T 0 R H R U N O F F H Y O R 0 G R A P H __ ______ e== _ - -____ = _a_==== ______ HYOROGRAPH IN FIVE - MINUTE UNIT INTERVALS(CFSI (Note Time indicated is at END of Each Unit Intervals) _____________________________________________ TIME(HRS) VOL ME(AF) ______________________ Q(CFS) 0. 100.0 200.0 300.0 ___ _ _ ____ 400.0 _____________________________________________ 0 083 0 0187 _________ ___________________ 2.71 0 ___ 0.167 0.1137 13 00 V0 0 250 0.3407 32.96 V 0 0 333 0.6701 48.99 .V Q 0 417 1.0980 60.90 V 0 0.500 1.5978 72 57 V Q 0.583 2.1881 05.71 V Q . 0.667 2.8956 102.72 V Q 0.750 3.7695 126 09 V 0 0.833 5 0190 181.43 V 0 . 0 917 6.9049 273.83 V 0 1 000 9 1255 322.43 V 0 1.003 10.8091 244.46 0 V . 1.167 11.8487 150.95 0 .V 1.250 12.5213 97.66 0. V 1.333 12.9980 69.22 0 V 1 417 13.3615 52 77 Q V 1 500 13.6468 41.43 0 V 1.583 13 8806 33 95 0 V 1 667 14.0729 27.91 Q V 1 750 14.2335 23.32 0 V . 1 033 14.3686 19 62 0 V 1.917 14 4837 16.71 .0 V 2.000 14.5757 13.35 .0 v. 2.003 14 6541 11.38 .0 V. 2 167 14.7153 8 89 0 V 2 250 14.7560 6 03 Q V. 2.333 14.7925 5 19 0 V. 2.417 14.0252 4 74 Q V. 2.500 14.8555 4.40 Q V. 2 583 14.8829 3 90 0 V 2.667 14.9070 3.50 Q V. 2.750 14.9256 2.11 Q V. 2 033 14 9306 0 72 0 V 2.917 14.9318 0.17 Q V 3.000 14.9319 0 OS 0 V. END OF FLOODSCX ROUTING ANALYSIS Gate 05/16101 File name 100Y3HA.RES ............................................ ................................ F L O O D R O U T I N G A N A L Y S I S ACCORDING TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTORL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1909 -99 Advanced Engineering Software lees) Ver. 7.0 Release Date: 01101/99 License ID 1264 Analysis prepared by: Robert Hein, William Frost 6 Associate. 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 ... I ................•••••• DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ••................•....... REDRAWP. TRACT NO 23065 -6 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA GARR= GROUP 100 -YEAR 3-HOUR HYDROGRAPH FOR AREA 'A' PROJECT CONDITIONS RAF JN' 15- 100312 RHE FEBRUARY 2001 BASIN A ............................:.............. ............................... FILE NAME: 100Y3HA.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:06 0313012001 ............................................. ............................... FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 0.00 W NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 1 »> »SUBAREA RUNOFF (UNIT- HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS) «<,. (UNIT- HYDROGRAPH ADDED TO STREAM 41) WATERSHED AREA = 151.500 ACRES BASEFLOW = 0.000 CFS /SQUARE -MILE 'USER ENTERED 'LAG' TIME = 0.221 HOURS CAUTION: LAG TIME IS LESS THAN 0 50 HOURS THE 5- MINUTE PERIOD ON MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE TOO LARGE FOR PEAR FLOW ESTIMATES. VALLEY S -GRAPH SELECTED UNIFORM MEAN SOIL- LOSS (INCH/HOUR) = 0.200 LOW SOIL -LOSS RATE PERCENT(DECIMAL) = 0.500 USER - ENTERED RAINFALL = 2.50 INCHES RCFCLWCD 3 -Hour Storm (5- Minute Period) SELECTED RCFC6WCD DEPTH -AREA ADOUSTMENT FACTOR(PLATE E -5.8) = 0 9994 UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME MIT = 5.000 MINUTES UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG -TIME = 31.707 UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION INTERVAL S. GRAPH UNIT HYDROGRAPH NUMBER MEAN VALUES ORDINATES(CFS) ----------------------------- 1 ------ ------- 3.927 ---- - - ---- - 71.945 2 19.644 287.968 3 45.525 474.201 Page 1 Date- 05/16/01 Pile name. 100Y3HA.RES Page 2 4 63 858 335.899 5 73 125 169.793 1 78 913 106 T 1 03.002 76 381 8 86.251 50 056 9 88 680 44.498 10 90.706 37.125 11 92.350 30.265 12 93.768 25.601 13 94 922 21.501 16 95 970 19 356 15 96.753 1 {.188 16 97.005 13.116 11 98 071 10.735 10 98.351 5.132 19 98.621 4.960 20 90 892 4.956 21 99 -163 L960 22 99.433 1 956 23 99.704 4_956 24 99.974 4.956 25 100.000 0 475 Date: 05/16/01 File name 100Y3HA RES Page J ............................................. UNIT MIT ............................... MIT EFFECTIVE PERIOD RAINFALL SOIL -LOSS RAINFALL (NNNBER) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) 1 0.0325 0 0162 0.0162 2 0.0325 0.0162 0 0162 3 0 0275 0 0137 0.0137 4 1 0375 0.0167 0 0208 5 0.0375 0 0167 0.0208 6 0.0650 0 0167 0.0283 7 0.0375 0 -0167 0.0200 B 0.0450 0.0167 0.0283 9 0 0450 0.0167 0.0203 10 0.0375 0.0167 0.0208 11 0.0400 0 0167 0.0233 12 0.0650 0.0167 0.0283 13 0 0550 0.0167 0.0383 14 0.0550 0.0167 0.0383 15 0.0550 0 0167 0.0383 16 0.0500 0 0167 0.0333 17 010650 0 0167 0 0483 l0 0 0675 0 0167 0.0508 19 0 0600 0.0167 0.0433 20 0 0675 0 0167 0.0508 21 0.0825 0.0167 0 0658 22 0 0775 0.0167 0 0600 23 0.0725 0 0167 0.0558 24 0.0750 0.0167 0.0503 25 0.0775 0.0167 0.0608 26 0.1049 0.0167 0 0883 27 0.1249 0.0167 0.1083 28 0.0874 0.0167 0.0708 29 0.1699 O. 0167 0 1532 30 0.1824 0.0167 0.1657 31 0.2049 0.0167 0.1882 32 0 1474 0 0167 0.1307 33 0.0500 0.0167 0.0333 34 0.0450 0 0167 0.0283 35 0 0450 0 0167 0.0203 36 0.0150 0.0075 0.0075 TOTAL STORM RAINFALL(INCHES) = 2.50 TOTAL SOIL- LOSS(INCHES) = 0 59 TOTAL EFFECTIVE RAINFALL(INCHES) = 1.91 ________ __ _________________________ _______________________________ TOTAL SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 7.4115 TOTAL STORM RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 26 1197 u Date. File name 100Y3HA.RES 3 - H O U R S T O R M R D N O P F H Y D R O O R A P H m M. m. HYDROGRAPH IN FIVE - MINUTE UNIT INTERVALS(CFS) (Note: Time indicated is at ENO of Bach Unit Intervals) TIMEOIRS) VOLUNE(AF) O(CFS) 0 15.0 150.0 225.0 300.0 _____________________________________________ _______________________________ 0.003 0.0000 1.17 0 0.167 0.06:3 5 15 0 0.250 O.I101 13.17 VO 0 333 0 2685 10.61 V 0 0.417 0.4216 22.22 V 0 0.500 0 6075 26 99 .V O 0.583 0 8265 31.80 .V Q 0.667 1.0718 35.62 .V Q 0.750 1.3336 38.02 V 0 0.033 11616 40.79 V 0 0.917 1.9013 41 64 V 0 1.000 2.1027 40 05 V 0 1.083 2 4779 42.87 VO 1.167 2 8127 40.62 V 0 1.250 3 1943 55.40 V 0 1.333 3.6044 59.54 V,Q 1.417 4 0292 61 68 V Q . 1.500 4 4797 65.4 VO . 1.583 &.9772 72.23 v0. 1.667 5.5069 76.92 VO 1.750 6.0594 80.22 Q 1.833 6 6617 87 46 .0 1.917 7.3203 95.63 0 2.000 8.0010 98.84 Q 2.083 8.6856 99.40 QV 2.167 9.3969 103.28 Q V 2.250 10 1904 115.21 OV 2.333 11 1072 133.13 OV . 2.417 12.1276 148 15 QV 2.500 13.2796 167.27 0 2.583 14.6982 205.99 V 0 2.667 16.3536 240.36 V Q 2.750 18 041 245.31 V. Q 2.033 19 4754 207.97 Q V 2.917 20.5257 152.50 Q V 3.000 21.3142 114.49 O V 3.003 21.9330 89.86 .Q V 3 167 22 3961 67.25 Q V 3.250 22.7370 49.49 Q V 3.333 23.0007 38.29 0 V J 417 23 2131 30.84 0 V . 3.500 23.3880 25.39 0 V . 3.583 23.5315 20.84 Q V. 3.667 23.6501 17 22 Q V. 3.750 23.7478 14.18 .Q V. 3.833 23.8261 11.37 .0 V. 3.917 23.8890 9.15 .0 V. 4.000 23.9384 7 16 Q V. 4.083 23.9705 5.82 0 V. 4.167 24.0133 5.05 0 V. 4.250 24 0427 4.20 Q V. 4.333 24.0684 3.73 0 V. 6 Date • 05/16/01 File name: 100Y3NA.RES Page 5 4 417 24 0000 2.96 0 V. ' 4.500 24.1035 2 14 0 V. A 503 24 1119 1 22 Q v a 667 24 1157 0 54 Q V. 4 750 24 1100 0.33 0 V. 4.033 21.1193 0 19 0 V. 4.917 24.1197 0.05 0 v 5.000 24.1197 0.00 0 v END OF FLOOOSCn ROUTING ANALYSIS ,1 V4 �■ � � s �. w. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. tee, �, �. � Date: 05116101 File name: 100H6RA.RES Page 1 ............................................. ............................... F L 0 0 0 R O U T I N G A N A L Y S I S ACCORDING TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTORL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFCIWCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (C) Copyright 1989 -99 Advanced Engineering Software (ees) Ver. 7 0 Release Date: 01/01/99 Licence ID 1264 Analysi9 prepared by Robert Bain, William Frost 6 Aeeoeiates 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 ...u... u... u... u...... DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ......•••......uu....... • REDRAWK TRACT NO. 23065 -6 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA GARRETT GROUP • 100 -YEAR 6 -HOUR HYDROGRAPH FOR AREA 'A• PROJECT CONDITIONS REP JN: 15- 100312 RHE FEBRUARY 2001 BASIN A ........................................... ............................... FILE NAME: 100Y6HA. DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY' 10:08 03130/2001 ............................................. ............................... FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 1 00 IS CODE = 1 ----- - -5 -__ --------------------- ------- -------- -- - - - - -- -- ->> UBAREA RUNOFF (UNIT- HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS)« «< (UNIT- HYDROGRAPH ADDED TO STREAM 41) WATERSHED AREA = 151.500 ACRES BASEFLOW = 0.000 CFS /SQUARE -MILE 'USER ENTERED •LAG' TIME = 0.221 HOURS CAUTION- LAG TIME IS LESS THAN 0.50 HOURS. THE 5- MINUTE PERIOD ON MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE T0O LARGE FOR PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES. VALLEY S -GRAPH SELECTED UNIFORM MEAN SOIL- LOSS (INCH /HOUR] = 0.200 LOW SOIL -LOSS RATE PERCENT(DECIMAL) = 0.500 USER - ENTERED RAINFALL = 3 50 INCHES RCFC&WCD 6 -HOUr Stem 15- Minute period) SELECTED RCFC&WCD DEPTN -AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTDR(PLATE E -5.0) = 0 9996 UNIT HYDROGIPPH TIME UNIT = 5 D00 MINUTES UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG -TIME = 37.707 UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INIERVAL 'S' GRAPH UNIT HYDROGRAPH NUMBER MEAN VALUES ORDINATES(CFS) 1 3.927 71.945 2 19.644 287.968 3 45.525 474.201 01� Date: 05/16/01 File name: 100H6HA.RES 4 63.850 335 099 5 73 125 169.793 6 78.913 106.040 1 83 002 7fi. 301 a 06.251 50.056 9 88 680 44.490 10 90.106 31 125 11 92.350 30.265 12 93.748 25.401 13 94 922 21.501 1i 95.978 19 354 15 96 753 14.108 16 97.485 13 414 17 90 071 10.735 10 98.351 5 132 19 98.621 4.960 20 98.092 4.956 21 99 163 4 960 22 99 433 4.956 23 99 704 4.956 24 99.974 4.956 25 100.000 0.475 2 Dace: 05/16/01 File 'name: 10a06HA.RES page 3 Dale: 05/16/01 File n 100X6 M.RES ..............................I...........I. UNIT UNIT ................................ )MIT EFFECTIVE PERIOD RAINFALL SOIL -LOSS RAINFALL (NUMBER) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) ------------------•------__---------____------------------------------------ 1 0.0175 0.0087 0.0082 2 0.0210 0.0105 0.0105 3 0.0210 0 DI05 0 0105 4 010210 0 0105 0.0105 5 0.0210 0.0105 0.0105 6 0.0245 0.0122 0.0122 7 0.0265 0.0122 0.0122 8 0.0265 0 0122 0.0122 9 0 0245 0 0122 0.0122 30 0.0245 0 0122 0.0122 11 0.0245 DAM 0.0122 12 0.0280 0.0110 0 0140 13 0.0280 O.a140 0 0140 14 0.0200 0 0140 0 0140 15 0.0280 0 0140 0.0140 16 0.0280 0. 014D 0.0140 17 0.0280 0.0140 0.0140 18 0.0280 0.0140 0.0140 19 0.0200 0 0140 0.0140 20 0 0200 0 0140 0.0140 21 0.0200 0.0140 0.0140 22 0.0280 0.0110 0.0140 23 0.0280 0.0140 0.0140 ' 21 0.0315 0.0157 0.0157 25 O.D280 0.0140 0.0140 26 0.0315 0 0157 0.0157 27 0 0315 0 0157 0.0157 28 0 0315 0.0157 0.0157 29 0.0315 0.0157 0 0157 30 0.0315 0 0157 0.0157 31 0.0315 0 0157 O.a157 32 0 0315 0 0157 0.0157 33 0.0350 0.0167 0.0183 34 0.0350 0.0167 010183 35 0.0350 0.0167 0.0183 36 0 0350 0 0167 0.0183 37 0 0350 0.0167 0.0183 38 0 0385 0.0167 0.0218 39 0.0385 0.0167 0.0218 40 0 0385 0 0167 0.0210 41 0 0420 0.0167 0 0253 42 0.0455 0.0167 0 0288 43 0.0490 0 0167 0.0323 41 0.0490 0 0167 0.0323 45 0 0525 0.0167 0.0358 46 0.0525 0.0167 0.0358 47 0.0560 0.0167 0 0393 48 0 0560 0.0167 0.0393 49 0.0595 0.0167 0.0428 50 0.0630 0.0167 0.0463 51 0.0665 0.0167 0.0498 52 0.0700 0.0167 0.0533 53 0 0735 0.0167 0 0568 54 0.0735 0.0167 0.0568 55 0.0770 0.0167 0.0603 56 0.0805 0.0167 0.0638 57 0.0840 0.0167 0.0673 50 0.0840 0.0167 0.0673 Y 59 0.0875 0 0167 0.0708 60 0 0910 0.0167 0.0743 61 0.1085 0.0167 0 0918 62 0.1259 0.0167 a 1093 63 0.1364 0.0167 0.1198 64 0.1469 a.0167 0.1303 65 0.1641 0 0167 0.1178 66 011959 0.0167 0.1792 67 0 0665 0.0167 0.0498 68 0.0315 0 0157 0.0157 69 0.0210 0.0105 0.0105 70 0.0175 0.0007 0 0087 71 0.0105 0.0052 a 0052 72 0.0070 0 0035 0.0035 TOTAL STORM RAINFALL(INCHES) - 3.50 TOTAL SOIL-LOSS(INCHES) = 1.06 TOTAL EFFECTIVE MINFALL(INCHES) = 2 14 --------------------- T0TAL SOIL-LOSS VOLUME (ACRE - FEET) = 13.3715 TOTAL STORM RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 30.7812 I De[e. 05/16/01 File name' 100H6HA RES Pege 5 6 - H O U R S T 0 R M R U N O F F H T D R 0 G R A P H HYOROGRAPH IN FIVE - MINUTE UNIT INTERVALS(CFS) (Note: Time indicated is at END of Each Unit Intervals) TIKEUIRS) VOLUHE W) Q(CFS) 0 75.0 150.0 225.0 300.0 0.093 0 0013 0.63 0 0 167 0 0269 3 27 0 0 250 0.0815 7.92 VQ 0 333 0 1620 11.69 VQ 0.117 0 2569 13 76 VQ 0.500 0,3609 15 12 V Q 0.583 0 4713 16.17 V 0 0 667 0.5979 17.91 V 0 0 750 0.7289 19.02 V Q 0 833 0.0617 19.72 VQ 0.917 1.0011 20 21 VQ 1.000 1 1472 20 77 .VQ 1.003 1 2960 21 61 .VQ 1.167 1 1525 22.72 .V 0 1.250 1.6116 23.53 VQ 1.333 1.7000 21 03 VO 1 117 1.909 21.37 VQ 1.500 2.1171 21 61 VQ 1.503 2 2882 21 80 V0 1 667 2 1600 21.95 0 1.750 2.6328 25.09 0 1.033 2.8065 25.22 0 1.917 2.9009 25.32 Q 2.000 3 1560 25.55 QV 2.003 3.3357 25.90 QV 2.167 3.5100 26 46 OV 2.250 3.7023 26.76 QV 2.333 3.0901 27 32 Q V 2.417 1.0820 27.82 Q V 2 500 4 2751 28.07 0 V 2 583 4.1699 28 21 0 V 2.667 1.6651 20 35 Q V 2 750 6.8623 28.61 Q V 2 033 5.0652 29.15 0 V 2.917 52769 30.71 Q V 3.000 51918 31.65 Q v 3.003 5.7161 32.13 0 v 3.167 5 9112 32.60 0 V 3 250 6.1710 33.92 0 v . 3.333 6.1210 35.75 0 v . 3 117 6.6779 37.30 Q V 3.500 6.9183 39.27 Q V. 3.583 7.2120 12.65 0 V. 3.667 7.5616 16 83 Q V. 3.750 7.9112 50.78 Q v 3 833 8.2871 51.11 0 v 3.917 0.6828 57.16 0 .V 1.000 9.1003 60.62 0 .V 1.083 9.5102 63 08 0 V 1.167 10.0031 0 26 0 V 1 250 10.1959 71.51 p. v 1 333 11.0232 76.57 0 V Date: 05116101 File name 100N6HA.RES Pege 6 1.117 11 5880 82 01 Q V 1.500 12 1901 87.0 .0 v 1.503 12.0253 92.23 Q V 4.667 13.1900 96.51 0 V 1 750 14.1881 101 36 0 V . 1.833 11 9223 106 60 0 V. 1.917 15.6092 111.36 0 V 5.000 16.1855 115.63 - 0 .v 5 083 17.3223 121.50 p V 5.167 18.2317 132.05 Q v 5 250 19 2501 119 03 Q. V 5.333 20.1210 168 85 0 V 5 117 21.7100 188.33 Q V- 5.500 23.1615 210.03 0 v 5.583 21 7307 22211 Q v 5.667 26.2075 211.0 Q v 5 750 27.3160 160.67 .Q V 5.833 20 0709 109.90 0 v 5.917 28 6257 80.56 Q V 6 000 29.0589 62.90 Q V 6 083 29.1026 19.91 p V . 6.167 29 6715 39.18 Q v 6.250 29 6899 31 27 Q v , 6.333 30.0627 25.10 0 V. 6 417 30.2015 20.50 Q V. 6 500 30.3211 16.91 0 V. 6.583 30 4168 13 90 .0 V. 6.667 30.1935 11 11 .Q V 6.750 30.5561 9.08 .0 v 6.833 30.6056 7.19 0 V. 6.917 30 609 5.56 0 V. 7.000 30.6767 1 76 0 v 7.083 30.7052 1.15 Q V. 7.167 30.7291 3.51 Q V. 7 250 30.7190 2.85 0 V. 7 333 30.7639 2.17 Q V. 7.07 30.7737 1 12 Q V. 7.500 30.7775 0.55 Q V. 7.583 30.7791 0.21 Q V. 7.667 30.7001 0.15 Q V. 7 750 30.7008 0.09 0 V. 7.833 30 7811 0.05 0 V. 7.917 30.7812 0.02 Q v 8 000 30.7812 0.00 Q v END OF FLOODSCX ROUTING ANALYSIS mm m = �. Dare: 05/16/01 File name: 100Y2lHA.RES Page 1 ................... ............................... I......................... P L O O D R O U T I N G A N A L Y S I S ACCORDING TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CON70RL AM WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC6WCD) 1978 HYDROLGGY.MANUAL (c) Copyright 1989 -99 Advanced Engineering Software (sea) Ver. 7 0 Release Date' 01/01/99 License ID 1264 Analysis prepared by: Robert Hein, Willi. FrOSt 6 A ... cietea 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 .•...0 ................... DESCRIPTION OF STUDY •........... ............. • REOHAWK TRACT NO. 23065 -6 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA GARRETT GROUP • 100 -YEAR 24 -HOUR HYDROGRAPH FOR AREA 'A' PROJECT CONDITIONS • REF ON 15- 100312 RHE FEBRUARY 2001 BASIN A ' .... .....uu........uu. .... ........ u•......u•....uu....... ......... FILE NAME: 10OY241U.DAT TIME /OATS OF STUDY: 10'11 03 /3012001 ............... ........................... .•................................ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODS 1.00 IS CODE = I »»-SUBAREA RUNOFF IUNiT- HYDROGRAPX ANALYSIS)« «< (UNIT- HYOROGRAPH ADDED TO STREAM 91) WATERSHED AREA = 151.500 ACRES BASEFLOW = 0 000 CFS /SQUARE -MILE 'USER ENTERED 'LAG' TIME = 0.221 HOURS CAUTION: LAG TIME IS LESS TRAIN 0 50 HOURS. THE 5- MINUTE PERIOD ON MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE TOD LARGE FOR PEAR PLOW ESTIMATES. VALLEY S -GRAPH SELECTED UNIFORM MEAN SOIL- LOSS(INCH/MOUR) = 0.200 LOW SOIL -LOSS RATE PERCENT(DECIMAL) = 0.500 MINIMUM SOIL -LOSS RATE(INCH /HOUR) = 0.100 USER - ENTERED RAINFALL = 6.75 INCHES RCFC6WCD 24 -Maur Storm (15- Minute period) SELECTED RCFC6WCD DEPTH -AREA ADJUSTMENT FAC701IPLATE E -5.8) = 0.9997 UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNIT . 15.000 MINUTES UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG -TIME = 113.122 _ c cx z x ex zc UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION ______________________________ __ _________________ ____________ ______________ INTERVAL S. GRAPH UNIT HOMOGRAPH NUMBER MEAN VALUES ORDINATES(CPS) _________________________ _______________________________ 1 23.032 140.664 2 71.966 298.856 Date: 05/16/01 File n 100Y21HA.RES Page 2 3 86.001 85.738 4 92.271 38.271 5 95 884 22.070 6 97.969 12.731 7 90.892 5 639 8 99 482 3.603 9 99.793 1.898 10 99.948 0 949 11 100.000 0.316 Date: 05/16/01 File nme IOOY74 HA RES Page 3 ............................................. UNIT UNIT ............................... UNIT EFFECTIVE PERIOD RAINFALL SOIL -LOSS RAINFALL " (NUMBER) (INCITES) (INCHES) (INCHES) -___---•--------------------"_-_------______------_--_-_-------_---_-------- 1 0.0135 0.0067 0.0067 2 0 0202 0.0101 0.0101 3 0.0202 a 0101 0 0101 4 0.0270 0 0135 0.0135 5 0.0202 0.0101 0.0101 6 0.0202 0.0101 O.alal 7 0.0202 oAlol 0 0101 B 0 0270 0.0135 0 0135 9 O.0270 0.0135 0.0135 t0 0.0270 0.0135 0.0135 11 0.0337 0.0169 0 0169 12 0.0337 a.0169 0.0169 13 0 0337 0 0169 0.0169 it 0.0337 0 0169 0.0169 15 0.0337 0.0169 0.0169 16 0.0405 0.0202 a.o202 17 0.0405 0.0202 0.0202 18 0.0672 0 0236 0.0236 19 0 0472 0 0236 0.0236 20 0.0540 0 0270 0.0270 21 0.0405 0.0202 0.0202 22 0.0472 0.0236 0.0236 23 0.0540 0.0270 0 0270 ' 24 0 0540 0 0270 0.0270 25 0.0607 0.0304 0.0304 26 0.0607 0.0)04 0 0304 27 0.0675 0.0337 0.0337 28 0.0675 0 0337 0.0331 29 0.0675 0 0337 0.0137 30 0.0742 0.0371 0.0171 31 0.0810 0.0405 0 0405 32 0.0877 0 0439 0.0439 33 0.1012 0 0506 0.0506 34 0.1012 0.0506 0.0506 35 0.1080 0.0540 0 0540 36 0 1141 0 0562 0.0585 37 0 1202 0.0554 0.0728 38 0.1350 0.0546 0 0804 39 0.1417 0 0538 0 0879 40 a 1485 0.0531 0.0954 41 0.1012 0.0506 0 0506 42 0.1012 0.0506 0 0506 43 0.1350 0 0508 0.0842 44 0 1350 0.0500 0.0849 45 0.1262 0.0493 0 0709 46 0.1282 0.0406 0.0196 47 0.1147 0.0479 0 0669 48 a 1215 0.0471 0.0743 49 0 1687 0.0464 0.1223 50 0.1755 0.0457 0.1297 51 0.1889 0.0451 0 1439 52 0.1957 0.0444 0.1513 53 0.2294 0.0437 0.1857 54 0.2294 0 0430 0.1864 55 0 1552 0.0424 0.1128 56 0.1552 0.0417 0.1135 57 0.1822 0.0411 0 1411 58 0.1755 0.0405 o.13sa Date: 05116/01 File name: IDDY24M RES Page 4 59 0.1755 0.0]99 0.1356 6 0.1687 0.0393 0.1295 61 0.1620 0.0387 0.1233 62 011552 0 0301 0 1171 63 0.1202 0 0375 0.0907 66 0.1282 0.0369 0.0913 65 0.0270 0.0135 0.0135 66 0.0270 0 0135 0.0135 67 0.0202 0 0101 0.0101 68 0.0202 0.0101 0.0101 69 O.OI]7 0.0169 0.0169 70 a.a337 0 0169 0.0169 71 0.0337 0.0169 010169 72 0.0270 0.0135 0.0135 73 0.0270 0.0135 0.0135 74 0 0270 0.0135 0.0135 75 0.0202 0.0101 0.0101 76 0.0135 0.0067 0 0067 77 0.0202 0.0101 0.0101 70 0.0270 0.0135 0.0135 79 0 0202 0.0101 0.0101 80 0.0135 0 0067 0.0067 ' 81 0.0202 0.0101 0.0101 82 0 0202 0 0101 0.0101 83 0.0202 0.0101 0.0101 84 010135 0.0067 0.0067 85 0.0202 0.0101 O.Olal 86 0.0135 0 0067 0 0067 87 0.0202 0 0101 0 0101 88 0 0135 0.0067 0 0067 09 0.0202 0.0101 0.0101 90 0.0135 0 0067 a.0067 91 0.0135 0 0067 0 0067 92 0 0135 0.0067 0.0067 93 0 0135 0.0067 0.0067 94 0.0135 0.0067 0.0067 95 0.0135 0 0067 0.0067 96 0.0135 0.0067 0.0067 TOTAL STOM MINFALLIINCHES) = 6.75 TOTAL SOIL- LOSS(INCHES) = 2.50 TOTAL EFFECTIVE RAINFALL(INCHES) = 4.25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SOIL -LOSS VOLUHEIACRE -FEET) = 31.6020 TOTAL STORH RUNOFF VOLONE(ACRE -FEET) -------------------------------------------- = 53.5657 ---------- ---- "_---------- - - - - -- ow Date 05116/01 File name: 100Y24M RES Page 5 2 4 - H O U R S T 0 R M R U N O F F H Y D R 0 G R A P H HYDROGRAPH IN FIVE - MINUTE UNIT IMTERVALS(CFS) (Note- Time indicated is at END od Ee,n Unit Intervals) ____________ _______ ________________________ TIME(HRS) VOLUME W) Q(CFS) 0 50 0 0 Go) 0 0065 0 95 Q 0.167 0.0131 0 95 Q 0 250 0 0196 0 95 0 0 333 0 0433 3 44 Q 0.617 0.0610 3.44 Q 0.500 0.0907 3.41 Q 0 583 0 1253 5 03 VQ 0 667 0 1599 5.03 VQ 0.750 0.1946 5.03 VQ 0.033 0.2362 6.05 VQ 0 917 0 2779 6 05 VQ 1 000 0 3196 6 05 VQ 1 083 0 3668 6.86 VQ 1.167 0.1141 6.86 VQ 1.250 0.4613 6 06 VQ 1.333 0 5047 6 30 VQ 1 417 015481 6.30 VQ 1.500 0.5916 6.30 VQ 1.583 0.6344 6.22 VQ 1.667 0 6773 6 22 VQ 1 750 0 7201 6.22 VQ 1 833 0 7662 6.69 VQ 1.917 0.8122 6.69 VQ 2.000 0.8583 6 69 VQ 2 003 0 9112 7.69 VQ 2 161 0.9642 1.69 VQ 2.250 1.0172 7 69 VQ 2 333 1,0720 7.97 VQ 2.411 1.1269 7.97 VQ 2.500 1.1018 7 97 VQ 2.503 1 2400 8.57 VQ 2.667 1 2990 8 57 VQ 2.750 1.3588 8.57 Q 2.833 1 4252 9.65 .Q 2.917 1.4917 9 65 .Q 3.000 1.5581 9.65 .Q 3.083 1 6260 9.90 .Q 3.167 1.6955 9.98 .Q 3.250 1.7642 9.98 .Q 3.333 1 8340 10.12 .VQ 3 417 1 9037 10.12 .vQ 3.500 1.9734 10 12 .VQ 3.583 2.0637 10.21 .VQ 3 667 2.1140 10.21 .VQ 3.750 2 1843 10 21 .VQ 3.833 2.2582 10 73 .VQ 3.917 2.3321 10.73 .VQ 4 000 2.4060 10.73 .VQ 4.083 2.4820 11.76 .VQ 4.162 2.5680 11.76 .VQ 1.250 2.6190 11 76 .VQ 4.333 2.7354 12.54 . 0 ___________________________ 100 0 150 0 200 0 Date 05116/01 File name: 100Y241tA RES Page 6 d 417 2 0218 12 5d Q 4.500 2.9001 12.54 Q 4 503 3.0024 13.68 Q a 667 3,0966 13 60 Q 4.750 3.1908 13 68 Q 4.833 3.2909 14.52 Q 4 917 3 3909 14.52 Q 5.000 3.6909 14.52 Q 5.083 3.5926 16.76 Q 5 167 3.6942 14.76 Q 5 250 3 7958 14.76 Q 5.333 3.8895 13.60 Q 5 617 3.9831 13 60 0 5.500 4.0768 13.60 QV 5.503 L1779 14.69 QV 5 667 4.2791 14 69 QV 5.750 4 3802 14 69 QV 5.833 4.4892 15.83 Q 5.917 4,5902 15 83 0 6 000 4.7072 15.83 Q 6.083 4.8217 16.63 Q 6 167 4 9363 16.63 Q " 6.250 5 0508 16 63 Q 6.333 5.1732 17.78 Q 6.417 5.2957 17.70 0 6 500 5 4102 17 70 QV 6.583 5 5465 18.64 QV 6.667 5.6749 18.64 QV 6 750 SAM 18.64 QV 6 833 5 9398 19.02 QV 6.917 6.0763 19.02 QV 7 000 6.2128 19.82 QV 7 083 6 3520 20.21 Q 7 167 6.4911 20 21 Q 7.250 6.6303 20.21 Q 7.333 6,7740 20.87 QV 7 d17 6.9177 20.87 QV 7.500 7.0615 20.07 QV 7.583 7.2161 22.45 QV 7,667 7.3707 22.45 QV 7.750 7.5253 22.45 QV - 7.833 7.6926 24 28 QV 7.917 7.8598 24.28 Qv 0.000 0.0270 24.28 QV 8 003 8.2108 26.69 QV 0.167 8 3946 26 69 QV 8.250 0.5781 26.69 Qv 8.333 8 7796 29.21 Qv , 8.417 8.9007 29.21 QV 8.500 9.1819 29.21 Qv , 0.583 9 3921 30.52 QV , 8 667 9 6023 30.52 QV 8.750 9.8124 30.52 Qv , 8.033 10 0367 32.56 QV 8.917 10 2610 32.56 QV , 9.000 10.4852 32.56 QV , 9.003 10.7362 36.44 Qv 9.167 10.9072 36 44 QV 9.250 11 2382 36.44 QV 9.333 11 5303 42.42 Q . 9.417 11.8224 42.42 Q _ 9.500 12.1165 42.42 Ov. 9.583 12 1600 47.26 Q. 9.667 12.7655 47.26 Q. Date 05/16/01 File name File Data, SDDY24" RES Page 2 9 250 13 0910 42.26 Q Q. 9.033 42 13 6482 51.94 Q Q 9.917 1.5404 13 8064 51 94 Q 10 000 14.1641 26.02 51 94 Q 10 003 1L5032 76.02 49 23 QV 10.167 45.1109 14 0422 49.23 Q Q v 10.25D 45 15.1813 69.66 49.23 0 Q v 10 333 15.4373 69.66 32 12 Q .v 10 412 15.6932 69 66 37.17 Q Q .v 10 500 15.9492 60.96 37.17 Q Q .V 10.583 47 16 2158 38 71 Q v 10.667 47.8097 16.4824 60 96 38 71 Q V 10 750 16.7490 47 40 38 71 Q v 10 033 17 0761 47.50 Q Q v 10.911 48.7907 17 4032 1.50 Q. Q v 11 000 19.7304 23.03 47 50 Q. v 11 083 18 0676 48.96 Q. V 11 167 18 4048 48 96 Q v 11 250 18.1420 15.19 48 96 0 v 11 333 19.0736 15.19 40.14 Q. v 11 417 19.4051 15.19 48.14 Q. v 11.500 49.6550 19.7362 10.01 48.14 Q. v 11 583 20.0570 10.01 46 62 Q v 11.667 49 20.3788 10.81 46 62 Q. v 11.750 49.8700 20.6999 9 58 46.62 Q. v 11 833 21 0029 43.99 Q v 11 917 21.3050 9.58 1 99 Q v 12.00D 50 21.6008 10 36 1.99 Q v 12.083 50.1446 21.9661 10.36 51.88 Q v 12.167 50.2160 22.3234 10 36 51.80 Q v 12 250 22.6808 10.37 51.88 Q v 12 333 23.1452 10 37 67.43 0 v 12 417 23.6096 10.37 67.43 0 v 12.500 50.4978 24.0740 9 01 62 43 Q v 12 583 24.5960 9.81 75.00 Q v . 12.667 50 25 1180 75 80 Q v . 12 750 25 6401 75 80 Q v 12.833 50.7537 26.2156 8.77 83.57 Q V. 12.917 50.0141 26 7911 83.57 Q v 13 000 27 3667 83 57 Q v 13.083 50.9309 28 0007 93.21 Q v 13.167 50.9893 20.6506 B.48 93.21 Q V 13.250 51 29 2926 93.21 Q v 13.333 51.0979 30.0195 7 09 105.54 .QV 13.417 51 30.7463 7.89 105.54 .QV 13 500 31 4731 105.54 Q v 13.583 51.2397 32 1570 99.30 Q v 13.667 51.2035 32.8409 6.35 99.30 Q. v 13 750 33 5248 99.30 v 13.833 51.3591 34.0712 5.50 79.34 Q v 13.917 51 34.6176 5.50 79.34 Q v 14.000 51.4421 35.1640 6.55 79.34 Q v 14.083 51.4872 35.7025 6.55 78.19 Q v 14.167 51_5323 36.2410 6 55 70.19 Q v 14.250 51.5816 36 7795 78 19 Q v 14.333 51.6300 37.3541 7.16 83.43 Q v 14.417 51.6801 37.9207 7 16 83.43 0 v . 14.500 51.7212 30.5033 5.97 83.43 0 v . 14.503 51.7623 39.0731 5.97 82.74 Q V. 14.667 51.8034 39.6429 5.97 82.74 Q v 14.750 51 40.2127 5 28 82.74 0 v 14.833 51.8762 40.7763 5.20 81.83 Q v 14.917 51.9126 41.3399 5 28 81.83 0 v 15.000 51 41.9034 5.96 81.03 0 v �l 05/16/01 File name 10OY24HA RES 15.003 42.4491 79.23 Q .v 15 162 42 9942 79 23 Q v 15 250 1.5404 29.23 Q v 15 333 44,0639 26.02 Q v 15.417 44.5874 76.02 Q v 15.500 45.1109 26.02 Q v 15 583 45 5902 69.66 0 v 15.667 46.0705 69.66 Q v 15 750 46 5503 69 66 Q v 15 833 46 9701 60.96 Q v 15.917 47 3899 60.96 Q v 16.000 47.8097 60 96 0 v 16 083 48 1367 47 40 0. v 16 167 40 4637 47_48 Q v 16.250 48.7907 1.1 Q. v 16 333 48.9494 23.03 Q v 16 17 49 1080 23.03 Q v 16.500 49.2666 23.03 Q v 16.583 1.3713 15.19 Q v 16 667 49 4759 15.19 0 v 16.750 49 5806 15.19 Q v 16.833 49.6550 10.01 Q v 16 917 49 7295 10.01 Q v 17.000 49 8040 10.81 0 v 17.083 49.8700 9 58 .0 v 17.167 49.9359 9 50 .0 v 17 250 50 0019 9.58 Q v 17.333 50 0732 10 36 Q v 17.417 50.1446 10.36 Q v 17.500 50.2160 10 36 Q v 17.583 50.2874 10.37 Q v 17.667 50 3588 10 37 Q v 17.750 50.102 10.37 Q v 17 833 50.4978 9 01 .0 v 17,917 50.5653 9.81 .Q v 10.000 50 6328 9.81 .0 v 10.083 50.6932 0.77 .Q v 18.167 50.7537 8.77 Q v 18 250 50.0141 8.77 Q v 10.333 50.6725 8.48 .Q v 16.417 50.9309 8 48 .0 v . 18 500 50.9893 B.48 .Q v . 18.503 51 0436 7.89 .0 v . 18.667 51.0979 7 09 .0 v . 18.750 51 1523 7.89 .Q v 18.833 51.1960 6.35 .0 v . 18.917 51.2397 6.35 Q v 19.000 51.2035 6.35 .Q v . 19.003 51.3213 5.50 0 v 19,167 51.3591 5.50 .Q v . 19.250 51 3970 5.50 0 v , 19 333 51.4421 6.55 .0 v . 19.417 51.4872 6.55 .Q v . 19.500 51_5323 6 55 0 v 19.583 51.5816 7.16 .Q v 19,667 51.6300 7.16 .Q v , 19.750 51.6801 7 16 .Q v , 19.833 51.7212 5.97 Q v 19.917 51.7623 5.97 Q v 20.000 51.8034 5.97 .Q v 20 083 51 8398 5 28 .Q v . 20.167 51.8762 5.20 .0 v . 20.250 51.9126 5 28 .Q v . 20.333 51 9536 5.96 .0 v , Oa[e 05/16/01 File n : IOOY24RA.RES File name: 100Y24HA RES Page 9 20.417 5650 51 9911 5.96 0 V . 20.500 0 02 52.0357 V. 5.96 .Q V . 20.503 Q 52.0776 26.000 6.09 0 V . 20 667 52.1196 083 53 6 09 Q v . 20 750 52.1615 6.09 .Q v 20 033 52 2006 5 65 .Q V . 20.917 52 2393 5.65 .0 V. 21 000 52.2782 5.65 .0 v 21.083 52.3136 5 14 Q v 21 167 52.3490 5.14 .Q V. 21 250 52.3814 5.11 .Q v 21 333 52 4216 5.40 .Q v 21 417 52 4588 5 l0 .Q V. 21.500 52.4960 5 40 .Q V. 21.583 52.5307 5.04 .0 v 21 667 52.5654 5.01 .Q V 11 750 52 6001 5.04 Q V. 21 833 52 6368 5.34 .0 V. 21.917 52.6736 5.34 .0 V. 22 000 52.7106 5.31 0 V 22.083 52.7118 5.00 0 V. 22.167 52.7792 5 00 0 V. 22.250 52 8136 5.00 0 V. 22.331 52 8503 5.32 .Q V. 22 417 52.8869 5.32 0 V. 22.500 52.9236 5.32 0 - v 22.583 52.9547 4.51 Q v 22.667 52.9058 4.51 Q V. 22 750 53 0169 4.51 0 V. 22.833 53,0466 4.31 Q V. 22.917 53 0763 4.31 Q V 23.000 53.1059 4.31 Q V. 23.083 53.1350 1.22 Q V. 23.166 53 1641 4.22 Q v 23.250 53 1932 4.22 0 V. 23.333 53.2220 4 18 0 V. 23 416 53.2507 4.18 0 V. 23.500 53 2795 4.10 0 V. 23 583 53.3001 4.15 0 V 23.666 53.3367 4.15 0 V. 23.750 53 3652 4 15 0 v 23.033 53.3937 4.14 Q V. 23.916 53.4222 4.14 0 V. 24.000 53 4507 4 14 0 v 24 083 53.4726 3.18 Q V. 24.166 53 1915 3.18 0 v 24.250 53.5164 3.18 Q V. 24 333 53.5244 1.16 0 V. 24.416 53.5323 1.16 Q V. 24.500 53.5403 1 16 Q V. 24.583 53.5443 0.58 0 V. 24.666 53.5483 0.58 0 V. 24.750 53.5523 0 58 Q V. 24.833 53 5545 0.32 Q V. 24.916 53.5566 0.32 0 V. 25.000 53.5588 0.32 Q V. 25 083 53.5600 0.17 Q V. 25.166 53.5612 0.17 Q V. 25.250 53.5623 0.17 0 V. 25.333 53.5629 0.08 0 V. 25.416 53.5635 0.08 0 V. 25.500 53.5641 0.00 0 V. 25.583 53.5644 0.05 Q V. 25.666 53.5647 0.05 0 V. Date: 05/16/01 File n : IOOY24RA.RES Pepe 10 25.150 53 5650 0.05 Q V. , 25.831 53.5652 0 02 0 V. 25.916 53.5653 0.02 Q V. 26.000 53.5655 0 02 0 V. ' 26 083 53 5655 0.01 0 V. 26.166 53.5656 0.01 Q V. 26,250 53.5656 0.01 0 V. END OF FLOOOSCm ROUTING ANALYSIS PIPE CULVERT ANALYSIS COMPUTATION OF CULVERT PERFORMANCE CURVE May 13, 2001 Redhawk Tract No. 23065 JN 15- 100312 Lateral at Lot 625 to pick up offsite fLows PROGRAM INPUT DATA: DESCRIPTION VALUE ----------------------- --------------- - - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- Culvert Diameter ( feet) .. ............................... 4.50 FHUA Chart Number (1,2 or 3) ............................ 1 Scale Number on Chart (Type of Culvert Entrance) ........ 2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n• value) ............... 0.0140 Entrance Loss Coefficient of Culvert Opening............ 0.50 Culvert Length ( feet) .... ............................... 50.0 Culvert Slope (feet per foot ) ........................... 0.1500 PROGRAM RESULTS: FLOW Tailwater Headwater (ft) Normal Critical Depth at Outlet Rate Depth Inlet Outlet Depth Depth Outlet Velocity (cfs) (ft) Control Control (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) 156.0 14.95 6.09 10.05 1.44 3.66 4.50 9.81 PIPE CULVERT ANALYSIS COMPUTER PROGRAM Version 1.7 Copyright (01986 Dodson 8 Associates, Inc., 7015 N. Tidwell, #107, Houston, T% 77092 (713) 895 78322. ALI Rights Reserved. 19�' COUNTY O_ RIVERSIDE _ apN %� TRACT 2 SEHEOUI -p 990,5,9 �o O�Q Mgr �t vV' PO F STOCKPILE SITE 6 v Yl O f , - - / \ VICINITY MAP �,\ NOT TO SCALE N. \ ,,. ', - ! / / /%� ✓. ,. „ ", ;I�I \ \.:,: -\ o / ter, ._.� \. \ \ ,\ \ +_ ,..--- _t.. -�.._ ✓ ,. ._. - ice.... .. _- L -- y. r 1. r1 ;' \? i/ ', \ r r ,,.. '•� '�- � '- >-_, :Y .,_• .1"" °. \ : . ,__..: _7 ,. 4f _ ,'4`�?'y%-'1��-- �:._�_../ // .. Y-' '., t^. -., t 1 • \ / ;L F, _ _ :+1 � _.l I "• / y , 1 \ �`�.. —. —_ , , , __.. � .. _ -. .-. S: a, .c_,. i r \. y -rte- y r— T ..'/ ,A-* .- 'c . I f . . ^t jt -� \t.: . /y/ / / PP \., X _, ., i ___�_,._- t f , \_, .t , r /.. ,`,•\ .. / //'_r 1, ar�J 1, -.. . , / 4 '., , /,.. rl, /: a r p , >. ` / _ \ r 4 / C ^' ily- )..r.,r7 1 , -_ ", d J ujy / __ /, i _ -�- �.. .' + ; ' :✓ a -( \ . S a �', ", l "N NN l l . 1 ♦^ , / / z / ; ° +< vj uj r l - 1.�`'� ��..r 'P, iX lJ >.i\ \, \ ice`' \ ' \ \,'. r / !,r. , / l I \. � - -.. � , \\ { 1 \ A.. -„�'. vi �., p ��: \- �uCrTABf_F FOR W : ,7 ,. t r : !.,/ .. �.,� /- ",l L. /. \'.: \'b \.,.- ✓ / r: ;1 JRPGScS ONLY � �E `_� > \� ` 1. 1 y I./ I`7 ,_.,r:- ..\../ /l. _..,�.< -,✓ �,,.- fALL. � / l \ �I , 1 f . , ,. r � ,:,._ \ '\ t f \/ / \ \ / ,,_ I i / ., / `k: � _ —,- - -� ,.,"-' JAN 3, J i / y ✓ It ` , --' _-� � 2001 Lc os E,_2 ,,.: ._." � i.. ,,:: .v ,�1 1 :. � \, \r. I�t., , ,`, I ,. i. .. 1 ,Y ( i d,'."_`�.,, ::fir y} -�- r.,. c,. •.NIIV'i, - °. ._ _: � v. " +r " \- t T. - ' « �_`. -- e -�•o ._G PART ART Y ENT 'cs. —' I \a, \ r : S ; n._,_A lC r i '-� Y9_ A �'"..— o..' //-• r Z YL \ � I.. , b � '%, .�� LA \ 1 1 1C ..+ < t .• ,, I / \ � � , ,,, `1: _ \ ". , : , . / .: \ - : ,- GRAPHIC SCALE ee o ` a ao iso saa : IN FEET ). RANCHO BELL " I sr:cn - so ft. 'JAN 3 U 2001 0 —' SEE SHEET NO.2 BLUEPRINT q Underground Service Alert SOURCE OF TORO REVISIONS SEAL: COUNTY SEAL: PREPARED BY: SCALE , COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1 V REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEERING NO 26457 _____OF Call: '' TOLL FREE AMERICAN AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. Horizontal p/�^ ' q + ` 564 .SOUTH STEWART DRIVE l TRACT NO. 23065-2 —800 COVINA, CA. 91723-3197 1' v 818 331 4600 APPROVED BY: Tuns- Pacific 2 / ` - : STOCKPILE SITE ��� —�� �� \ / RIVERSIOE'CO:. CALIF. FOR TRANSPORTATION DEPT. Vertical u4N8NlP RKT3 — _SHEETS - 27431 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST DATE: N /A: TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 / dWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG TEL. (909) 576 -7000 :� 4C* 4m0%mwff'W4m*f` i \ - N:1 Hll —'- _ ,. _ __ ` r .. _... i h , \` 1\ / �•� t \ \, � � :. , Vii:, � a �_/ \�.. \ / .. 1 C / r � 11 I n •.,. -ir s\ O( ,\ v, V . \ t r I. S � ! r.� . —'. \. / fA +.d. III , / -i '_•: / \ ,:. .. _j r �m\ L .I lk Liu Lu f7 .. -- J �.. ., A ) n \ , /.. ' ' Ir &\ :.. ... ;/ •a �. \ l T- \ � I f ,. / .:. I_ 243F7 , _ \ x 11 Ali \ r \ A, LLJ Ljj \ i s \ `I t_ I 1 \\ 1 ( / ) ,__. _. \ % If M .tom °,�,: , � J ,L 4 4 I /.\ `.. `�_:cfn � / l / ,,�1 \ i ; ,. -. �1 '», �v � .. �.,. •.f z \: I / rrl I \;\ . \. t_, \ I, If / S GRAPHIC. SCALE 90 0 w 80 ISO 240 - RANCHO BELL ( IN .FEET) - I inch = 90 ft. JAN 3 0 2001 BLUEPRINT Underground Service Alert SOURCE OF TOPO REVISIONS SEAL: COUNTY SEAL: PREPARED BY: SCALE r « REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEERING NO 26457 : , ...COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 2 ° Call: TOLL FREE Horizontal' w, ___ OF AMERICAN STEW RT DRIVE `INC. - 1 , &; TRACT NO. 23065' -2 5OV SOUTH S 1723- DRIVE - APPROVED BY: TIaIi4- PacifSc 2 1 �ggU (818) ; 1 91723- 3197 4422- 4138 c8,8> 33, -46DO. Ver aal Cpyy WAIT$ STOCKPILE SITE _ SHEETS RIVERSIDE GO.,LALIF. FOR TRANSPORTATION DEPT, DATE: N/A : 2TEMECUUE CALIFORNIA s25 WEST TWO: WGRKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG TES:: (sos) 676 7000'. dogZa go 15 on 4 me /*OIL 00901 }! . r � \\ I NN '.\ p ( \ \ \' - rr v_. 1 , \ (LOCATIQ WARE APPtOXIMATE)' � o „ >, ♦ � ��J i j/ / o / CTEt3 FILL - QUAT~Y ALlLUSHIMA. \ fit f(TEE l Q 1 QUATERNARY PAUSA FORMATION SEDROCK � �'' r�;% � •° � isANOsTOVE UNIT] + Rr vwwwwwq*QEOL0W, CONTACT _ / X C a ,', �..r�' • \. n ..- / i / is -- ' BORMiti LOCATKjti, PETfiA UPfi1L, 9�) 1 '�, g' •q, ' �'%/ � .� r i "' l.�! THT9EiAARO Y � s _ , \. %'i I /.j/ C� , , A8$OCW0SKy, (WO) ' .�. 'PST 0 LOCATION 4 ) a. � PETRA (Aim x4D'! J , , JWiRTtt I,GSEI '_H 1 <6> N TES WAL OW" IN FEET v, - �_• — 3r TIC 70 TC �ftQR7E6�' 4 C! � i \ ,,.,, 75.8' —1 � _. J 1 , 1111nI1I Ml� �li,�Illi1; 801 R © FAULT, SY PIONEER (79 ' _ v ` f wwrrMr lrmwlrrF INFERF(Ei1 " #A11 T BY SAUI 1978 1 I A> M44 +'M � ' MAGNETOMETER TRAVERSE, PIONEER (MO) ss 2 r¢ � � ji 31 / 32� i' -'t8 / 2 P TRENCH, PIONEER (IN?) 33 TT,i*qt - �++�+�� TRENCH, EARTH RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INC. I { ' { \ 3 \ l _ Cj�j8k(` ( zn - , / of 7 `. _.1'le+'r./ ,v, r) 77. i �. \' \- \ \ .`, ` i I' 36 a-P =4.4 7��,y• ..Q7•L Z3 7 Pi..q rpDn�., �K ,_ "., ♦Cd�� \ � \�' %, \ \ _,\ \\ +t , l� � TC 7� \ L Co 4.7 rsto Yal \ TC ,rent Lu /144 ?6• > _ 43 1. >>� o g• A' 42 73.7 76.9 I �a /i /. / `! /! , `t ! / 69.4 , '/. / `s? ��1 9 9' // n J; 15 40 0 40 80 120 40 m n l 38 GRAPHIC SCALE / / / /, ,f 1 72.1 39 m_ 73.7 I �1 1 yl 14 9. '''. 7. t (i 4Y / 69 8N/� 7419 T 57 _ MA� C 1— I 4 — ., 6, I 1 F 1 I I � L 7 .BBI 1 TO Fm II � � SJ DIC. �3Ri I I i � a AT UPW ym D� UNIVO OM SERVICE MW OF SOUMM CaLFOHNIA DRAWN PLANNING R. O[oION ■ OONRTRUCTION BENCHMARK:. T- 1•-81, ELEV. AR SHEET NO. 4 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE -E"�� TRACT N0. 23085 -3 IP - OOOOb7 � WORK CONTAINED WITHIN THESE PLANS F:'ISSlp TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 4pOFE5S(py� 2 1/2" BRASS DISK IN CONC. CYLANDER 2.4 DESIGNED ^ SHALT. NOT COMMENCE UNTIL AN O 4�9 I, �/! APPROVED BY !�� e(l A, {A / f _ _ MILES SOUTHEAST ON HIGHWAY 79 FROM AR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3 h, ENCROA0*6T- PERMIT AND/OR A 1+r �ti� !�f %!t. y � /�i 7B.EWLAgµFpRMAg2aW INTERSECTION OF MAIN AND FRONT STREET IN CHECKED MAT R R GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED. ,".� Ko ^ CONSULTING W0.616M 2 PAX 9DGGn72eo. wwR9P � TEMECUL.A• 53.5' SOUTH OF C/L HIGHWAY A a 79, 3.2' EAST OF GT POLE GT 2453). 300' SCALE 6 �-.. .., No. 43090 ^7 No.33950 KHALED A. OTHMAN RATE: ° Ei • 3 {IIt /04 ( ) OF_ SHEETS n As SHOWN ROUGH GRADING PLAN TIL prnwh w•1n.rl Mtl. ewy,�d�. mN rw 1 C*P•- 6/30 {02 >•} R.C.E. NO. 33950 ,,., !' PREPARED BY: MICHAEL A. TYLMAN - R.C.E. NO. 4MO EAST OF.PRO,DUCE STAND MIDWAY BETWEEN FILE NO. v .w • °�' '. rNlplm' } Y i "twm. !' EXP. DATE: 6 -30 -02 l it Y.FL ♦ NU ER - i 1n tM.Nw/ d elN.wsrR,r a1 �'UIL, M _ mi w �ll Civil 0.�\ •l j{. 1 E %P• DATE: 3 -31 -04 P.P. 755180 ANO P.P. 75581 ON LINE WITH OLD 15- 100312 pF $�,>;1 FENCE LINE RUNNING N. k S. SET. FIBERGLASS .,, 1w a wlftlm a w owl .,wfw w. 11-1" 14 N.. OF A4\ DATE FOR: W.O. COUNTY a E V . I�. , S I 0,N S � RECOMMENDED 'BY BOYI,E .ENGINEERING "GATE: DATE: VATNESSIPOST 1'. SOUTH OF MONUMENT. RWHAWH FILE NO. I �' i „6) i �� X 71- 15 / \` �I a .. I..' l lj ` ct`.' !, (,80.4) I� J 1745 s/ .` • �. /,�' � t r)�)� z< C-- 65.0 `v - a �� / ^ ^ry 5 ' /; �/ X2.51 , I- �I 14 III i' 44 IF* I 66: , SEE SHEET 3 rd 80. / 47 T - -- _� -- - - _. I'I + �FaC -.- tat \ / w, pp.y / •f`�1ry0 i -I 1! / ? f.-5g Ti8.i9 - - ?1 J TC -TC 48 / / 1 J(° �C� 9nC� 8 / ,a ♦ p:52 J O / / _ a `,� � I -� ♦ ' 70.0 I II. I y ^yo # � ' ?�• ry0 - ej � 49 / I i ^� / \ / r 57 c 52 40 0 40 80 120 ¢8 / or.'nnzs ur,.. I 7g 11 /! �� t�'es» 73.:9 j �2 8 GRAPHIC SCALE ,� / ♦ VSx,mzV: / .'�. -F.. __.- / oal I / I O ry, ! - _ 'S 'x 100.00' / \ 6 4 9 , .1 I y / � 27.76' 20.00' 3' 37. {1' 12 O 151. �' o TIC 63 T d4tp0 IN ml 14� 49.39 WI I o ^a I I r � I I i 63.0 i gl•' ` a ,14s4.ai2 �!� / 4/,� 1/ J�... ,�♦ .� 8 I 67 fv � n/ • / m �I \ .I 64.1 • � eJ• 68.9 � '� 1165._ s: / , J \ `Lm�. 1 1.0' � .ego I PI x.sren I 100.00' I i I 6 2 C ( t zo' 0' x.'4.1 VB .,,c„v / � , / 1 �. 5'�' /��� � � ` ,.,.__._ I g 6' 6 z / 1. / �A1 ,� \ �` 65.3 ♦ 70.2 / !60 I \ .{t' v / 'An I' e i i./ � \ •19: 5' �"', ...' " •/ ; e, ^F '� / = ' � i / / / / / , % / . / \` s: i , . . ��+ II , " ' \ � 4 4. y0 J `' _ 1 b,'�'1�� ♦ '� °�!.a M _ / ♦/ � / ,J � 6� 9. 4 � . � , a - y,an ' $ 55 $I I 114% 1 rc I I 1 I I r 1 ,6 : I . �. T ? ;. 57 56 wl 94 10,, \ � - . % 'Air. 'l L, / ; , ,, �" �/ � �.0 _ �0 / „ 4! \ ♦� / 72 ,._., / ,- - 19.97' f -` - - Y 82.2 81: C/7 93 \ I 10 Z0 \ ./ 73'�.as1 ' 24. 18' 82 4 {5.55•w 98.88• _, 4 I v ll _ � 'i7 cg ` / 70.6 .. � / � i , \ 2D. , ,00.DO• I I '� / 'i ' ; -� -- f 64.2 FG ., � � \ Iljl I QCay ` q..,) . \n.,]. t,nav �'•, \ / C� / I 6 gl I { L� 92 tie)2 \\ •� 0a \ �' 4) \ 1 yi._ - _.7x41- ��' 1 ' ' 78 1 i p 82.4 I pl I a j -� Li 9�9 \s5 -2 try C� x 75 4 76 7� 0 7.s �ry oo.o It 1 {C� L> 1 91 i \ q5 ` 75.1' 1 76. c_, 17 i 78 _1 3. v �� I, 5 \ ; 7 2s�� I / -t- � i' % ►fir � � 1 �� ,90._ / \ BO•at>. � ,� 392pr -en _ I8� l A'i -� , 7 �. 'J J , `•�Pa 17.65' ,5' (a 1tA' a 97 \ "bs 67.4 / \ - 'y si ►„55.45' t9. Ba' 3 \.ty. - 1 TC t Ll 64.7 __...� 68.5 r�. }8. / FG _1 88 i 4t,BT„� ro .. o so'vc rte` F,= 1176.83 m 0 17.04.19 wii c 0 0.7 l 1 ro0BEET )aA00 IN 801 ca .� n ro OL - / 98 68 -`- ' 7 �.,• -r / \. 1 \ } I ' I I 96.62 ,//�' i 1 Alp 6 L' 1 2q • ♦♦ \. 98.55' S'7 fs ♦ \ `07.91 a I ' 3 TIC W wa 99 O /� / . o.fi{'- 46,59 1 r . ,/���•y -- I 81 / g ��p�'F�' J \ l�Tl :o so I W l 1 a 'l7 - /� 73 8•- ` / 78.1 ("�/ / I O / 0 8� -t 83.3 pFN(«I 7fi l 0 82 Sp^ ._11ps.t __..-1 .._. 77 4 g - EF s cF - -;. 7 _ TS - I N EFi f 6 - b S J/ -41 DrnL TOIL >se 11;.i MARCH LANE ,0a II SE HE6 1-800 -227 -2600 I I , o:o�, . T5 0> ATU3A8iTIAl0DA11a y♦ Ir I > I ?i.71 I) .s; , i 8U.5 t \ T :y4, / s �_1 \ ? a ' BEFORE YOU DIO t♦ I, I I II 1''\ N J LfVW0 IND SERVICE AIM OF 80MI M CAtff0110111A SEAL- ENGINEER DRAWN TRACT NO. 23065 -3 IP - 000007 SHEET N0. SEAL- COUNTY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ' - w.ANN)N■ ■ oc■t■N ■ GON■TRYOT,ON BENCHMARK; T -1 -81, ELEV. 1026.428 AR "- QposESSYOaj TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ' o QputlssloyA/ 21/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. CYLANDER 2.4 50NED AR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4 M WORK CONTAINED WITHIN THESE PLANS MILES SOUTHEAST ON HIGHWAY 79 FROM SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL AN X40 \�D. #, b/ / f, APPROVED BY �y'a' `a� \Y # "!j /� t"� • w. 77658 YNq poAD, 6U1E 400 INTERSECTION OF MAIN AND FRONT STREET IN HECKED r r o " ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND /OR A - z - TFJRf'I,AgCAtf011NA0769F4679 TEMECULA,:53.6 SOUTH OF CA HIGHWAY MAT S(:I'EDULE A 8 GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED. = * �" ^ CON8IJLIINO 1D9.m8.8047 • FA%900.070.724D • wwwABPwm OF_SHEETS ,,, W. Na.43O90 ^ 79, 3.7 EAST OF CT POLE (GT 2453), 300' SCALE AS SHOWN ROUGH GRADING PLAN a .,. No. 33950 A au KHALED A. O7HMAN DATE: EAi• 43NO s} EAST Of PRODUCE SYAND MIDWAY BETWEEN FILE N0. M- E.o 8/30/Q2 R.C.E. N0. 33950 PREPARED BY; MICHAEL'A, TYLMAN R.C:E. N0. 43090 . tn. pivot. mpmw pwlnp t1w• AIm� 1• vwpom•aIe fm 41 ! E %P. -DATE: 6 -30 -02 'rld CI -,Y -IL �@\ EXP. DATE: 3� -31 -04 P,P. 75580 AND P,P.. 75581 ON LINE WITH. OLD ��� 100312 312PG004.DWO o .z drNNtp SA• n•aur.x me awmina„er at eM e••Iw aeran. tP✓ �l Y 14 \ - 1n t amt er elwwt«»1...1.1.a Nt« rower .pprwai r �,�, -pit' /� 9F CIl \ FENCE LINE RUNNING N. 2c S. SET FIBERGLASS ATE foR: W.O. couNM - ewla7aowwtlm.T yrivMg1=1-00,711Mre10 6 /•C11 \. to 4llrrin)ay w wwemT, «loom 9116 [wiwlnp y1r yarn �,. nATE DATE; WITNfSSP01ST 1' SOUTH OF MONUMENT. g$DiiAWJC PILE N0. ` dx ■xwI by tM 4reeY• R E V I '$ I 0 N 'S. RECOMMENDED BY BOYLE ENGINEERING DATE, . .T/P�3c�laS-' vry � / F - ! /~�� / / 01 630) nsaz F e / I m 6 .a / D, ■ 96 -^ a s ` / 1 lto BC oc EC M4 90 I 61.7, �\ �('"_ ._S- -j •� p- ---� � \ 64.7 ' 64 0 c:v T� � / � / S c ,I 138 J C ED � 100 / / -r jl l ,' . 3 ` ' .I � - li ... 1Mra ��� ^J \ //. \ (� \� 'W . -.. ti \ ..i- .,..�'/ �•qYl -{ � k, 4, a -1 Z6 All AL it / \ _ 124 , - 6s.z > J// I W q ' ual X74 ` I. _ _ _ _ 122 -- 8 �s _ 121 r 1. — � `. X11 120 � . tlGl { \ ...y , / %11671 (% 73.0 & \ �*$' �• it ,, I: 11'9 M o ye \ ' ,i \.. ..1 \ s � DO. � 0 73:6 118 - 1 O ` 4.1 / 74.7 r Uri vc _ V , 40 40 BD 120 _� - •"',i0=��.rti,. " ' J ,. , . / �tl: -� _ I M Mry \\ iw DIALrTOLLI GRAPHIC SCALE fir, -..� Z _ 1-8U0- '227 -Z�UQ c�N�,, , AT LEW TW�y�Op DAYS BRFOW YOU DIG P20HANGA 'M1SSIDN 1 lAI\1 RES� VAT�ON % Mk XYMAW SUM APRT OF BOU11,7M OAIFORNIA i ; ' -' SEAL- COUNIV SEAL- FNOINEFA ruNwlw■ ■ O■ ■I■w ■ OoN■T■u■Tmw 1�3TE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ��(; T -1 -81, ELEV. 1026.428 DRAWN qp TRACT N0. 23085 -3 IP - 000007 SHEET NO. FMlbwc CONTAINED WITHIN THESE PLANS gp01E5S/pM TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT gp01ISSl0��/ 2 t /2" BRASS DISK IN CONC. CYLANDER 2,4 DESIGNED SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL AN �o I, ' APPROVED BY Q r, i COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 5 / ` INTERSECTION N OF ON HIGHWAY N FROM AR t � l0 Ol,/• y �W ,+4 „ /iA n « ��T���'��� OF MAIN AND FRONT STREET IN CHECKED ENCRDACFNIENT PERMIT AND /OR ' -A .� :.:. ff ar,. " y. ;i z 7B.AXSMO 7240- ABPSYI-4!A MAT • A • N .i ' .GRADING PERMIT'HASBEEN ISSUED. y.1q.43090 CDNBULTIND uoal7■AD42• RAX90D.e7Q7810. •wrliDSCOm 79, 3.2' SOUTH OF C/L HIGHWAY No.33850 i KHALED A. OTHMAN - DATE:' °f .pip, 3jaT/dF �O .. OF CT POLE (GT 2453),.300' AUE OF 6 SHEETS a.INr iM �. wlia�„ M - - EuP` a /3D /O4 �}': R.C•E. NO. 33980 , _ PREPARED BY: MICHAEL A. TYLMAN R.C.E. NO. 43090 EAST OF PRODUCE STAND MIDWAY BETWEEN AS SHOWN ROUGH GRADING PLAN FILE N0. tow «wt 0 olwnlnwt" ViOns Its 060tr apprwsl w '/✓ �FY 1� a�R EXP. DAZE. 6 -30 -02 !'l CI Y 1\ 0��. EXP. DATE; 3 -31 -04 P,P. 75580 AND -. P.P. 75581 ON LINE WITH OLD NUMBER ' e,!irM wnvwM•1• >M aw.T4 •gtwr .I•u w rwwwall. �!f 400. t Ot `CA�`�. :FENCE. LINE RUNNING N. k S. SET FIBERGLASS 15- 100312 312PG005.DWG fr 4.twIMATnga wwCU6M wtmTa w4.wlw,M tt• rlw Of CAl\ .__�____.....,.,,..._. DATE FOR: W.O. COUNTY }.e apprwet AY�ta wunlX` eY APPR. DATE DATE:. WITNESSPOST. T': SOUTH OF MONUMENT. Ip3DHAWK FILE N0. 4 -. R _E V I S I O N S .RECOMMENDED BY 80YLE EN%U MRING DATE:. ' , �Nya ii 1ry�4� CHLINE (I E 64iT 4 x/5.3 O t \�_-75c_7_ H/j 75. : 7 � w t C011N -fY OF RIVF—RSIDE --------------- - PECHANCA MISSION INDIAN RESERVATION '71"' 81 0�� 84.3 TS i - ocrawl•F iw 6YR7 _. t11110800M BERMCE MERE OF BOUIH9WCNFO N A NOTE• -c0uwtt COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE -� PLANNIN• ocuoN • rsoN•T•utmoN QENLI IMAM( T -1 -81, ELEV. 1026.428 WORK CONTAINED WITHIN THESE PLANS Ros¢ssro TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ateicssJnNl� 2 +/2" BRASS DISK IN CONC. CYLANDER 2,4 SOL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL AN �4 *�O.I, 0 �� APPROVED BY yyv+� @�yS.L I' Jill, `^d, 27666 YNEZ ROAD, INTERSECTION OF MAIN AND FRONT STREET IN ENCROACHMENT AND /OR ,GRADING PERMIT, HAS BEEN ISSUED,. _ �' y. {3Dg0 ^ IEAE'CILAFM.FOR6A TEMECULA, 53.5' SOUTH OF C/L HIGHWAY ° No. 33950 M CONSULTING ON676900Y • FAX 606676724b • wvw/BFepn �. KHALED A. OTHMAN DATE:' E.v. A/311a. 79, 3.2' EAST OF GT POLE (GT 2453), 300' M PIVn4,�rylm✓ Nq,lp�'Clw� ylw b rplY.p�Wb toi - b Ew- 4J30102 p,. R.C.E. . NO. 33950 „r ' s.. 1 PREPAREO BY, MICHAEL A. TYLMAN R.C,E. NO. 43090 EAST OF PRODUCE STAND MIDWAY BETWEEN ,wrw.Nq M»+ �r alN p?w ++AtttY a•'t w"Illm E$P. DATE: 6- 30 -02. - F,YIV y� - EXP. DATE: 3 -31 -04 P.P. 75580 AND P.P. 75581 ON. LINE 'M41 OL[ aauvaist'w no o.iv~ao �onGe < wI(�N Mwnr,M � - ��l! CI.I IU 4Q�\ � (rf Oi CAL+��0. � FENCE LINE RUNNING N. & S. SET FIBERGLASS +a.�InrpnIn 0 wwt4le "fuum mne. «tow" 06 otwr - f OF. C61�E ,— -- `. 1s .Mrwet •r tm —tr• BY A , bA - DATE: WITNESSPOST v SOUTH OF MONUMENT: r .,, .... :. R. E V I S 1 0 N S � `. RECOMMENDED BY BOYlE ENGINEERING DAIEi . . :.. I i a. l AR TRACT NC. 23055 -3 IP - 000007 AR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE MAT Fol;lf DU_E ' A • AS SHOWN ROUGH GRADING PLAN IER �• 15- 100312 FORT REDHAWK W.O. FIILLENNO, E a M M IM O M N O n °o c2 a tV M 8 N Q 4 0 a i SHEET N0. 6 OF 6 SHEETS FILE NO. 312PG006.DWG