DRAINAGE REPORT For Scott Road - City of Menifee

DRAINAGE REPORT

For

Scott Road (APN: 372-160-013, 372-160-006,

372-160-007, 372-160-008, 372-190-003)

PROJECT LOCATION

North West and North East of Scott Road and Lindenberger Road

City of Menifee, CA

PREPARED FOR:

MLC Holdings, Inc.

5 Peters Canyon, Suite 310 Irvine, CA 92656

PREPARED BY:

2603 Main Street, Suite 400

Irvine, CA 92614

Contact:

Marc J. Haslinger, P.E., RCE 49158 phone: (949) 988-5815

email: [email protected]

______________________________________________________

Marc J. Haslinger, P.E. Date

PREPARED: September 14, 2020

mhaslinger

mhaslinger

Text Box

9/14/20

City of Menifee Scott Road - Drainage Report

R:\R309379.01 - MLC Scott Road City of Menifee\06 Regulatory\01 H&H\04 Reports\Drainage Report\Scott Road -

Drainage Report.doc 2 of 11

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Purpose & Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 4

Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 5

Hydraulic Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 5

Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Technical Appendices

Appendix A Vicinity Map

Appendix B Hydrology Parameters

Appendix C Hydrologic Analysis

Appendix D Hydraulic Analysis

Appendix F Reference Plans




Introduction This drainage report has been prepared for APN 372-160-013, 372-160-006, 372-160-007, 372-160-160-

008 and 372-190-003 City of Menifee, in the County of Riverside, California (See location Map in

Appendix A-1). The proposed development is approximately 56.6 acres and includes storm drain basins,

residential lots, public streets, private streets and common area landscape.

The project site is bordered by Scott Road on the south, Pitman lane on the east, existing residential

development on the west and undeveloped land on the north. The project includes the widening of Scott

Road, Pitman Lane and Lindenberger Road to the ultimate street section (See Vicinity Map in Appendix

A-1).

Purpose & Criteria The purpose of this report is the analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions associated with

development of the project site and to determine design flow rates and storm drain sizes for the project

site. The hydrology maps and calculations reflect the tributary areas and Q100 flows (see Appendix F and

for the hydrology exhibits plans).

The proposed design addresses the flooding conditions by capturing and conveying runoff from

upstream drainage areas. To meet the City criteria of conveying the 100-year peak discharge within the

right-of-way, the 100-year peak discharge was determined for each tributary area using methods and

assumptions consistent with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual:

• The rational method was used through the hydrologic software AES

• Computations assumed a 100-year 1-hour rainfall (NOAA Atlas 14) and an antecedent moisture

condition of III.

• Based on the NRCS soil database, the underlying soils are composed of Auld Cobby clay,

Cieneba Rocky sandy loam, Las Posas loam, Porterville clay, Porterville gravelly clay, Vista

coarse sandy loam and Yokohl loam. The hydrologic soil groups of the site are composed of

predominately group D.

• For existing conditions the surface areas were categorized as undeveloped considering that there

is only predominately grass, shrubs and partial rock.

• For proposed conditions the surface areas were categorized at highest impervious category

provided for single family development (1/4 acre lot) provided by the Riverside County Flood

Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology.

Existing Conditions The surface of the existing conditions consists of predominately soil with patches of scattered brush

throughout the site and rock on the South side. There are three existing drainage areas. Drainage Area

(DA) A flows to an existing headwall located South of the site on Scott Road. DA B and DA C drain

north east of the site to a low point located off-site. The specific downstream facilities are evaluated

below.

• DA A (approximately 18.0 acres) downstream drainage system flows to an existing headwall

located south of the site. Drainage is then conveyed to an existing 36 inch Reinforced Concrete




Pipe (RCP) and drains to the undeveloped land South of Scott Road. Runoff continues to: Warm

Springs, Temecula Creek, Santa Margarita River and then the Pacific Ocean.

• DA B (approximately 13.8 acres) drains north east of the site to future Lindenberger Road and

confluences with off-site flows that drain onto the project site. Runoff continues to: Paloma

Wash, Salt Creek Channel, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Temescal Creek, Temescal Creek,

Santa Ana River and then the Pacific Ocean.

• DA C (approximately 16.8 acres) drains north of the site to future Lindenberger Road and

confluences with off-site flows that drain onto the project site. Runoff continues to: Paloma

Wash, Salt Creek Channel, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Temescal Creek, Temescal Creek,

Santa Ana River and then the Pacific Ocean.

For reference please see Appendix F for Existing Conditions Hydrology Plan.

Proposed Conditions On-site Drainage Improvements

Existing drainage patterns are to be maintained in the proposed condition.100-year flows are to be

mitigated to pre-development flow rates. All lots and public streets will be graded to allow runoff to

drain towards a designated street or area drain, leading to the proposed storm drain infrastructure. There

is one public maintained 30 inch RCP storm drain line located on Scott Road that is proposed to

transport overflow from DA A. DA B and DA C are to overflow off-site during heavy storm events.

Proposed grate inlets, curb and gutters and storm drain pipes will be sized per County standards. Bio-

retention basins are proposed to treat on-site flows from DA A, DA B and DA C. Please refer to the

Water Quality Management Program (WQMP) report for details related to water quality. The specific

downstream facilities are evaluated below.

• DA A (approximately 16.3 acres) drainage flows east to a proposed bio-retention facility The

bio-retention facility has a proposed riser that will allow high flows to be conveyed to an existing

36 inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). Flows will then drain to the undeveloped land South of

Scott Road. Runoff continues to: Warm Springs, Temecula Creek, Santa Margarita River and

then the Pacific Ocean.

• DA B (approximately 11.7 acres) drains north east of the site to three bio-retention facilities.

Existing residential development to the west, existing wetlands and an existing vernal pool to the

north and future residential development to the east contribute to this drainage area. During a

heavy storm event high flows are conveyed to the existing wetlands and vernal pool though an

emergency spillway weir. A sump pump is proposed for the three basins to allow the subdrains

to drain to grade and prevent the basins from retaining storm flows after storm events have

passed.. The wetlands and vernal pool (approximately 6.5 AC) are proposed to keep their

existing condition and drainage patterns to the maximum extent possible. Runoff continues to:

Paloma Wash, Salt Creek Channel, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Temescal Creek, Temescal

Creek, Santa Ana River and then the Pacific Ocean.

• DA C (approximately 18.0 acres) drains north of the site to a proposed bio-retention basin.

During heavy storm events flows are conveyed north of the site via an emergency spillway weir.

A sump pump is also proposed to allow subdrains to drain to grade and prevent the basin from

retaining storm flows after storm events have passed. Runoff continues to: Paloma Wash, Salt

Creek Channel, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Temescal Creek, Temescal Creek, Santa Ana River

and then the Pacific Ocean.

vaguirre

Line




Off-site Drainage Improvements

Off-site flows from the proposed street improvements within the intersections of Scott Road and

Lindenberger Road are proposed to be treated by Modular Wetland (MWS) bio-infiltration systems.

Please refer to the Water Quality Management Program report for details.

See map located in Appendix F that highlights drainage areas and drainage patterns in the proposed

condition.

Hydrologic Analysis Onsite hydrologic analyses have been prepared using the rational method in accordance with the

Riverside County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual.

The 1-hour precipitation rate for the 100-year frequency events were taken from the latest NOAA Atlas

14 precipitation statistics consistent with the County’s Hydrology Manual (See Appendix B). The slope

of intensity duration curve were also taken from the latest NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation statistics

displayed on the AES Hydrologic Analysis (See Appendix C). Rainfall intensities were derived by AES

based on the rainfall intensity curve and the expected time of concentration. Calculations and tabulation

can be found in Appendix C.

Hydraulic Analysis Using Q100 from onsite hydrologic analyses, storm drain pipes will be sized, to capture the respective

tributary flows. WSPG computations will be applied to demonstrate that the Hydraulic Grade Line

remains below the finished surface. In final engineering design Appendix D will demonstrate the sizing

analyses of storm drain pipes.

Analysis of the proposed drainage facility includes the following:

Storm drain pipe sizing – The 100-year HGL will be developed using County-approved WSPG

computer software and compared to the proposed finished surface. The 100-year ultimate flow rates

from AES will be used in the analysis of the proposed storm drain pipes.

WSPG hydraulic computations will be provided in Appendix D for final engineering design.

Catch basin sizing – The 100-year ultimate AES flow rates will be utilized in flow-by catch basin

conditions. Calculations for catch basin capture flow rates will be provided in final engineering design

using the AES computer software. AES catch basin sizing calculations will be provided in Appendix D.

Flow Master Computations will consider Q100 flows to demonstrate that curb and gutter flows will not

surpass the right-of-way limits and to obtain a normal depth for the sizing of the proposed catch basins.

Final engineering design calculations will be provided in Appendix D.

Results

All proposed storm drain pipes and catch basins will be sized adequately for Q100 flows to protect the

pads from flooding within the right of way limits. On-site and off-site flows are to be drained to City




master plan storm drain. The tables below summarize data for catch basin sizing and the existing and

proposed 100 year storm events:

Table 1 – Unmitigated Hydrology Analysis

Drainage Designation Q100 (CFS) V100 (CF) Tc100 (MIN.)

DA A 43.0 320,601.6 15.4

PROPOSED CONDITIONS


DA A 36.6 264,844.8 15.8

DA A DELTA (%) -14.9 -17.4 -

EXISTING CONDITIONS


DA B 27.5 244,371.6 23.0

PROPOSED CONDITIONS


DA B 25.0 167,270.4 13.2

DA B DELTA (%) -9.0 -31.6 -

EXISTING CONDITIONS


DA C 35.8 295,772.4 19.5

PROPOSED CONDITIONS


DA C 41.0 319,730.4 18.7

DA C DELTA (%) 14.6 8.1 -

EXISTING CONDITIONS

For drainage areas A and B the peak flow rate is lower in the proposed condition when compared to the

existing condition. As for drainage area C the proposed condition flow rate is higher than the existing

condition flow rate. The proposed bio-retention basin for DA C will be designed to mitigate flows. Final

engineering design will insure that post flow rates will be mitigated to pre-development flow rates.

Grading improvements and the inclusion of bio-retention basins and underground on-site and off-site

storm drain system are anticipated to improve the water quality of the project site. Street flow

calculations will be provided in final engineering design to determine if the Q100 flows are to be within

the right-of-way limits.




Appendix A

A-1: Vicinity Map

A-2: Existing Conditions Hydrology Map

A-3: Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map

vaguirre

Line

vaguirre

Line

vaguirre

Line

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

vaguirre

Rectangle

vaguirre

Callout

PROJECT LOCATION




Appendix B

B-1: NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Statistics

B-2: Geotechnical Investigations Report

vaguirre

Line

11/5/2018 Precipitation Frequency Data Server

https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.6430&lon=-117.1459&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 1/4

NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 Location name: Menifee, California, USA* Latitude: 33.643°, Longitude: -117.1459°

Elevation: 1488.47 ft*** source: ESRI Maps

** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES

Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, SandraPavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey

Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan

NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland

PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials

PF tabularPDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour)1

DurationAverage recurrence interval (years)

1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000

5-min 1.04(0.876‑1.25)

1.46(1.22‑1.76)

2.04(1.70‑2.47)

2.53(2.09‑3.08)

3.23(2.58‑4.08)

3.78(2.95‑4.88)

4.37(3.32‑5.80)

5.00(3.70‑6.83)

5.89(4.18‑8.41)

6.62(4.52‑9.80)

10-min 0.744(0.624‑0.900)

1.05(0.876‑1.27)

1.46(1.22‑1.77)

1.81(1.50‑2.21)

2.31(1.85‑2.92)

2.71(2.12‑3.50)

3.13(2.38‑4.16)

3.58(2.65‑4.90)

4.22(2.99‑6.03)

4.75(3.24‑7.03)

15-min 0.600(0.504‑0.724)

0.844(0.708‑1.02)

1.18(0.984‑1.43)

1.46(1.21‑1.78)

1.86(1.49‑2.36)

2.18(1.71‑2.82)

2.52(1.92‑3.35)

2.89(2.14‑3.95)

3.41(2.41‑4.86)

3.83(2.61‑5.66)

30-min 0.482(0.404‑0.580)

0.678(0.568‑0.818)

0.946(0.790‑1.14)

1.17(0.970‑1.43)

1.49(1.19‑1.89)

1.75(1.37‑2.26)

2.02(1.54‑2.69)

2.32(1.71‑3.17)

2.73(1.93‑3.90)

3.07(2.09‑4.54)

60-min 0.365(0.306‑0.440)

0.514(0.430‑0.620)

0.716(0.598‑0.867)

0.888(0.735‑1.08)

1.13(0.904‑1.43)

1.33(1.04‑1.72)

1.54(1.17‑2.04)

1.76(1.30‑2.40)

2.07(1.47‑2.96)

2.33(1.59‑3.44)

2-hr 0.270(0.226‑0.326)

0.364(0.305‑0.440)

0.490(0.409‑0.593)

0.595(0.492‑0.726)

0.740(0.592‑0.936)

0.854(0.668‑1.11)

0.973(0.741‑1.29)

1.10(0.812‑1.50)

1.27(0.900‑1.81)

1.41(0.962‑2.09)

3-hr 0.222(0.186‑0.267)

0.294(0.246‑0.355)

0.391(0.326‑0.473)

0.471(0.390‑0.575)

0.581(0.464‑0.734)

0.667(0.521‑0.862)

0.755(0.575‑1.00)

0.848(0.627‑1.16)

0.975(0.690‑1.39)

1.08(0.734‑1.59)

6-hr 0.158(0.133‑0.191)

0.208(0.174‑0.251)

0.273(0.228‑0.330)

0.326(0.270‑0.398)

0.399(0.319‑0.505)

0.456(0.356‑0.590)

0.514(0.391‑0.682)

0.574(0.424‑0.784)

0.655(0.464‑0.936)

0.719(0.491‑1.07)

12-hr 0.103(0.086‑0.124)

0.136(0.114‑0.165)

0.180(0.150‑0.218)

0.216(0.179‑0.264)

0.265(0.212‑0.335)

0.303(0.236‑0.391)

0.341(0.260‑0.453)

0.381(0.282‑0.521)

0.435(0.308‑0.621)

0.478(0.326‑0.707)

24-hr 0.067(0.059‑0.078)

0.091(0.080‑0.105)

0.122(0.107‑0.141)

0.147(0.128‑0.172)

0.182(0.154‑0.219)

0.209(0.173‑0.257)

0.237(0.192‑0.298)

0.266(0.210‑0.344)

0.305(0.231‑0.411)

0.336(0.247‑0.468)

2-day 0.040(0.035‑0.046)

0.055(0.048‑0.063)

0.075(0.066‑0.087)

0.091(0.080‑0.107)

0.114(0.097‑0.138)

0.132(0.110‑0.163)

0.151(0.122‑0.190)

0.171(0.135‑0.221)

0.198(0.150‑0.266)

0.219(0.161‑0.305)

3-day 0.028(0.025‑0.033)

0.039(0.035‑0.045)

0.054(0.048‑0.063)

0.067(0.058‑0.078)

0.084(0.071‑0.102)

0.098(0.081‑0.121)

0.112(0.091‑0.141)

0.127(0.101‑0.165)

0.149(0.113‑0.200)

0.165(0.121‑0.230)

4-day 0.023(0.020‑0.026)

0.032(0.028‑0.037)

0.044(0.039‑0.051)

0.055(0.048‑0.064)

0.070(0.059‑0.084)

0.081(0.067‑0.100)

0.094(0.076‑0.118)

0.106(0.084‑0.138)

0.125(0.094‑0.168)

0.139(0.102‑0.194)

7-day 0.015(0.013‑0.017)

0.021(0.018‑0.024)

0.029(0.026‑0.034)

0.037(0.032‑0.043)

0.047(0.040‑0.056)

0.055(0.046‑0.068)

0.064(0.052‑0.080)

0.073(0.057‑0.094)

0.086(0.065‑0.116)

0.097(0.071‑0.135)

10-day 0.011(0.010‑0.012)

0.016(0.014‑0.018)

0.022(0.019‑0.026)

0.028(0.024‑0.032)

0.036(0.030‑0.043)

0.042(0.035‑0.052)

0.049(0.040‑0.062)

0.056(0.044‑0.073)

0.067(0.051‑0.090)

0.075(0.055‑0.105)

20-day 0.006(0.006‑0.007)

0.009(0.008‑0.011)

0.013(0.012‑0.016)

0.017(0.015‑0.020)

0.022(0.019‑0.027)

0.026(0.022‑0.032)

0.031(0.025‑0.039)

0.036(0.028‑0.046)

0.043(0.033‑0.058)

0.049(0.036‑0.068)

30-day 0.005(0.004‑0.006)

0.007(0.006‑0.008)

0.011(0.009‑0.012)

0.013(0.012‑0.016)

0.018(0.015‑0.021)

0.021(0.017‑0.026)

0.025(0.020‑0.031)

0.029(0.023‑0.037)

0.035(0.026‑0.047)

0.040(0.029‑0.055)

45-day 0.004(0.003‑0.005)

0.006(0.005‑0.007)

0.008(0.007‑0.009)

0.010(0.009‑0.012)

0.014(0.011‑0.016)

0.016(0.013‑0.020)

0.019(0.016‑0.024)

0.023(0.018‑0.029)

0.027(0.021‑0.037)

0.032(0.023‑0.044)

60-day 0.003(0.003‑0.004)

0.005(0.004‑0.006)

0.007(0.006‑0.008)

0.009(0.008‑0.010)

0.012(0.010‑0.014)

0.014(0.011‑0.017)

0.016(0.013‑0.021)

0.019(0.015‑0.025)

0.024(0.018‑0.032)

0.027(0.020‑0.038)

1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (fora given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are notchecked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top

https://www.commerce.gov/

http://www.noaa.gov/



PF graphical

Back to Top

Maps & aerials

Small scale terrain



Large scale terrain

Large scale map

Large scale aerial

+–

3km

2mi

+–

100km

60mi

+–

100km

60mi



Back to Top

US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Weather Service National Water Center

1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910

Questions?: [email protected]

Disclaimer

+–

100km

60mi

https://www.commerce.gov/

http://www.noaa.gov/

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/disclaimer.html

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

A product of the NationalCooperative Soil Survey,a joint effort of the UnitedStates Department ofAgriculture and otherFederal agencies, Stateagencies including theAgricultural ExperimentStations, and localparticipants

Custom Soil Resource Report forWestern Riverside Area, CaliforniaScott Road - Menifee

NaturalResourcesConservationService

October 31, 2018

PrefaceSoil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

2

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/

https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3

ContentsPreface.................................................................................................................... 2How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8

Soil Map................................................................................................................9Legend................................................................................................................10Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11

Western Riverside Area, California.................................................................13AyF—Auld cobbly clay, 8 to 50 percent slopes........................................... 13CkD2—Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded...........14LaC—Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes............................................. 15LaD2—Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded............................ 16PsC—Porterville clay, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes...................18PtB—Porterville clay, moderately deep, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 5

percent slopes.......................................................................................19PvD2—Porterville gravelly clay, moderately deep, 2 to 15 per cent

slopes, eroded...................................................................................... 20VsC—Vista coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes............................... 21YbC—Yokohl loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes...................................................23

References............................................................................................................25

4

How Soil Surveys Are MadeSoil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

5

scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

Custom Soil Resource Report

6

identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.


7

Soil MapThe soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

8

9

Custom Soil Resource ReportSoil Map

3722

420

3722

490

3722

560

3722

630

3722

700

3722

770

3722

840

3722

420

3722

490

3722

560

3722

630

3722

700

3722

770

3722

840

486060 486130 486200 486270 486340 486410 486480 486550 486620 486690 486760

486060 486130 486200 486270 486340 486410 486480 486550 486620 486690 486760

33° 38' 43'' N11

7° 9

' 1'' W

33° 38' 43'' N

117°

8' 3

3'' W

33° 38' 28'' N

117°

9' 1

'' W

33° 38' 28'' N

117°

8' 3

3'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS840 150 300 600 900

Feet0 50 100 200 300

MetersMap Scale: 1:3,380 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point FeaturesBlowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

BackgroundAerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Western Riverside Area, CaliforniaSurvey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 12, 2018

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 24, 2015—Feb 26, 2015

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.


10

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

AyF Auld cobbly clay, 8 to 50 percent slopes

2.6 4.3%

CkD2 Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

1.7 2.8%

LaC Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

4.6 7.9%

LaD2 Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

0.0 0.1%

PsC Porterville clay, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes

7.3 12.4%

PtB Porterville clay, moderately deep, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes

21.2 35.9%

PvD2 Porterville gravelly clay, moderately deep, 2 to 15 per cent slopes, eroded

3.8 6.5%

VsC Vista coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

0.4 0.7%

YbC Yokohl loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

17.3 29.4%

Totals for Area of Interest 59.0 100.0%

Map Unit DescriptionsThe map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different


11

management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.


12

Western Riverside Area, California

AyF—Auld cobbly clay, 8 to 50 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: hcrbElevation: 300 to 2,700 feetMean annual precipitation: 14 inchesMean annual air temperature: 63 degrees FFrost-free period: 200 to 330 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionAuld and similar soils: 85 percentMinor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Auld

SettingLandform: HillsLandform position (two-dimensional): BackslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slopeDown-slope shape: ConcaveAcross-slope shape: ConvexParent material: Residuum weathered from gabbro

Typical profileH1 - 0 to 28 inches: cobbly clayH2 - 28 to 44 inches: cobbly loamH3 - 44 to 48 inches: weathered bedrock

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 8 to 50 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrockNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately

low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0

mmhos/cm)Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.1 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 6eHydrologic Soil Group: CEcological site: CLAYEY (1975) (R019XD001CA)Hydric soil rating: No


13

scook

Highlight

Minor Components

TemescalPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

Las posasPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

CajalcoPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

CkD2—Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: hcsdElevation: 500 to 4,000 feetMean annual precipitation: 12 to 35 inchesMean annual air temperature: 57 to 64 degrees FFrost-free period: 200 to 300 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionCieneba and similar soils: 75 percentMinor components: 25 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Cieneba

SettingLandform: HillsLandform position (two-dimensional): BackslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slopeDown-slope shape: ConcaveAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Residuum weathered from igneous rock

Typical profileH1 - 0 to 14 inches: sandy loamH2 - 14 to 22 inches: weathered bedrock

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 8 to 15 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrockNatural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drainedRunoff class: LowCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately

low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inches


14

Frequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 6eHydrologic Soil Group: DEcological site: SHALLOW LOAMY (1975) (R019XD060CA)Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Rock outcropPercent of map unit: 10 percentHydric soil rating: No

VistaPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

FriantPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

FallbrookPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

LaC—Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: hcwhElevation: 200 to 3,000 feetMean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inchesMean annual air temperature: 63 degrees FFrost-free period: 240 to 300 daysFarmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance

Map Unit CompositionLas posas and similar soils: 85 percentMinor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Las Posas

SettingLandform: HillsLandform position (two-dimensional): BackslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slopeDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: Linear


15

scook

Highlight

scook

Highlight

Parent material: Residuum weathered from gabbro

Typical profileH1 - 0 to 12 inches: loamH2 - 12 to 32 inches: clay loamH3 - 32 to 54 inches: weathered bedrock


low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneAvailable water storage in profile: Low (about 5.0 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 3eLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 4eHydrologic Soil Group: DEcological site: LOAMY (1975) (R019XD029CA)Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

MurrietaPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

TumescalPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No


LaD2—Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: hcwkElevation: 200 to 3,000 feetMean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inchesMean annual air temperature: 63 degrees FFrost-free period: 240 to 300 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionLas posas and similar soils: 85 percent


16

scook

Highlight

Minor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Las Posas

SettingLandform: HillsLandform position (two-dimensional): BackslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slopeDown-slope shape: ConcaveAcross-slope shape: ConvexParent material: Residuum weathered from gabbro

Typical profileH1 - 0 to 12 inches: loamH2 - 12 to 30 inches: clay loamH3 - 30 to 54 inches: weathered bedrock


low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneAvailable water storage in profile: Low (about 4.7 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 4eLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 4eHydrologic Soil Group: DEcological site: LOAMY (1975) (R019XD029CA)Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

MurrietaPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

TumescalPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No



17

scook

Highlight

PsC—Porterville clay, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: hcy0Elevation: 200 to 3,250 feetMean annual precipitation: 9 to 25 inchesMean annual air temperature: 59 to 63 degrees FFrost-free period: 200 to 310 daysFarmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance

Map Unit CompositionPorterville and similar soils: 85 percentMinor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Porterville

SettingLandform: Alluvial fansLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock

Typical profileH1 - 0 to 8 inches: clayH2 - 8 to 36 inches: silty clayH3 - 36 to 40 inches: weathered bedrock




Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 3eLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 3eHydrologic Soil Group: DEcological site: CLAYEY (1975) (R019XD001CA)Hydric soil rating: No


18

scook

Highlight

Minor Components



YokohlPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

PtB—Porterville clay, moderately deep, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes





Typical profileH1 - 0 to 8 inches: clayH2 - 8 to 34 inches: silty clayH3 - 34 to 38 inches: weathered bedrock

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 2 to 5 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrockNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: HighCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately

low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)


19

Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0



Minor Components




PvD2—Porterville gravelly clay, moderately deep, 2 to 15 per cent slopes, eroded




SettingLandform: Alluvial fansLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: Linear


20

scook

Highlight

Across-slope shape: LinearParent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock

Typical profileH1 - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly clayH2 - 8 to 34 inches: silty clayH3 - 34 to 38 inches: weathered bedrock





Minor Components




VsC—Vista coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: hczxElevation: 400 to 3,900 feetMean annual precipitation: 10 to 18 inchesMean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees FFrost-free period: 210 to 300 days


21

scook

Highlight

Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance

Map Unit CompositionVista and similar soils: 85 percentMinor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Vista

SettingLandform: HillsLandform position (two-dimensional): BackslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slopeDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Residuum weathered from granite and/or residuum weathered

from granodiorite

Typical profileH1 - 0 to 15 inches: coarse sandy loamH2 - 15 to 24 inches: coarse sandy loamH3 - 24 to 30 inches: weathered bedrock

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 2 to 8 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrockNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: LowCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately

low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.4 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 3eLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 4eHydrologic Soil Group: BEcological site: LOAMY (1975) (R019XD029CA)Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

CienebaPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

BonsallPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

FallbrookPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No


22

scook

Highlight

YbC—Yokohl loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: hd0gElevation: 500 feetMean annual precipitation: 10 to 14 inchesMean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees FFrost-free period: 260 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionYokohl and similar soils: 85 percentMinor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Yokohl


Typical profileH1 - 0 to 10 inches: loamH2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loamH3 - 26 to 30 inches: induratedH4 - 30 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to gravelly loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 2 to 8 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to duripanNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00

in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneSalinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0

mmhos/cm)Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.3 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 4eLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 4eHydrologic Soil Group: DEcological site: CLAYPAN (1975) (R019XD061CA)Hydric soil rating: No


23

scook

Highlight

scook

Highlight

Minor Components

WymanPercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

PortervillePercent of map unit: 5 percentHydric soil rating: No

BurenPercent of map unit: 4 percentHydric soil rating: No

UnnamedPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform: DepressionsHydric soil rating: Yes


24

ReferencesAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577

Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

25

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262






http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053624

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf


26

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242



http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE 40880 County Center Drive, Suite R, Temecula, CA 92591 T: 951.600.9271 F: 951.719.1499 For more information visit us online at www.petra-inc.com

July 20, 2018

J.N. 18-248

MLC HOLDINGS, INC.

5 Peters Canyon Road Suite 310

Irvine, California 92606

Attention: Mr. Aaron Talarico

Subject: Due-Diligence/Feasibility Geotechnical Assessment, Tentative Tract No. 32097 and

APN 372-190-01, Combined 76-Acre± Vacant Site Located along Lindenberger Road

and North of Scott Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California

Dear Mr. Talarico:

In accordance with your request, Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) has performed a geotechnical due-

diligence evaluation of the subject site for a proposed residential development. We understand that project

site includes Tentative Tract Map 32097 (188 single-family lots), and an adjacent 19-acre± parcel to the

northeast (APN 372-190-01) that may have various uses. This report presents our findings and professional

opinions with respect to the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development, geotechnical constraints

that should be taken into consideration during development of the site and potential mitigation measures to

bring the site to compliance from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint.

It must be emphasized that that this report is intended as a feasibility-level geotechnical assessment

only and is based solely on a review of the referenced background geologic literature and our

limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. As such, the contents of this report are not

suitable for submittal to regulatory agencies, nor should the findings or conclusions provided

herein be relied upon for earthwork, quantity calculation or procedure, or structural engineering

design. This geotechnical evaluation does not address soil contamination or other environmental

issues affecting the property which will be provided under separate cover.

SITE GENERAL OVERVIEW

The subject 79±-acre property is comprised of TTM 32097 (57± acres) and the adjoining 19±-acre parcel

(APN 372-190-001) located on the north side of Scott Road and along either side of Lindenberger Road in

the City of Menifee. Wickered Road, an unimproved dirt drive, is located along the northernmost boundary

and the intersection of Loretta Avenue and Pittman Land is located at the northwest property corner, see

Figure 1. Existing residential tracts bound the site to the east and northwest and an existing school facility

is located at the southwest corner. Lindenberger Road essentially bisects the property and is improved for

about 50 feet into the project site and then turns into an unimproved dirt drive. The site is essentially vacant.

http://www.petra-inc.com/

MLC HOLDINGS, INC. July 20, 2018

76-Acre Site/Menifee J.N. 18-248

Page 2

DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT

Literature Review

Petra has reviewed available published and unpublished geologic/geotechnical maps and literature, as well

as online aerial imagery in the general area of the project site, see references. No geotechnical reports are

known to exist for this site.

Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Investigation

A representative of Petra conducted a site reconnaissance and performed photo documentation on

June 22, 2018 to observe the current surface conditions of the vacant property. A subsurface exploration

program was conducted within the site by a representative of Petra on July 11, 2018 which included the

excavation of 9 exploratory borings (B-1 through B-9) to depths ranging from approximately 15 to 35 feet

below existing grades, utilizing a conventional hollow-stem auger drill rig. Following our exploration, the

borings were backfilled with the soil cuttings. Another boring was planned within the 19-acre parcel

(APN 372-190-01) however due to slow drilling of the onsite soils and bedrock, that boring was eliminated

at this time. Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) was deemed as an ineffective exploration method at this site

due the map geology including dense older alluvium and bedrock beneath the site.

The locations are shown on Figures 1, and logs of the borings are included as Appendix B. The purpose of

the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface soil materials and to collect bulk and relatively undisturbed

soil samples for laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis to determine the depths of remedial grading.

Laboratory Testing

The laboratory program consisted of testing select undisturbed and/or bulk samples of onsite native soil

materials for in-situ dry density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content,

expansion index, hydro-collapse potential and general corrosion potential (sulfate, chloride, pH, resistivity).

The laboratory tests are reflected in the findings and conclusions sections further below, and the test data

is summarized in Appendix A and on the boring logs in Appendix B.

FINDINGS

Site Reconnaissance

A representative of Petra conducted a site reconnaissance and performed photo documentation on

June 22, 2018 to observe the current conditions at subject site. The site has somewhat undulating

topography but generally descends at a low to moderate (on the order of 2± percent) gradient towards the



Page 3

north/northwest westerly portion of the site, and the northwest corner of the site appears to be a seasonal

drainage. Elevations range from a high of approximately 1,495 feet above mean sea level (msl) near Scott

Road in the southeasterly corner to a low of approximately 1,470 feet msl near Wickered Road.

The site is void of man-made structures and the vast majority of the site is covered with a light growth of

grass, weeds and/or shrubs. Scattered windblown or miscellaneous trash was randomly observed along the

surface of the site, most prevalent closer to the perimeter streets. A notable stockpile of boulder-sized rocks

is present along Scott Road just west of Lindenberger for approximately 450 feet. Minor amounts of

dumped soil mixed with minor debris were observed in the extreme northwest corner of the site which

appears to be fill related to grading of the adjacent park and tract. Fill also appears to have been placed

within the site adjacent to Pittman Lane during previous grading of the other adjacent tract. A concrete

storm drain culvert crosses under Pitman Lane near the northwesterly corner approximately 250 feet south

of intersection with the terminus of existing Loretta Avenue and appears to empty to the subject site. A

dense thicket of native vegetation including shrubs and low-lying trees extends easterly into the property

to approximately 150 feet from the culvert outlet. Based on historic photos, it appears the northerly end of

the 19-acre parcel has been periodically subjected to flooding.

A future collector street, Loretta Avenue, will eventually extend across the northerly boundary of

TTM 32097. The boundary condition of the overall site includes the following: Mira Park adjacent

northeastern boundary parcel; existing residences comprising Tract 29259 abut both portions of the subject

site on the east; Scott Road fronts TTM 32097 on the south; an existing church complex at the southwest

corner, and existing residences as part of Tract 29409 are separated from the northwest corner of the TTM

by the half-built street, Pitman Lane. The extension of Lindenberger Road will basically transect the site

and would extend further northerly to Wickerd Road to become the westerly boundary of the additional

20±-acre parcel. Masonry walls exist along the eastern and western property lines and wrought iron fencing

separates the northeasterly parcel from Mira Park along the eastern property line. The site is open along its

northern boundary.

Preliminary Geotechnical Field and Laboratory Results

Soil Borings

Based on our 9 borings, the site is essentially mantled by topsoil (approximately 2 to 4± in thickness) which

is underlain by older alluvium and weathered granitic bedrock at depth. Shallow fills also appear to present

in the northeast quadrant of the 19-acre parcel and along the northwest edge of TT 32097, see Figure 1.

Boring B-4 encountered fill on the order of 2 to 3 feet in depth consisting of silty sands. Bedrock was



Page 4

encountered at only 2 locations and the depths was very random ranging from approximately 3 feet in the

southwesterly corner (B-5) to approximately 25 feet near the center of TT 32097 (B-2). The granitic

bedrock, where encountered, was readily excavatable with the drill rig to depths of 20 to 35 feet below

grade.

The older alluvium is generally dense to very dense, silty sands to sandy silts with minor amounts of clay

that does not contain any visible porosity and appears competent at around 3 to 4 feet below existing grades.

The topsoil and older alluvium were found to be dry to very dry in the upper 5± feet. Cobbles or boulders

were not generally encountered within our borings, however, excavated bedrock could produce cobble to

boulder sized fragments. More clayey soil was observed along the surface in the northerly portion of the

19-acre parcel.

Laboratory Tests

Limited laboratory testing was conducted on various representative undisturbed and bulk soil samples

collected from the boring locations for engineering properties. In-situ moisture and density results are

included on the boring logs in Appendix B. Based on the laboratory testing conducted, alluvial soils within

the upper 3 to 4 feet from grades have a low expansion potential (EI of 30) with a maximum dry density

and optimum moisture content value of 132.0 pcf at 7.0 percent. Testing for corrosion potential indicated a

negligible potential to concrete materials (soluble sulfate of 0.0006 percent and a pH of 7.4), and metallic

objects encased in concrete (soluble chloride of 75 mg/L), however are highly corrosive to buried metallic

elements in direct contact with site soils (minimum resistivity of 1,400 ohm-cm). We conducted additional

testing for soil hydro-collapse potential within the older alluvial soils generally between 3 and 5 feet below

existing grades and we found a very low collapse potential in the older alluvium.

Compressible/Collapsible Soils

Based on our borings and laboratory testing, the existing soils, including any fill and all topsoil and the

upper portions of older alluvial soils, are considered unsuitable for support of proposed fills, structures,

pavement or other improvements and should be removed to underlying competent older alluvial soils and

replaced as properly compacted fill. Based on our boring data and lab testing, the upper 3 to 4 feet of site

soils should be uniformly removed to competent older alluvium and then the bottom excavation should be

tested in the field. If the natural bottom excavation is found to have a minimum of 85 percent in-situ relative

compaction, with no visible porosity, then the bottom surface may be properly processed to at least 12

inches in depth and then engineered fill placement may commence. Localized areas of deeper



Page 5

excavation/removal of unsuitable soils may be necessary and should be planned for, especially in the two

areas of suspected fill and in the northerly end of the 19-acre site which may have recent flood deposits.

Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered within our borings to a maximum depth of approximately 35 feet below

grade. Regional groundwater is not anticipated to impact the proposed development; however, localized

seepage or perched groundwater is possible, especially in the heavier area of vegetation in the westerly

portion of the site where it appears stormwater flows into the site off Pittman Lane.

Faulting

Based on our review of published geologic maps, no faults are known to project through the property and

no portion of the site lies within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone as designated by the State of California

pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act. The potential for surface fault rupture is considered

remote. The nearest active fault proximate to the subject site is the Elsinore Fault zone at approximately

6.5 miles.

Strong Ground Motions

The site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and will likely be subjected to very

strong seismically-related ground shaking during the anticipated life span of the project. Structures within

the site should therefore be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong ground motion in

accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC).

Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Potential

Riverside County has mapped the site as within a low liquefaction hazard zone. Based on our research and

field boring data, liquefaction and dynamic settlement are not considered as hazards to site development

due to the lack of shallow groundwater, the dense to very dense older alluvial soils and bedrock underlying

the site at depths.

Flooding

Per the applicable Flood Map panel (06065C2070H), the entire site is designated as Zone X, which is

qualified as an area of “minimal flood hazard” (FEMA, eff. 2014). It appears that storm water runoff from

Pitman Lane drains onto the site in the westerly boundary. Based historic photos, periodic flooding may



Page 6

have occurred in the northern end of the 19-acre parcel in the past. Drainage and flooding concerns are

under the purview of the project civil engineer.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our site reconnaissance, field exploration and ongoing limited laboratory testing, development of

the subject project site is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, however it is

recommended that the following geotechnical issues be considered by the Client during this due diligence

period.

Primary Geotechnical Issues

Our professional opinion, from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, regarding various aspects of site

condition and/or proposed development is presented herein. The following presents the salient points of our

due diligence assessment that we recommend be considered for future site development.

• Design Level Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan Review Report: The City of Menifee will

require a formal geotechnical report during the review and approval process and may also require

a geotechnical review and commentary of the final grading plans. Additional field exploration

should be a part of the formal geotechnical report and we recommend supplementing our current

borings with test pit excavations as well as additional laboratory testing of shallow subsurface soils.

Any new geotechnical reports should include updated recommendations for site rough grading,

post-grading improvements, and preliminary building foundation design based on the current 2016

California Building Code.

• Clearing and Grubbing: A large stockpile of oversize boulders is present along the boundary with

Scott Road just west of Lindenberger Road. Additionally, the site is currently covered with weeds

and brush, a small stand of trees as well as scattered windblown trash and minor debris randomly

located throughout the site. All existing boulders, vegetation, miscellaneous debris, trash and/or

other deleterious materials will also require clearing and hauling offsite. In addition, there is a very

slight possibility that other unknown underground pipes or utility lines, may be found below current

grades possibly within or near the perimeter streets and/or Lindenberger Road.

• Removal and Recompaction of Unsuitable Soil Materials: All fill, topsoil, and the upper portions

of older alluvial soils should be removed to competent older alluvium or bedrock and replaced as

compacted engineered fill. Based on our nine borings, unsuitable soil removals are anticipated to

be about 3 to 4 feet in depth from existing grades across the site, however slightly deeper removals

may be necessary in the northerly end of the 19-arce parcel.

Deeper removals are always possible in localized areas and should be planned for in any

preliminary earthwork calculations. Additionally, overexcavation of any design cut or shallow

transition lots should be at least 3 feet below finish pad grades during grading.

• Shallow Bedrock: Weathered and moderately hard bedrock may be encountered in the

southwesterly corner of the site during future grading or in utility trenches at an estimated depth of



Page 7

3 to 5 feet below grade. Based on our borings, the bedrock to about 20 or 25 feet± below existing

grade appears to be weathered enough to be generally rippable or trenchable with conventional

heavy-duty construction equipment and methods.

• Suitability of Onsite Soils for Fill: All onsite soils consisting of “clean” native soils and weathered

bedrock are considered suitable for use in engineering fill provided they are free of organics or

other deleterious materials. The near-surface site soils (upper 4 to 5 feet±) are currently in a dry

condition and may need to be pre-watered for an extended period to bring the site soils to near

optimum conditions at the onset of grading.

• Importing/Exporting of Fill: We presume the proposed site grading concept will attempt to create

a balance of soil materials as closely as possible, however, any preliminary grading calculations

should include shrinkage of soils removed or overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill. As a

preliminary estimate, areas where the upper 3 to 4 feet alluvial soils are removed and replaced as

compacted fill, a shrinkage value on the order of 10 to 15± percent may be considered for

preliminary grading quantity calculations. As with any large grading operation, contingencies

should be planned for the actual yardage utilized to complete grading final. If importing of soil

materials is needed they should be evaluated before they are brought to the site.

• Expansion and Corrosion Potential of Site Soils: Based on one preliminary test, upper site soils

have a low expansion potential (EI of 30), however clayey soils were observed at the surface in the

northern portion of the 19-acre parcel which could potentially have medium expansion potential or

higher. Based on one preliminary test, upper site soils have a negligible exposure from sulfates to

concrete materials, however site soils are highly corrosive to metallic elements. Preliminary

corrosion mitigation could be provided by a qualified corrosion engineer during the future formal

geotechnical investigation report.

Since actual site grading remains to be performed, additional sampling and laboratory testing is

recommended during the final stages of grading for determination of expansion potential, plasticity

and general corrosion potential for the purposes of providing final foundation and other design

recommendations.

• Building Foundation Design: Based on our preliminary observations and assumed remedial

grading, conventional foundations should be feasible; however, post-tensioned slabs may also be

considered. Low expansion category soils should be considered during the preliminary design

phase. Final foundation design would be provided at the completion of site grading depending on

the as-graded conditions and expansion/corrosion potential of soils at or near finish grades.

• Pavement Design: Site soils appear to have moderate R-value potential (silty sand with some clay),

and an estimated preliminary pavement design of 3 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of base for in-

tract streets within the site may be considered for initial budgetary purposes only. Updated

pavement design may be included in the formal geotechnical investigation report and final

pavement design would be provided at the completion of street grading based on final sampling

and testing of subgrade soils.

• Onsite Stormwater Infiltration: We understand that infiltration facilities may be considered within

the site which could include a detention basin or “water quality basin”. Based on the very dense

nature of the older alluvial soil and the presence of bedrock, the site may have low or even very

low infiltration characteristics.



Page 8

REPORT LIMITATIONS

This report is based on the existing conditions of the subject property and the geotechnical observations

made during our site reconnaissance, limited field investigation and laboratory testing. It should be noted

that the soil conditions as observed in our nine borings are believed to be representative of the general soil

conditions within the site; however, soil, bedrock and moisture conditions can vary in characteristics

between excavations, both laterally and vertically, and should be expected. The conclusions and opinions

contained in this report are based on the results of the described geotechnical evaluations and represent our

professional judgment. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by

other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. The contents

of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty.

This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project

concept changes from that described herein. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects

other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other

parties or other purposes.

This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any additional questions or concerns,

please feel free contact this office.

Respectfully submitted,

PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.

7/20/18 Douglass Johnston Siamak Jafroudi, PhD

Senior Associate Geologist Senior Principal Engineer

CEG 2477 GE 2024

DJ/SJ/lv

Attachments: References

Figure 1 – Exploration Exhibit

Appendix A – Laboratory Test Data

Appendix B – Boring Logs

Distribution: Addressee (electronic)

Mr. Matt Maehara (electronic)

W:\2014-2019\2018\200\18-248 MLC Holdings (76 acres, Menifee)\Reports\18-248 100 Due Diligence Report.docx



Page 9

REFERENCES

California Department of Water Resources, 2018, Water Data Library, accessed July,

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/

California Geologic Survey, 2018, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, accessed July,

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/

FEMA Flood Map Panel No. 06065C2070H, Eff. 8/18, 2014.

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor

Google Earth™ 2018, by Google Earth, Inc., accessed July,

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

Morton, D.M., et. al., 1996, Geologic Map of the Romoland 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California;

USGS Open-file Report 90-701.

RBF Consulting, Inc., 2006, Parkside Tentative Tract No. 32097 Amendment No. 1, prepared for Trumark

Companies, dated April 6.

Riverside County RCIT, Map My County, 2018, accessed July,

http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public

PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.40880 County Center Drive, Suite R

Temecula, California 92591PHONE: (951) 600-9271

COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA

Exploration Exhibit

DATE: July 2018

J.N.: 18-248Figure 1

76-Acre SiteTentative Tract 32097 & APN 372-190-01City of Menifee, California

SCIENCES

N

Loretta Ave.

Scott Rd

APN372-190-01

Possible Area of Fill

TTM 32097

Possible Area of Fill

Stockpile of Boulders B-1

B-9

B-5

B-8

B-6

B-7

B-2

B-3

B-4

Reference: Bing Maps, 2018

APPENDIX A

LABORATORY TEST DATA

_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________

PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882

J.N. 18-248

LABORATORY TEST DATA

Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Data

Boring/Depth

(feet) Soil Type

Optimum

Moisture

(%)

Maximum

Dry Density

(pcf)

B-4 @ 0-5 Silty Sand 7.0 132.0

Per ASTM Test Method ASTM D 1557

Expansion Index Test Data

Boring/Depth

(feet) Soil Type

Expansion

Index

Expansion

Potential

B-5 @ 0-5 Silty Sand, trace clay 30 Low

Per ASTM Test Method ASTM D 4829

Corrosion Test Data

Boring/Depth

(feet)

Sulfate

(%)

Chloride

(mg/L) pH

Resistivity

(ohm-cm) Corrosivity Potential

B-5 @ 0-5 0.0006 75 7.4 1,400 Concrete: Negligible

Steel: Corrosive

Per California Test Method CTM 417, 422, 643

Collapse Potential

Boring/Depth

(feet)

In-Situ Dry Density

(pcf)

In-Situ Moisture Content

(%)

Collapse

(%)

B-1 @ 5 101.0 3.4 0.24

B-2 @ 4 111.4 11.5 * Heave *

B-9 @ 3 118.3 6.5 0.21

Per ASTM Test Method D 5333

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILClayey Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry, stiff, fine-grained sand.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Silty Sand (SM): Olive gray, dry, very dense, fine-grained.Same as above.

Same as above.

Sandy Silt (ML): Gray to orange, dry, very stiff, fine-grained sand, with fewwhite gypsum deposits.

Silty Sand (SM): Gray, dry, very dense, fine-grained sand, disturbed sample.

becomes cemented.

No recovery.Total Depth= 20.5'No groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

2850

50

3150

50

50

50

5.6

3.4

12.7

1.8

6.6

115.6

101.0

93.4

118.5

109.9

CON

Project: 76± Acres of Raw Land North of Scott Road Boring No.: B-1

Location: City of Menifee, Riverside County, CA Elevation: ±1499

Job No.: 18-248 Client: MLC Holdings, Inc. Date: 7/11/18

Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140lbs/30" Logged By: KTM

Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology

Material Description

WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G

Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILClayey Silty Sand (SC/SM): Brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained sand,with roots.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Sandy Silt (ML): Reddish-brown, dry, stiff, fine-grained sand.

Same as above.

Silty Sand (SM): Reddish-brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine-grained.

Same as above with few white gypsum deposits.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Same as above.

@22' Drilling becomes very difficult.

BEDROCK - Granitics (Kgr)Granodiorite: Gray, coarse-grained, very hard, massive, moderatelyweathered, disturbed sample.

Same as above, water added to aid drilling, disturbed sample.

144150

2850

2450

2750

1650

4050

50

50

11.5

9.1

10.9

9.8

13.6

11.8

111.4

107.7

115.8

117.7

115.2

116.6

CON





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Same as above, water added to aid drilling, disturbed sample.Total Depth= 35'2"Refusal due to very hard bedrockNo groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

50





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILSilty Sand (SM): Grayish-brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Sand to Silty Sand (SP-SM): Orangish-brown, dry, very dense, fine- tomedium-grained.

Sandy Clayey Silt (ML): Orangish-brown, slightly moist, stiff, fine-grained.

Silty Sand (SM): Orangish-brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine-grainedsand.Same as above except fine- to coarse-grained sand.

Same as above.

Becomes fine- to medium-grained and moist.

Same as above.

Total Depth= 20'11"No groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

2950

2750

2250

2650

2250

1550

7.1

11.0

10.0

8.1

9.4

119.9

112.2

114.9

112.8

117.0





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ARTIFICIAL FILL (af)Silty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Silty Sand/Sandy Silt (SM/ML): Orangish-brown, dry, very stiff to very dense,fine-grained sand.Same as above.

Same as above.

Same as above.

Sand (SP): Orangish-brown, dry, very dense, medium- to coarse-grainedsand.

Same as above with few silt.

Total Depth= 20'11"No groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

2350

103050

50

50

2650

8.2

11.4

6.6

2.8

11.3

116.7

120.0

116.4

103.4

118.9

MAX





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILSilty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained sand, with traceclay.

BEDROCK - Granitics (Kgr)Granodiorite: Orangish-brown, coarse-grained, moderately hard, highlyweathered.Becomes olive gray and white with trace orange oxidation staining, and hard.

Becomes very hard.

Same as above.

Same as above, disturbed sample.Total Depth= 15'1"No groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

223029

1850

50

50

50

3.7 121.0

EI, SO4,pH, CL,

RES





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILClayey Silty Sand (SM/SC): Brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained sand.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Sand (SP): Gray, dry, very dense, fine- to medium-grained sand.

Becomes olive gray.

Becomes gray with trace orange oxidation staining, medium-grained.

No recovery.Total Depth= 15'2"No groundwater encounterdBoring backfilled with cuttings.

50

2650

50

5050

3.1

8.4

4.1

117.1

114.2

105.3





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILSilty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained sand.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Silty Sand (SM): Orangish-brown, dry, very dense, fine-grained.Becomes fine- to medium-grained.

Same as above except moist.

Same as above.

Becomes fine- to coarse-grained.Total Depth= 15'6"No groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

1950

193350

1950

50

5.1

7.1

10.8

3.4

124.6

116.7

115.6

106.5





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILSilty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained, with few roots.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Silty Sand (SM): Orangish-brown, dry, very dense, fine-grained.Same as above.

Becomes fine- to medium-grained.

Becomes fine- to coarse-grained.

Same as above.

Total Depth= 16'No groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

3450

4250

50

3050

5.4

5.4

4.4

2.9

109.9

111.8

110.9

110.3





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TOPSOILSilty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, medium-dense, fine-grained sand, with traceclay and roots.

OLDER ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Sand (SP): Orange and white, dry, very dense, coarse-grained, highlyweathered.Same as above, rock in tip of sampler, disturbed.

Same as above, disturbed.

Silty Sand (SM): Orangish-brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine- to coarse-grained.Total Depth= 15'9"No groundwater encounteredBoring backfilled with cuttings.

2050

50

50

2650

6.5

7.3

3.8

9.3

118.3

122.5

CON





Depth(Feet)

Lith-ology


WATER

Blowsper6 in.

Samples

Core

Bulk

MoistureContent

(%)

Laboratory Tests

DryDensity

(pcf)

OtherLab

Tests






Appendix C

Hydrology

C-1: Existing AES Hydrologic Analysis (100-yr)

C-2: Proposed AES Hydrologic Analysis (100-yr)

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

(RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL

(c) Copyright 1982-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)

(Rational Tabling Version 21.0)

Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1202

Analysis prepared by:

Huitt-Zollars, Inc.

2603 Main Street, Irvine CA. 92614

Suite 400

949-988-5815

************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************

* SCOTT ROAD MENIFEE *

* RATIONAL METHOD - EXISTING CONDITION A *

* 100 YR - R.KIM 09/01/2020 *

**************************************************************************

FILE NAME: 100EXA.DAT

TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 09:43 09/01/2020

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00

SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00

SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90

10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.810




SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.3974362


COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:

STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.540

SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.3958

RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD

NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL

AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES

*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*

HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR

NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)

=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 38.0 33.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150

GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.67 FEET

as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)

*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN

OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*

****************************************************************************

FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<

============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH POOR COVER

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2

INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 228.00

UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1495.00

DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1490.00

ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 5.00

TC = 0.533*[( 228.00**3)/( 5.00)]**.2 = 10.032

100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.126

UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7880

SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.22

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.22

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<

>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<

============================================================================

ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1490.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1481.10

CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 517.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0172

CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 2.22

FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 2.31 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL)

TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.73 Tc(MIN.) = 13.77

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 745.00 FEET.

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<

============================================================================




SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.01


TC(MIN.) = 13.77

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 15.36

============================================================================

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 18.1 TC(MIN.) = 15.36

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 38.14

============================================================================

============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************








Huitt-Zollars, Inc.


Suite 400

949-988-5815



* RATIONAL METHOD - EXISTING CONDITION *

* 100 YR AMC III VAA 9/1/2020 *

**************************************************************************

FILE NAME: 100EXB.DAT


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 38.0 33.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================








TC = 0.533*[( 358.00**3)/( 3.00)]**.2 = 14.565






****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 19.23

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 22.98

============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************










* RATIONAL METHOD - EXISTING CONDITION *

* 100 YR AMC III DA C V.AGUIRRE 11/01/2018 REV. 11/13/2019 *

**************************************************************************

FILE NAME: 100EXC.DAT


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 38.0 33.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================








TC = 0.533*[( 232.00**3)/( 4.00)]**.2 = 10.599






****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 12.94

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 15.72

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 19.49

============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************








Huitt-Zollars, Inc.


Suite 400

949-988-5815



* RATIONAL METHOD - PROPOSED CONDITION *

* 100 YR AMC III RYAN KIM 08/21/2020 REVISED VAA 9/2/2020 *

**************************************************************************

FILE NAME: SRAP100.DAT


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 20.0 15.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================


DEVELOPMENT IS SINGLE FAMILY (1/4 ACRE)






TC = 0.393*[( 242.00**3)/( 3.20)]**.2 = 8.379


SINGLE-FAMILY(1/4 ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8474




****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<

>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<

============================================================================

UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1491.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1488.50

STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0

STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00

DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 15.00

INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020

OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020

SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1

STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020

Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150

Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200

**TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.50

STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39

HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.59

AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.93

PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.14

STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.14 Tc(MIN.) = 9.52





TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.55

END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.64

FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.19 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.38


****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================












***STREET FLOW SPLITS OVER STREET-CROWN***

FULL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.56 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00

FULL HALF-STREET VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.42

SPLIT DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 SPLIT FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.67

SPLIT FLOW(CFS) = 0.90 SPLIT VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.41
















****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================












***STREET FLOWING FULL***
















****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<

>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<

============================================================================


FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.0 INCHES

PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 20.88

ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1

PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.57

PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 15.78


****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 15.78

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 15.78

============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************








Huitt-Zollars, Inc.


Suite 400

949-988-5815



* RATIONAL METHOD - PROPOSED CONDITION - DA B1 *


**************************************************************************

FILE NAME: SRB1P100.DAT


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================








TC = 0.393*[( 291.00**3)/( 1.50)]**.2 = 10.891






****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================



























****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================



ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000







============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************








Huitt-Zollars, Inc.


Suite 400

949-988-5815


* SCOTT ROAD MEIFEE *



**************************************************************************



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================








TC = 0.393*[( 689.00**3)/( 5.80)]**.2 = 13.938






****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================










============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************








Huitt-Zollars, Inc.


Suite 400

949-988-5815




* 100 YR AMC III VAA 9/1/2020 *

**************************************************************************



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================








TC = 0.393*[( 553.00**3)/( 3.50)]**.2 = 13.514






****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================










============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************








Huitt-Zollars, Inc.


Suite 400

949-988-5815


* SCOT ROAD MENIFEE *

* RATIONAL METHOD - PROPOSED CONDITION *

* 100 YR AMC III DA B COMBINED VAA 9/1/2020 *

**************************************************************************

FILE NAME: SRBP100.DAT


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<

============================================================================

USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TC(MIN) = 13.19 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 0.79


****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<

============================================================================

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================




****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<

============================================================================

** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **

STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA

NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)

1 7.72 13.97 0.771 3.36


** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **



1 11.20 13.19 0.789 4.60


*********************************WARNING**********************************

IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED

ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA

WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW.

**************************************************************************

** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **

STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY

NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)

1 18.49 13.19 0.789

2 18.67 13.97 0.771

COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.49 Tc(MIN.) = 13.19

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.0

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<

============================================================================

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<

============================================================================

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================




****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<

============================================================================

** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **



1 5.03 13.54 0.781 2.20


** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **



1 18.49 13.19 0.789 7.96


*********************************WARNING**********************************

IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED

ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA

WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW.

**************************************************************************

** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **

STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY

NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)

1 23.39 13.19 0.789

2 23.33 13.54 0.781

COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 23.39 Tc(MIN.) = 13.19

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.2

****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<<

============================================================================

============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�

____________________________________________________________________________

****************************************************************************








Huitt-Zollars, Inc.


Suite 400

949-988-5815



* RATIONAL METHOD - PROPOSED CONDITION -DA C *


**************************************************************************

FILE NAME: SRCP100.DAT


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




















=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== =======

1 20.0 15.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150







****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================








TC = 0.393*[( 333.00**3)/( 3.00)]**.2 = 10.280






****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================



























****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================



























****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



============================================================================












***STREET FLOW SPLITS OVER STREET-CROWN***

FULL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.56 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00

FULL HALF-STREET VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.50

SPLIT DEPTH(FEET) = 0.48 SPLIT FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.99

SPLIT FLOW(CFS) = 6.01 SPLIT VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.19
















****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


============================================================================






TC(MIN.) = 18.73

============================================================================




============================================================================

============================================================================


�




Appendix D

Hydraulic Analysis

D-1: FlowMaster Street Flow

D-2: AES Catch Basin Calculations

D-3: WSPG Calculations

D-4: Flume Calculations

D-5: PCC Dip Structure Calculations

vaguirre

Text Box

CALCULATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED IN FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

vaguirre

Line

vaguirre

Line

vaguirre

Line




Appendix F

Reference Plans

vaguirre

Line

vaguirre

Text Box

PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED IN FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN

X

X

>>

>

>

>>

>

>

>>>

>

C

A

B

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Irvine

Phone (949) 988-5815 Fax (949) 988-5820



AutoCAD SHX Text

1486.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495

AutoCAD SHX Text

1500

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

EAGLE ROAD (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

LORETTA AVE (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING R/W

AutoCAD SHX Text

TRACT BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

TRACT BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

TRACT BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

LINDENBERGER ROAD (FUTURE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCOTT ROAD (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

WHITEHAVEN COURT (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

BRAMPTON COURT (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

HAVERSHAM COURT (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

KENDAL COURT (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

MENIFEE ROAD (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

BARTON BANKS STREET (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING DETENTION BASIN

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

REVIVAL CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

1481.1 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

DISCHARGE LOCATION 1482.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 228 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 517 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 212 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

PITMAN LANE (EXISTING )

AutoCAD SHX Text

101

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

102

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING 36" RCP

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING 24" RCP

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING 24" RCP

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING CATCH BASIN

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING HEADWALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

204

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING HEADWALL (DISCHARGE TO SURFACE FLOW)

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

103

AutoCAD SHX Text

1498.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

1494.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

301

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 232 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 311 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 351 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 543 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1489.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

302

AutoCAD SHX Text

303

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

304

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485.5 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

202

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 393 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

203

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 542 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

200

AutoCAD SHX Text

1492.0 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

201

AutoCAD SHX Text

L= 358 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

MENIFEE, CA

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCOTT ROAD EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED FOR:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE: 11/18/2019

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE 1"= 150"

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

75

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING WETLANDS

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINS OFF-SITE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING VERNAL POOL

>>

>

>

>>

>

>

>>>

>

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Irvine

Phone (949) 988-5815 Fax (949) 988-5820



AutoCAD SHX Text

L=465 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=1.5'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=1.8'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.8'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.7'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.5'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.8'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=4.0'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.6'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

W=2.3'

AutoCAD SHX Text

105

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

EAGLE ROAD (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCOTT ROAD (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

KENDAL COURT (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

WHITEHAVEN COURT

AutoCAD SHX Text

(EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495

AutoCAD SHX Text

1500

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1480

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1495

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIGNAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AHEAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=242 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1491.2 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

401

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=333 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1486.0 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

404

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=410 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=563 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

402

AutoCAD SHX Text

1489.0 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=250 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=25 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1488.5 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

1486.3 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

1484.2 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

4

AutoCAD SHX Text

8

AutoCAD SHX Text

6

AutoCAD SHX Text

7

AutoCAD SHX Text

5

AutoCAD SHX Text

13

AutoCAD SHX Text

14

AutoCAD SHX Text

10

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

21

AutoCAD SHX Text

22

AutoCAD SHX Text

32

AutoCAD SHX Text

24

AutoCAD SHX Text

31

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-3

AutoCAD SHX Text

4.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.43

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.62

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-5

AutoCAD SHX Text

33

AutoCAD SHX Text

30

AutoCAD SHX Text

35

AutoCAD SHX Text

40

AutoCAD SHX Text

65

AutoCAD SHX Text

55

AutoCAD SHX Text

45

AutoCAD SHX Text

52

AutoCAD SHX Text

42

AutoCAD SHX Text

53

AutoCAD SHX Text

54

AutoCAD SHX Text

43

AutoCAD SHX Text

44

AutoCAD SHX Text

1493.8 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

47

AutoCAD SHX Text

50

AutoCAD SHX Text

46

AutoCAD SHX Text

62

AutoCAD SHX Text

37

AutoCAD SHX Text

60

AutoCAD SHX Text

61

AutoCAD SHX Text

1492.3 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

39

AutoCAD SHX Text

59

AutoCAD SHX Text

41

AutoCAD SHX Text

58

AutoCAD SHX Text

200

AutoCAD SHX Text

69

AutoCAD SHX Text

201

AutoCAD SHX Text

71

AutoCAD SHX Text

72

AutoCAD SHX Text

70

AutoCAD SHX Text

67

AutoCAD SHX Text

68

AutoCAD SHX Text

66

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=413 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

95

AutoCAD SHX Text

88

AutoCAD SHX Text

84

AutoCAD SHX Text

85

AutoCAD SHX Text

86

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=689 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

87

AutoCAD SHX Text

89

AutoCAD SHX Text

99

AutoCAD SHX Text

91

AutoCAD SHX Text

118

AutoCAD SHX Text

108

AutoCAD SHX Text

121

AutoCAD SHX Text

120

AutoCAD SHX Text

124

AutoCAD SHX Text

134

AutoCAD SHX Text

137

AutoCAD SHX Text

142

AutoCAD SHX Text

143

AutoCAD SHX Text

146

AutoCAD SHX Text

170

AutoCAD SHX Text

156

AutoCAD SHX Text

25

AutoCAD SHX Text

23

AutoCAD SHX Text

27

AutoCAD SHX Text

29

AutoCAD SHX Text

15

AutoCAD SHX Text

11

AutoCAD SHX Text

12

AutoCAD SHX Text

127

AutoCAD SHX Text

130

AutoCAD SHX Text

125

AutoCAD SHX Text

128

AutoCAD SHX Text

114

AutoCAD SHX Text

101

AutoCAD SHX Text

106

AutoCAD SHX Text

168

AutoCAD SHX Text

171

AutoCAD SHX Text

105

AutoCAD SHX Text

110

AutoCAD SHX Text

103

AutoCAD SHX Text

112

AutoCAD SHX Text

102

AutoCAD SHX Text

164

AutoCAD SHX Text

175

AutoCAD SHX Text

166

AutoCAD SHX Text

167

AutoCAD SHX Text

173

AutoCAD SHX Text

152

AutoCAD SHX Text

161

AutoCAD SHX Text

76

AutoCAD SHX Text

82

AutoCAD SHX Text

77

AutoCAD SHX Text

75

AutoCAD SHX Text

79

AutoCAD SHX Text

BRAMPTON COURT (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

HAVERSHAM COURT (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

LORETTA AVE (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

57

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

3.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-6

AutoCAD SHX Text

4.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

4.72

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

B3-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-10

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

34

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-5

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-6

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

5.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

3.62

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-3

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

51

AutoCAD SHX Text

B1-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

B2-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.35

AutoCAD SHX Text

38

AutoCAD SHX Text

3.36

AutoCAD SHX Text

B1-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

56

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-9

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.60

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-7

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.78

AutoCAD SHX Text

3.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-8

AutoCAD SHX Text

6.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

90

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

96

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-3

AutoCAD SHX Text

93

AutoCAD SHX Text

X-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

97

AutoCAD SHX Text

92

AutoCAD SHX Text

1481.5 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

107

AutoCAD SHX Text

1494.4 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

98

AutoCAD SHX Text

BARTON BANKS STREET (EXISTING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

94

AutoCAD SHX Text

116

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVIVAL CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

AutoCAD SHX Text

117

AutoCAD SHX Text

PITMAN LANE (EXISTING )

AutoCAD SHX Text

122

AutoCAD SHX Text

101

AutoCAD SHX Text

123

AutoCAD SHX Text

135

AutoCAD SHX Text

119

AutoCAD SHX Text

1493.5 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

136

AutoCAD SHX Text

138

AutoCAD SHX Text

140

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=250 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

139

AutoCAD SHX Text

141

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490.7 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

403

AutoCAD SHX Text

145

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=392 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

144

AutoCAD SHX Text

147

AutoCAD SHX Text

148

AutoCAD SHX Text

155

AutoCAD SHX Text

102

AutoCAD SHX Text

169

AutoCAD SHX Text

103

AutoCAD SHX Text

1496.5 FG

AutoCAD SHX Text

104

AutoCAD SHX Text

26

AutoCAD SHX Text

400

AutoCAD SHX Text

20

AutoCAD SHX Text

18

AutoCAD SHX Text

19

AutoCAD SHX Text

28

AutoCAD SHX Text

1488.0 FG Q = 11.2 CFS100= 11.2 CFS

AutoCAD SHX Text

16

AutoCAD SHX Text

Q = 36.9 CFS 100= 36.9 CFS

AutoCAD SHX Text

1490.0 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

9

AutoCAD SHX Text

17

AutoCAD SHX Text

202

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=291 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

133

AutoCAD SHX Text

131

AutoCAD SHX Text

126

AutoCAD SHX Text

132

AutoCAD SHX Text

1491.4 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

129

AutoCAD SHX Text

1483.5 FG Q =7.7 CFS 100=7.7 CFS

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485.6 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

149

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

115

AutoCAD SHX Text

J

AutoCAD SHX Text

162

AutoCAD SHX Text

163

AutoCAD SHX Text

154

AutoCAD SHX Text

176

AutoCAD SHX Text

109

AutoCAD SHX Text

104

AutoCAD SHX Text

157

AutoCAD SHX Text

113

AutoCAD SHX Text

111

AutoCAD SHX Text

165

AutoCAD SHX Text

174

AutoCAD SHX Text

153

AutoCAD SHX Text

151

AutoCAD SHX Text

172

AutoCAD SHX Text

159

AutoCAD SHX Text

158

AutoCAD SHX Text

49

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

160

AutoCAD SHX Text

74

AutoCAD SHX Text

48

AutoCAD SHX Text

81

AutoCAD SHX Text

80

AutoCAD SHX Text

78

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

73

AutoCAD SHX Text

83

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

B

AutoCAD SHX Text

B

AutoCAD SHX Text

B

AutoCAD SHX Text

B

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED R/W

AutoCAD SHX Text

TRACT BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

TRACT BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING 24" RCP

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

TRACT BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING 36" RCP

AutoCAD SHX Text

WETLANDS

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERNAL POOL

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUMMARY TABLE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BASIN NAME

AutoCAD SHX Text

BASIN OUTLET TYPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

DCV (CU. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AVAILABLE VOL (CU. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

REQ. SA (SQ. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AVAILABLE SA (SQ. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

STANDPIPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

11,528

AutoCAD SHX Text

20,560

AutoCAD SHX Text

8,520

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,340

AutoCAD SHX Text

B1

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

3,342

AutoCAD SHX Text

18,465

AutoCAD SHX Text

1,980

AutoCAD SHX Text

18,700

AutoCAD SHX Text

B2

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

2,172

AutoCAD SHX Text

14,025

AutoCAD SHX Text

1,670

AutoCAD SHX Text

10,470

AutoCAD SHX Text

B3

AutoCAD SHX Text

1,452

AutoCAD SHX Text

21,260

AutoCAD SHX Text

2,110

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,870

AutoCAD SHX Text

STANDPIPE OUTLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR OUTLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR OUTLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

STANDPIPE OUTLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

301

AutoCAD SHX Text

C

AutoCAD SHX Text

STANDPIPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

14,088

AutoCAD SHX Text

51,300

AutoCAD SHX Text

9,580

AutoCAD SHX Text

38,280

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

B3-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

203

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

302

AutoCAD SHX Text

1491.0 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

500

AutoCAD SHX Text

L=553 FT

AutoCAD SHX Text

1485.0 FG Q =5.0 CFS 100=5.0 CFS

AutoCAD SHX Text

502

AutoCAD SHX Text

1487.5 FL

AutoCAD SHX Text

501

AutoCAD SHX Text

405

AutoCAD SHX Text

SD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SD

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR OUTLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-7

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.63

AutoCAD SHX Text

LINDENBERGER ROAD (PROPOSED)

AutoCAD SHX Text

1484.5 FG Q = 40.9 CFS 100= 40.9 CFS

AutoCAD SHX Text

C-8

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUBDRAIN SUMP PUMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUMP PUMP FOR SUBDRAINS

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

4:1

AutoCAD SHX Text

4:1

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED BIO-RETENTION BASIN SECTION A-A (H.O.A. MAINTAINED) N.T.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CURB CUTS OR PIPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

RESIDENTIAL STREET

AutoCAD SHX Text

2:1 MAX

AutoCAD SHX Text

INLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

PERFORATED SUBDRAIN

AutoCAD SHX Text

BROAD CRESTED WEIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

EG

AutoCAD SHX Text

FLARED OUTLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENERGY DISSIPATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

4:1

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED BIO-RETENTION BASIN SECTION B-B (H.O.A. MAINTAINED) N.T.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text

4:1

AutoCAD SHX Text

CURB CUTS OR PIPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

INLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

PERFORATED SUBDRAIN

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENERGY DISSIPATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

OUTLET RISER

AutoCAD SHX Text

OUTLET PIPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL

AutoCAD SHX Text

RESIDENTIAL STREET

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUMMARY TABLE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BASIN NAME

AutoCAD SHX Text

BASIN OUTLET TYPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

DCV (CU. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AVAILABLE VOL (CU. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

REQ. SA (SQ. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AVAILABLE SA (SQ. FT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

A

AutoCAD SHX Text

STANDPIPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

11,528

AutoCAD SHX Text

20,560

AutoCAD SHX Text

8,520

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,340

AutoCAD SHX Text

B1

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

3,342

AutoCAD SHX Text

18,465

AutoCAD SHX Text

1,980

AutoCAD SHX Text

18,700

AutoCAD SHX Text

B2

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

2,172

AutoCAD SHX Text

14,025

AutoCAD SHX Text

1,670

AutoCAD SHX Text

10,470

AutoCAD SHX Text

B3

AutoCAD SHX Text

1,452

AutoCAD SHX Text

21,260

AutoCAD SHX Text

2,110

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,870

AutoCAD SHX Text

C

AutoCAD SHX Text

STANDPIPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

14,088

AutoCAD SHX Text

51,300

AutoCAD SHX Text

9,580

AutoCAD SHX Text

38,280

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

MENIFEE, CA

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCOTT ROAD PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE 1"= 150"

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

75

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

PREPARED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE: 8/31/2020

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE AREA TO BASIN B1

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE AREA TO BASIN A1

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE AREA TO BASIN C1

AutoCAD SHX Text

OFFSITE DRAINAGE AREA

AutoCAD SHX Text


Date post:	13-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

DRAINAGE REPORT For Scott Road - City of Menifee

Documents