Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025

Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
A Template for preparing Project Specific WQMPs for Priority Development Projects located within the Santa Margarita Region of Riverside County. This template does not apply to projects in other watersheds within Riverside County. It does not apply to projects in San Diego or Orange County.

Attention: This submittal package only applies to “Priority Development Projects” and does not apply to “Other Development Projects”. Proceed only if the Applicabilty Checklist completed for your project categorizes project activities as a “Priority Development Project.”

Project Title: U-Haul of Murrieta
Development No: DP-2021-2359, CUP-2021-2360
Design Review/Case No:

Original Date Prepared: 9/23/2020
Revision Date(s): 1/13/2022, 8/9/2023, 12/8/2023, 5/6/2024

Prepared for:

U-Haul Company of Oceanside
27941 Jefferson Avenue
Temecula, CA 92590
951-200-5415
c/o Jason Mastriana
[email protected]

Prepared by:

IE Survey & Engineering, Inc.
41146 Elm Street, Suite G
Murrieta, CA 92562
951-698-1830
Alex Paulsen, PE
[email protected]

Preliminary
Final

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 2 -

Prepared for Compliance with Regional Board Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by Order No. R9- 2015-0001 and Order No. R9-2015-0100
A Brief Introduction
The Regional Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit1 requires that a Project-Specific WQMP be prepared for all development projects within the Santa Margarita Region (SMR) that meet the ‘Priority Development Project’ categories and thresholds listed in the SMR Water Quality Management Plan (WQPM). This Project-Specific WQMP Template for Development Projects in the Santa Margarita Region has been prepared to help document compliance and prepare a W QMP submittal. Below is a flowchart for the layout of this Template that will provide the steps required to document compliance.

1 Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100, NPDES No. CAS0109266, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds within the San Diego Region, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, May 8, 2013.

Section A
• Project and Site Information
• Identification of LID and
Hydromodification
requirements, if any
Section B
• Optimize Site Utilization (LID
Principles)
Section C
• Delineate Drainage
Management Areas (DMAs)
Section D
• Technical Feasibility
• Implement LID BMPs
Section E
• Technical Feasibility
• Implement Hydromodification
BMPs
Section F
• Document Alternative
Compliance Measures
Section G
• Implement Trash Capture
BMPs
Section H
• Specify Source Control BMPs
Section I
• Cordinate Submittal w/Other
Site Plans
Section J
• Operation, Maintenance, and
Funding
Section K
• Acronyms, Abbreviations, and
Definitions
Appendices
• Placeholders for supporting
material
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 4 -

OWNER’S CERTIFICATION

This Project-Specific WQMP has been prepared for U-Haul by IE Survey & Engineering, Inc. for the U-Haul of Murrieta, Abutting 732035 project.

This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of City of Murrieta Stormwater and Runoff Management and Discharge Controls Municipal Code Section 8.36.320, Water Quality Management Plan, which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a Project-Specific WQMP.

The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the implementation and funding of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. In addition, the property owner accepts responsibility for interim operation and maintenance of Stormwater Best Management Practices until such time as this responsibility is formally transferred to a subsequent owner. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party (or parties) having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity. The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementat ion of this WQMP is enforceable under the City of Murrieta Stormwater and Runoff Management and Discharge Controls (Municipal Code Section 8.36). "I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of law that the provisions of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest."

Owner’s Signature Date

Owner’s Printed Name Owner’s Title/Position

PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION

“The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control Best Management Practices in this plan meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9- 2013-0001 as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100.”

Preparer’s Signature Date

Alex Paulsen, PE Project Engineer
Preparer’s Printed Name Preparer’s Title/Position

Preparer’s Licensure: RCE 87481

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 5 -

Table of Contents
Section A: Project and Site Information........................................................................................................ 6 A.1 Maps and Site Plans ............................................................................................................................ 7 A.2 Identify Receiving Waters ................................................................................................................... 7 A.3 Drainage System Susceptibility to Hydromodification ....................................................................... 8 A.4 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: .................................................................... 9 Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) ................................................................................... 10 Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) ....................................................................... 15 Section D: Implement LID BMPs ................................................................................................................. 19 D.1 Full Infiltration Applicability ............................................................................................................. 19 D.2 Biofiltration Applicability .................................................................................................................. 21 D.3 Feasibility Assessment Summaries ................................................................................................... 23 D.4 LID BMP Sizing .................................................................................................................................. 25 Section E: Implement Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs ........................................... 27 E.1 Hydrologic Control BMP Selection .................................................................................................... 27 E.2 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing .......................................................................................................... 28 E.3 Implement Sediment Supply BMPs ................................................................................................... 28 Section F: Alternative Compliance .............................................................................................................. 33 F.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern........................................................................................................... 33 F.2 Treatment Control BMP Selection .................................................................................................... 36 F.3 Sizing Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 36 F.4 Hydrologic Performance Standard – Alternative Compliance Approach .......................................... 37 Section G: Implement Trash Capture BMPs................................................................................................ 38 Section H: Source Control BMPs ................................................................................................................. 40 Section I: Coordinate Submittal with Other Site Plans ............................................................................... 41 Section J: Operation, Maintenance and Funding ........................................................................................ 43 Section K: Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................................................. 44

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 6 -

List of Tables
Table A-1 Identification of Receiving Waters ............................................................................................... 7 Table A-2 Identification of Susceptibility to Hydromodification .................................................................. 8 Table A-3 Other Applicable Permits .............................................................................................................. 9 Table C-1 DMA Identification ...................................................................................................................... 15 Table C-2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas ....................................................................................................... 16 Table C-3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas ..................................................................................................... 17 Table C-4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas ...................................................................... 17 Table C-5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs ............................................................................................... 18 Table D-1 Infiltration Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 20 Table D-2 Geotechnical Concerns for Onsite Infiltration ........................................................................... 21 Table D-3 Evaluation of Biofiltration BMP Feasibility ................................................................................ 22 Table D-4 Proprietary BMP Approval Requirement Summary ................................................................... 22 Table D-5 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix ............................................................................................. 23 Table D-6 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs ................................................................................................... 25 Table D-7 LID BMP Sizing ............................................................................................................................ 26 Table E-1 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing .................................................................................................... 28 Table E-2 Triad Assessment Summary ........................................................................................................ 30 Table F-1 Summary of Approved 2010 303(d) listed waterbodies and associated pollutants of concern for the Riverside County SMR Region and downstream waterbodies. ............................................................ 34 Table F-2 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type ........................................................................................ 35 Table F-3 Treatment Control BMP Selection .............................................................................................. 36 Table F-4 Treatment Control BMP Sizing .................................................................................................... 36 Table F-5 Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing ........................................................................................ 37 Table G-1 Sizing Trash Capture BMPs ......................................................................................................... 38 Table G-2 Approximate precipitation depth/intensity values for calculation of the Trash Capture Design Storm ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 Table G-3 Trash Capture BMPs ................................................................................................................... 39 Table I-1 Construction Plan Cross-reference .............................................................................................. 42 Table I-2 Other Applicable Permits ............................................................................................................. 42

List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans ................................................................................................................ 51 Appendix 2: Construction Plans .................................................................................................................. 52 Appendix 3: Soils Information ..................................................................................................................... 54 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions ........................................................................................................ 55 Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility ........................................................................................................................ 57 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 7 -

Appendix 6: BMP Design Details ................................................................................................................. 59 Appendix 7: Hydromodification .................................................................................................................. 60 Appendix 8: Source Control ........................................................................................................................ 61 Appendix 9: O&M ....................................................................................................................................... 62 Appendix 10: Educational Materials ........................................................................................................... 43 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 6 -

Section A: Project and Site Information
Use the table below to compile and summarize basic site information that will be important for completing subsequent steps. Subsections A.1 through A.4 provide additional detail on documentation of additional project and site information.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Type of PDP: New Development
Type of Project: Commercial
Planning Area:

Community Name:

Development Name:

PROJECT LOCATION
Latitude & Longitude (DMS): 33.556272°, -117.203625°
Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed: Santa Margarita River, 902.32 Murrieta HSA 24-Hour 85th Percentile Storm Depth (inches): 0.806 inches Is project subject to Hydromodification requirements? Y N (Select based on Section A.3) APN(s): 949-220-013/014
Map Book and Page No.: PM 25/82

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed or Potential Land Use(s) Commercial
Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s)
Existing Impervious Area of Project Footprint (SF) 0 SF Total area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits (SF)/or Replacement 36,345 SF Total Project Area (ac) 1.13ac
Does the project consist of offsite road improvements? Y N Does the project propose to construct unpaved roads? Y N Is the project part of a larger common plan of development (phased project)? Y N Is the project exempt from Hydromodification Performance Standards? Y N Does the project propose the use of Alternative Compliance to satisfy BMP requirements? (note, alternative compliance is not allowed for coarse sediment performance standards) Y N
Has preparation of Project-Specific WQMP included coordination with other site plans? Y N

EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Is the project located within any Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan area (MSHCP Criteria Cell?)
Y N
If "Y" insert Cell Number
Are there any natural hydrologic features on the project site? Y N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? Y N
If no Geotech. Report, l ist the N atural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils type(s) present on the site (A, B, C and/or D)

A, C, D

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 7 -

A.1 Maps and Site Plans
When completing your Project-Specific WQMP, include a map of the Project vicinity and existing site. In addition, include all grading, drainage, landscape/plant palette and other pertinent construction plans in Appendix 2. At a minimum, your WQMP Site Plan should include the following:

• Vicinity and location maps
• Parcel Boundary and Project Footprint
• Existing and Proposed Topography
• Drainage Management Areas (DMAs)
• Proposed Structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
• Drainage Paths
• Drainage infrastructure, inlets, overflows
• Source Control BMPs
• Site Design BMPs
• Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
• Impervious Surfaces
• Pervious Surfaces (i.e. Landscaping)
• Standard Labeling
Use your discretion on whether or not you may need to create multiple sheets or can appropriately accommodate these features on one or two shee ts. Keep in mind that the Co permittee plan reviewer must be able to easily analyze your Project utilizing this template and its associated site plans and maps.

Complete the checklists in Appendix 1 to verify that all exhibits and components are included.

A.2 Identify Receiving Waters
Using Table A-1 below, list in order of upstream to downstream, the Receiving Waters that the Project site is tributary to. Continue to fill each row with the Receiving Water’s 303(d) listed impairments (if any), designated Beneficial Uses, and proximity, if any, to a RARE Beneficial Use. Include a map of the Receiving Waters in Appendix 1. This map should identify the path of the stormwater discharged from the site all the way to the outlet of the Santa Margarita River to the Pacif ic Ocean. Use the most recent 303(d) list available from the State Water Resources Control Board Website. (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/program s/basin_plan/)

Table A-1 Identification of Receiving Waters
Receiving
Waters USEPA Approved 303(d) List Impairments Designated Beneficial Uses
Proximity to RARE
Beneficial Use
902.33 French
HSA
Chlorpyrifos, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nitrogen,
Phosphorous, Toxicity
MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, REC1, REC2,

WARM, WILD N/A
902.52 Wolf
HSA Phosphorous, Toxicity MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD N/A
902.22 Gavilan
HSA
Metals, Nutrients, TDS, Indicator Bacteria, Toxicity,
Sulfates
MUN, AGR, IND, REC1, REC2, WARM,
COLD, WILD, RARE 10 Miles
902.21 DeLuz
Creek HSA Metals, Nutrients MUN, AGR, IND, REC1, REC2, WARM, COLD, WILD, RARE, SPWN 15 Miles
902.13 Upper
Ysidora HSA None Listed MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, REC1 , REC2, WARM, COLD, WILD, RARE 25 Miles
902.12 Chappo
HSA None Listed MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, REC1, REC2,
WARM, COLD, WILD, RARE 26 Miles
902.11 Lower
Ysidora HSA Indicator Bacteria MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, REC1, REC2, WARM, COLD, WILD, RARE 32 Miles
Pacific Ocean
Impairments being addressed by others (USEPA or
other TMDLs measures) Source: 2016 approved
TMDL list
IND, NAV, REC1, REC2, COMM, BIOL,

WILD, RARE, MAR, AQUA, MIGR, SPWN,
SHELL
35 Miles
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 8 -

A.3 Drainage System Susceptibility to Hydromodification Using Table A-2 below, list in order of the point of discharge at the project site down to the Santa Margarita River 2, each drainage system or receiving water that the project site is tributary to. Continue to fill each row with the material of the drainage system, a nd any exemption (if applicable). Based on the results, summarize the applicable hydromodification performance standards that will be documented in Section E. Exempted categories of receiving waters include:
• Existing storm drains that discharge directly t o water storage reservoirs, lakes, or enclosed embayments, or
• Conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. • Other water bodies identified in an approved WMAA (See Exhibit G to the WQMP)

Include a map exhibiting each drainage system and the associated susceptibility in Appendix 1.

Table A-2 Identification of Susceptibility to Hydromodification Drainage System Drainage System Material Hydromodification Exemption Hydromodification Exempt
City Storm Drain 18” RCP Engineered and Regularly Maintained Y N
Murrieta Creek Earthen Channel
SWCTT Lists Murrieta Creek as Potentially
Exempt because Murrieta Creek is
engineered and regularly maintained.

Additionally, the 2014 Santa Margarita
Hydromodification Management Plan
(HMP), page 47 lists the Murrieta River
exempt from hydromod from above Warm
Springs Creek to the confluence with the
Santa Margarita River.

Y N
Santa Margarita River Earthen Channel
SWCTT lists the Santa Margarita River as
exempt. Additionally, the 2014 Santa
Margarita Hydromodification Management
Plan (HMP), page 47 lists the Santa
Margarita River exempt from hydromod
from its origin to the Pacific Ocean.

Y N
Summary of Performance Standards
Hydromodification Exempt – Select if “Y” is selected in the Hydromodification Exempt column above, project is exempt from hydromodification requirements.

Not Exempt-Select if “N” is selected in any row of the Hydromodification Exempt column above. Project is subject to hydrologic control requirements and may be subject to sediment supply requirements.

2 Refer to Exhibit G of the WQMP for a map of exempt and potentially exempt areas. These maps are from the Draft SMR WMAA as of January 5, 2018 and will be replaced upon acceptance of the SMR WMAA.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 9 -

A.4 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:

Table A-3 Other Applicable Permits
Agency Permit Required
State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Y N State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Y N US Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Y N US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion Y N Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage Y N
Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage Y N
Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency Approval (e.g., JPR, DBESP) Y N Other (please list in the space below as required)
CUP, Grading Permit, Building Permit Y N
If yes is answered to any of the questions above, the Copermittee may require proof of approval/coverage from those agencies as applicable including documen tation of any associated requiremen ts that may affect this Project-Specific WQMP.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 10 -

Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles)
Review of the information collected in Section ‘A’ will aid in identifying the principal constraints on site design and selection of LID BMPs as well as opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate LID Principles into the site and landscape design. For example, constraints might include impermeable soils, high groundwater, groundwater pollution or contaminated soils, ste ep slopes, geotechnical instability, high-intensity land use, heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic, utility locations or safety concerns.

Opportunities might include existing natural areas, low areas, oddly configured or otherwise unbuildable parcels, ea sements and landscape amenities including open space and buffers (which can double as locations for LID Bioretention BMPs), and differences in elevation (which can provide hydraulic head).

Prepare a brief narrative for each of the site optimization strategies described below. This narrative will help you as you proceed with your Low Impact Development ( LID) design and explain your design decisions to others.

Apply the following LID Principles to the layout of the PDP to the extent they are applicable and feasible.

Putting thought upfront about how best to organize the various elements of a site can help to significantly reduce the PDP's potential impact on the environment and reduce the number and size of Structural LID BMPs that must be implemented. Integrate opportunities to accommodate the following LID Principles within the preliminary PDP site layout to maximize implementation of LID Principles.

Site Optimization
Complete checklist below to determine applicable Site Design BMPs for your site.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 11 -

Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
The following questions below are based upon Section 3.2 of the SMR WQMP will help you determine how to best optimize your site and subsequently identify opportunities and/or constraints, and document compliance.

SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Answer the following questions below by indicating “Yes,” “No,” or “N/A” (Not Applicable). Justify all “No” and “N/A” answers by inserting a narrative at the end of the section. The narrative should include identification and justification of any constraints that would prevent the use of those categories of LID BMPs. Upon identifying Site Design BMP opportunities, include these on your WQMP Site plan in Appendix 1.

Yes No N/A
Did you identify and preserve existing drainage patterns? Integrating existing drainage patterns into the site plan helps to maintain the time of concentration and infiltration rates of runoff, decreasing peak flows, and may also help preserve the contribution of Critical Coarse Sediment (i.e., Bed Sediment Supply) from the PDP to the Receiving Water. Preserve existing drainage patterns by:
• Minimizing unnecessary site grading that would eliminate small depressions, where appropriate add additional “micro” storage throughout the site landscaping. • Where possible conform the PDP site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, preserve or replicate the sites natural drainage features and patterns.
• Set back PDP improvements from creeks, wetlands, riparian habitats and any other natural water bodies.
• Use existing and proposed site drainage patterns as a natural design element, rather than using expensive impervious conveyance systems. Use depressed landscaped areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities and focal points within the site and landscape design.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Existing drainage patterns we re observed and are being maintained to the maximum extent possible. The natural drainage pattern for the site is, in general, sheet flow to the south/ southwest. This pattern is being maintained as no significant grading will be changing this pattern.

Yes No N/A
Did you identify and protect existing vegetation?
Identify any areas containing dense native vegetation or well-established trees, and try to avoid disturbing these areas. Soils with thick, undisturbed vegetation have a much higher capacity to store and infiltrate runoff than do disturbed soils. Reestablishment of a mature vegetative community may take decades. Sensitive areas, such as streams and floodplains should also be avoided.
• Define the development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be left undisturbed. • Establish setbacks and buffer zones surrounding sensitive areas. • Preserve significant trees and other natural vegetation where possible.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Existing vegetation onsite is very little to none.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 12 -

Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
Yes No N/A
Did you identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? A key component of LID is taking advantage of a site's natural infiltration and storage capacity.

A site survey and geotechnical investigation can help define areas with high potential for infiltration and surface storage.
• Identify opportunities to locate LID Principles and Structural BMPs in highly pervious areas. Doing so will maximize infiltration and limit the amount of runoff generated. • Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils, and preserve areas that can promote infiltration.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Natural infiltration capacity is being preserved as the impervious area on the project are a is being limited to the building and loading dock.

Yes No N/A
Did you minimize impervious area?
Look for opportunities to limit impervious cover through identification of the smallest possi ble land area that can be practically impacted or disturbed during site development. • Limit overall coverage of paving and roofs. This can be accomplished by designing compact, taller structures, narrower and shorter streets and sidewalks, clustering buildings and sharing driveways, smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. • Inventory planned impervious areas on your preliminary site plan. Identify where permeable pavements, or other permeable materials, such as crushed aggregate, turf block, permeable modular blocks, pervious concrete or pervious asphalt could be substituted for impervious concrete or asphalt paving. This will help reduce the amount of Runoff that may need to be addressed through Structural BMPs. • Examine site layout and circulation patterns and identify areas where landscaping can be substituted for pavement, such as for overflow parking. • Consider green roofs. Green roofs are roofing systems that provide a layer of soil/vegetative cover over a waterproofing membrane. A green roof mimics pre - development conditions by filtering, absorbing, and evapotranspiring precipitation to help manage the effects of an otherwise impervious rooftop.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Impervious area was minimized due to the site plan only including the building and loading dock. Everything else onsite will be pervious (parking areas and landscaping).

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 13 -

Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
Yes No N/A
Did you identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas or small collection areas? Look for opportunities to direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent landscaping, other pervious areas, or small collection areas where such runoff may be retained. This is sometimes referred to as reducing Directly Connected Impervious Areas. • Direct roof runoff into landscaped areas such as medians, parking islands, planter boxes, etc., and/or areas of pervious paving. Instead of having landscaped areas raised above the surrounding impervious areas, design them as depressed areas that can receive Runoff from adjacent impervious pavement. For example, a lawn or garden depressed 3"-4" below surrounding walkways or driveways provides a simple but quite functional landscape design element.
• Detain and retain runoff throughout the site. On flatter sites, smaller Structural BMPs may be interspersed in landscaped areas among the buildings and paving. • On hillside sites, drainage from upper areas may be collected in conventional catch basins and piped to landscaped areas and LID BMPs and/or Hydrologic Control BMPs in lower areas. Low retaining walls may also be used to create terraces that can accommodate LID BMPs. Wherever possible, direct drainage from landscaped slopes offsite and not to impervious surfaces like parking lots. • Reduce curb maintenance and provide for allowances for curb cuts. • Design landscaped areas or other pervious areas to receive and infiltrate runoff fro m nearby impervious areas.
• Use Tree Wells to intercept, infiltrate, and evapotranspire precipitation and runoff before it reaches structural BMPs. Tree wells can be used to limit the size of Drainage Management Areas that must be treated by structural BMPs. Guidelines for Tree Wells are included in the Tree Well Fact Sheet in the LID BMP Design Handbook.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Again, because the site was designed to have the only impe rvious area be the building and the loading dock, the site is majority pervious. Therefore, all of the impervious area is being dispersed.

Yes No N/A
Did you utilize native or drought tolerant species in site landscaping? Wherever possible, use native or drought tolerant species within site landscaping instead of alternatives. These plants are uniquely suited to local soils and climate and can reduce the overall demands for potable water use associated with irrigation.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer. Have not seen landscaping plans at this time. Will incorporate into final WQMP.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 14 -

Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
Yes No N/A
Did implement harvest and use of runoff?
Under the Regional MS4 Permit, Harvest and Use BMPs must be employed to reduce runoff on any site where they are applicable and feasible. However, Harvest and Use BMPs are effective for retention of stormwater runoff only when there is adequate demand for non-potable water during the wet season. If demand for non -potable water is not sufficiently large, the actual retention of stormwater runoff will be diminished during larger storms or during ba ck-to-back storms.

For the purposes of planning level Harvest and Use BMP feasibility screening, Harvest and Use is only considered to be a feasible if the total average wet season demand for non-potable water is sufficiently large to use the entire DCV within 72 hours. If the average wet season demand for non-potable water is not sufficiently large to use the entire DCV within 72 hours, then Harvest and Use is not considered to be feasible and need not be considered further.

The general feasibility and applicability of Harvest and Use BMPs should consider:
• Any downstream impacts related to water rights that could arise from capturing stormwater (not common).
• Conflicts with recycled water used – where the project is conditioned to use recycled water for irrigation, this should be given priority over stormwater capture as it is a year-round supply of water.
• Code Compliance - If a particular use of captured stormwater, and/or available methods for storage of captured stormwater would be contrary to building codes in effect at the time of approval of the preliminary Project-Specific WQMP, then an evaluation of harvesting and use for that use would not be required. • Wet season demand – the applicant shall demonstrate, to the acceptance of the [Insert Jurisdiction], that there is adequate demand for harvested water during the wet season to drain the system in a reasonable amount of time.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Harvest and use was not considered as all runoff will be captured and infiltrated.

Yes No N/A
Did you keep the runoff from sediment producing pervious area hydrologically separate from developed areas that require treatment?
Pervious area that qualify as self -treating areas or off-site open space should be kept separate from drainage to structural BMPs whenever possible. This helps limit the required size of structural BMPs, helps avoid impacts to sediment supply, and hel ps reduce clogging risk to BMPs.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Because of the nature of the proposed system, all of the runoff generated from the impervious area will be infiltrated and will not comingle with the undeveloped, pervious area.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 15 -

Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs)
This section provides streamlined guidance and documentation of the DMA delineation and categorization process, for additional information refer to the procedure in Section 3.3 of the SMR WQMP which discusses the methods of delineating and mapping your project site into individual DMAs. Complete Steps 1 to 4 to successfully delineate and categorize DMAs.

Step 1: Identify Surface Types and Drainage Pathways
Carefully delineate pervious areas and impervious areas (including roofs) throughout site and identify overland flow paths and above ground and below ground conveyances. Also identify common points (such as BMPs) that these areas drain to.

Step 2: DMA Delineation
Use the information in Step 1 to divide the entire PDP site into individual, discrete DMAs. Typically, lines delineating DMAs follow grade breaks and roof ridge lines. Where possible, establish separate DMAs for each surface type (e.g., landscapi ng, pervious paving, or roofs). Assign each DMA a unique code and determine its size in square feet. The total area of your site should total the sum of all of your DMAs (unless water from outside the project limits comingles with water from inside the project limits, i.e. run- on). Complete Table C-1
Table C-1 DMA Identification
DMA Name or Identification Surface Type(s)1 Area (Sq. Ft.) DMA Type DMA 1 Roofs 7,790
To be
Determined
in Step 3
DMA 1A Roofs 7,790
DMA 2 Porous Asphalt 4,195
DMA 3 Self-retaining landscape 4,631
DMA 4 Concrete/landscaping 3,175
DMA 5 Self-retaining landscape 6,459
DMA 6 Concrete 279
DMA 7 Porous asphalt 1,172
DMA 8 Concrete/landscaping 4,474
DMA 9 Asphalt paving 4,478
DMA 10 Asphalt paving 6,316
DMA 11 Concrete 1,094
Add Columns as Needed
Step 3: DMA Classification
Determine how drainage from each DMA will be handled by using information from Steps 1 and 2 and by completing Steps 3.A to 3.C. Each DMA will be classified as one of the following four types:
• Type ‘A’: Self-Treating Areas:
• Type ‘B’: Self-Retaining Areas
• Type ‘C’: Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas
• Type ‘D’: Areas Draining to BMPs
Step 3.A – Identify Type ‘A’ Self-Treating Area
Indicate if the DMAs meet the following criteria by answering “Yes” or “No”.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 16 -

Yes No Area is undisturbed from their natural condition OR restored with Native and/or California Friendly vegetative covers.

Yes No Area is irrigated, if at all, with appropriate low water use irrigation systems to prevent irrigation runoff.

Yes No
Runoff from the area will not comingle with runoff from the developed portion of the site, or across other landscaped areas that do not meet the above criteria.

If all answers indicate “Yes,” complete Table C-2 to document the DMAs that are classified as Self-Treating Areas.

Table C-2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas
DMA Name or Identification Area (Sq. Ft.) Stabilization Type Irrigation Type (if any)

Step 3.B – Identify Type ‘B’ Self-Retaining Area and Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas Type ‘B’ Self -Retaining Area: A Self -Retaining Area is shallowly depressed 'micro infiltration' areas designed to retain the Design Storm rainfall that reaches the area, without producing any Runoff.

Indicate if the DMAs meet the following criteria by answering “Yes,” “No,” or “N/A”.

Yes No N/A Slopes will be graded toward the center of the pervious area.

Yes No N/A Soils will be freely draining to not create vector or nuisance conditions.

Yes No N/A Inlet elevations of area/overflow drains, if any, should be clearly specified to be three inches or more above the low point to promote ponding.

Yes No N/A
Pervious pavements (e.g., crushed stone, porous asphalt, pervious concrete, or permeable pavers) can be self-retaining when constructed with a gravel base course four or more inches deep below any underdrain discharge elevation.

If all answers indicate “Yes,” DMAs may be categorized as Type ‘B’, proceed to identify Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas.

Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas: Runoff from impervious or partially pervious areas can be managed by routing it to Self -Retaining Areas consistent with the LID Principle discussed in SMR WQMP Section 3.2.5 for 'Dispersing Runoff to Adjacent Pervious Areas'.

Indicate if the DMAs meet the following criteria by answering “Yes” or “No”.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 17 -

Yes No The drainage from the tributary area must be directed to and dispersed within the Self-Retaining Area.

Yes No Area must be designed to retain the entire Design Storm runoff without flowing offsite.

If all answers indicate “Yes,” DMAs may be categorized as Type ‘C’.

Complete Table C-3 and Table C-4 to identify Type ‘B’ Self-Retaining Areas and Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas.

Table C-3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas
Self-Retaining Area Type ‘C’ DMAs that are draining to the Self-Retaining Area
DMA
Name/ ID
Post-project
surface type
Area
(square
feet)
Storm
Depth
(inches)
DMA Name / ID
[C] from Table
C-4=
Required Retention Depth
(inches)
[A] [B] [C] [D] = [𝐵] +
[𝐵]∙[𝐶]
[𝐴]
DMA 2
Porous
pavement 4,195 0.806 DMA 8/9 6,039 1.97
DMA 3
Self-retaining
landscaping 4,631 0.806 DMA 10 4,498 1.91
DMA 5
Self-retaining
landscaping 6,459 0.806 DMA 1A/4/6 8,722 1.89
DMA 7
Porous
pavement 1,172 0.806 DMA 11 976 1.48

Table C-4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas DMA Receiving Self-Retaining DMA
DMA Name/ ID
Area
(square feet)
Post-project
surface type
Runoff
factor
Product
DMA name /ID
Area (square
feet) Ratio
[A] [B] [C] = [A] x [B] [D] [C]/[D]
DMA 8 4,474 Concrete /
landscaping

0.46 2,045
DMA 9 4,478 Asphalt
paving

0.89 3,994 DMA 2 4,195 6,039/4,195 = 1.44
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 18 -

DMA 10 6,316 Asphalt
paving

0.89 5,634 DMA 3 4,498 5,634/4,498 = 1.22
DMA 1A 7790 Roofs 0.89 6,949
DMA 4 3,175 Concrete /
landscaping

0.48 1,524
DMA 6 279 Concrete 0.89 249 DMA 5 6,459 8,722/6,459 =1.35 DMA 11 1,094 Concrete 0.89 976 DMA 7 1,172 976/1,172 = 0.83 Note: (See Section 3.3 of SMR WQMP) Ensure that partially pervious areas draining to a Self-Retaining area do not exceed the following ratio:
( 𝟐
𝑰𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏) ∶ 𝟏
(Tributary Area: Self-Retaining Area)

Step 3.C – Identify Type ‘D’ Areas Draining to BMPs
Areas draining to BMPs are those that could not be fully managed through LID Principles (DMA Types A through C) and wi ll instead drain to a n LID BMP and/or a Conventional Treatment BMP designed to manage water quality impacts from that area, and Hydromodification where necessary.

Complete Table C-5 to document which DMAs are classified as Areas Draining to BMPs

Table C-5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs
DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID Receiving Runoff from DMA

Note: More than one DMA may drain to a single LID BM P; however, one DMA may not drain to more than one BMP.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 19 -

Section D: Implement LID BMPs
The Regional MS4 Permit requires the use of LID BMPs to provide retention or treatment of the DCV and includes a BMP hierarchy which requires Full Retention BMPs (Priority 1) to be consi dered before Biofiltration BMPs (Priority 2) and Flow -Through Treatment BMPs and Alternative Compliance BMPs (Priority 3). LID BMP selection must be based on technical feasibility and should be considered early in the site planning and design process. Use this section to document the selection of LID BMPs for each DMA.

Note that feasibility is based on the DMA scale and may vary between DMAs based on site conditions.

D.1 Full Infiltration Applicability
An assessment of the feasibility of utilizing full infiltration BMPs is required for all projects, except where it can be shown that site design LID principals fully retain the DCV (i.e., all DMAs are Type A, B, or C), or where Harvest and Use BMPs fully retain the DCV. Check the following box if applicable:

Site design LID principals fully retain the DCV (i.e., all DMAs are Type A, B, or C), (Proceed to Section E).

If the above box remains unchecked, perform a site -specific evaluation of the feasibility of Infiltration BMPs using each of the applicable criteria identified in Chapter 2.3.3 of the SMR WQMP and complete the remainder of Section D.1.

Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment may be required by the Copermittee to confirm present and past site characteristics that may affect the use of Infiltration BMPs. In addition, the Copermittee, at their discretion, may not require a geotechnical report for small projects as described in Chapter 2 of the SMR WQMP. If a geotechnical report has been prepa red, include it in Appendix 3. In addition, if a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared, include it in Appendix 4.

Infiltration Feasibility
Table D-1 below is meant to provide a simple means of assessing which DM As on your site support Infiltration BMPs and is discussed in the SMR WQMP in Chapter 2.3.3. Check the appropriate box for each question and then list affected DMAs as applicable. If additional space is needed, add a row below the corresponding answer.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 20 -

Table D-1 Infiltration Feasibility
Downstream Impacts (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.a)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have any DMAs where infiltration would negatively impact downstream water rights or other Beneficial Uses3? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Groundwater Protection (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.b)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have any DMAs with industrial, and other land uses that pose a high threat to water quality, which cannot be treated by Bioretention BMPs? Or have DMAs with active industrial process areas? X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs with a seasonal high groundwater mark shallower than 10 feet? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs located within 100 feet horizontally of a water supply well? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs that would restrict BMP locations to within a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) influence line extending from any septic leach line?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs been evaluated by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer, Hydrogeologist, or Environmental Engineer, who has concluded that the soils do not have adequate physical and chemical characteristics for the protection of groundwater, and has treatment provided by amended media layers in Bioretention BMPs been considered in evaluating this factor?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Public Safety and Offsite Improvements (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.c) Does the project site… YES NO
…have any areas identified by the geotechnical report as posing a public safety risk where infiltration of stormwater could have a negative impact?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Infiltration Characteristics For LID BMPs (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.d) Does the project site… YES NO
…have factored infiltration rates of less than 0.8 inches / hour? (Note: on a case-by-case basis, the Local Jurisdiction may allow a factor of safety as low as 1.0 to support selection of full infiltration BMPs. Therefore, measured infiltration rates could be as low as 0.8 in/hr to support full infiltration.

A higher factor of safety would be required for design in accordance with the LID BMP Deign Handbook).

X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Cut/Fill Conditions (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.e)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have significant cut and/or fill conditions that would preclude in -situ testing of infiltration rates at the final infiltration surface?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Other Site-Specific Factors (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.f)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have DMAs where the geotechnical investigation discovered other site -specific factors that would preclude effective and/or safe infiltration?
X
Describe here:

If you answered “Yes” to any of the questions above for any DMA, Infiltration BMPs that rely solely on infiltration should not be used for those DMAs and you should proceed to the assessment for Biofiltration BMPs below . Biofiltration BMPs that provide partial infiltration may still be feasible and should be

3 Such a condition must be substantiated by sufficient modeling to demonstrate an impact and would be subject to [Insert Jurisdiction] discretion. There is not a standardized method for assessing this criterion. Water rights evaluations should be site-specific.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 21 -

assessed in Section D.2. Summarize concerns identified in the Geotechnical Report, if any, that resulted in a “YES” response above in the table below.

Table D-2 Geotechnical Concerns for Onsite Infiltration Type of Geotechnical Concern DMAs Feasible (By Name or ID) DMAs Infeasible (By Name or ID) Collapsible Soil
Expansive Soil
Slopes
Liquefaction
Other
D.2 Biofiltration Applicability
This section should document the applicability of biofiltration BMPs for Type D DMAs that are not feasible for full infiltration BMPs. The key decisions to be documented in this section include:

1. Are biofiltration BMPs with partial infiltration feasible? a. Biofiltration BMPs must be designed to maximize incidental infiltration via a partial infiltration design unless it is demonstrated that this design is not feasible. b. These designs can be used at sites with low infiltration rates where other feasibility factors do not preclude incidental infiltration.

Document summary in Table D-3.

2. If not, what are the factors that require the use of biofiltration with no infiltration? This may include:
a. Geotechnical hazards
b. Water rights issues
c. Water balance issues
d. Soil contamination or groundwater quality issues
e. Very low infiltration rates (factored rates < 0.1 in/hr) f. Other factors, demonstrated to the acceptance of the local jurisdiction If this applies to any DMAs, then rationale must be documented in Table D-3.

3. Are biofiltration BMPs infeasible?
a. If yes, then provide a site-specific analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of all LID BMPs has been performed and is included in Appendix 5. If you plan to submit an analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of LID BMPs, request a pre-submittal meeting with the Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site to discuss this option. Proceed to Section F to document your alternative compliance measures.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 22 -

Table D-3 Evaluation of Biofiltration BMP Feasibility
DMA ID
Is Partial/
Incidental
Infiltration
Allowable?
(Y/N)
Basis for Infeasibility of Partial Infiltration (provide summary and include supporting basis if partial infiltration not feasible) Insert text here
Insert text here
Insert text here
Insert text here

Proprietary Biofiltration BMP Approval Criteria
If the project will use proprietary BMPs as biofiltration BMPs, then this section is completed to document that the proprietary BMPs are selected in accordance with Section 2.3.7 of the SMR WQMP. Proprietary Biofiltration BMPs must meet both of the following approval criteria:

1. Approval Criteria for All Proprietary BMPs, and

2. Acceptance Criteria for Proprietary Biofiltration BMPs.

When the use of proprietary biofiltration BMPs is proposed to meet the Pollutant Control performance standards, use Table D-4 to document that appropriate approval criteria have been met for the proposed BMPs. Add additional rows to document approval criteria are met for each type of BMP proposed.

Table D-4 Proprietary BMP Approval Requirement Summary
Proposed Proprietary
Biofiltration BMP Approval Criteria Notes/Comments
Insert BMP Name and
Manufacturer Here
Proposed BMP has an active TAPE
GULD Certification for the project
pollutants of concern4 or equivalent 3rd
party demonstrated performance.

Insert text here
The BMP is used in a manner
consistent with manufacturer guidelines
and conditions of its third-party
certification.

Insert text here
The BMP includes biological features
including vegetation supported by
engineered or other growing media.

Describe features here.

The BMP is designed to maximize
infiltration, or supplemental infiltration
is provided to achieve retention
equivalent to Biofiltration with Partial
Infiltration BMPs if factored infiltration
rate is between 0.1 and 0.8 inches/hour.

Describe supplemental retention
practices if applicable.

4 Use Table F-1 and F-2 to identify and document the pollutants of concern and include these tables in Appendix 5.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 23 -

The BMP is sized using one of two
Biofiltration LID sizing options in Section

2.3.2 of the SRM WQMP.

List sizing method used, resulting size
(i.e. volume or flow), and provided size
(for proposed unit)
D.3 Feasibility Assessment Summaries
From the Infiltration, Biofiltration with Partial Infiltration and Biofiltration with No Infiltration Sections above, complete Table D-5 below to summarize which LID BMPs are technically feasi ble, and which are not, based upon the established hierarchy.

Table D-5 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix
DMA Name/ID
LID BMP Hierarchy
No LID (Alternative
Compliance)

1. Infiltration

2. Biofiltration
with Partial
Infiltration

3. Biofiltration
with No
Infiltration
Insert text here
Insert text here
Insert text here
Insert text here
Insert text here
Insert text here

For those DMAs where LID BMPs are not feasible, provide a narrative in Table D-6 below summarizing why they are not feasible, include your technical infeasibility criteria in Appendix 5, and proceed to Section F below to document Alternative Compliance measures for those DMAs. Recall that each proposed DMA must pass through the LID BMP hierarchy before alternative compliance measures may be considered.

This is based on the clarification letter titled “San Diego Water Board’s Expectations of Documentation to Support a Determination of Priority Deve lopment Project Infiltration Infeasibility” (April 28, 2017, Via email from San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board to San Diego County Municipal Storm Water Copermittees5).

Table D-6 Summary of Infeasibility Documentation
Question
Narrative Summary (include reference to applicable appendix/attachment/report, as applicable)
a) When in the entitlement
process did a
geotechnical engineer
analyze the site for
infiltration feasibility?

b) When in the entitlement
process were other
investigations conducted
(e.g., groundwater
quality, water rights) to

5 http://www.projectcleanwater.org/download/pdp-infiltration-infeasibility/ Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 24 -

evaluate infiltration
feasibility?
c) What was the scope and
results of testing, if
conducted, or rationale
for why testing was not
needed to reach
findings?

d) What public health and
safety requirements
affected infiltration
locations?

e) What were the
conclusions and
recommendations of the
geotechnical engineer
and/or other professional
responsible for other
investigations?

f) What was the history of
design discussions
between the permittee
and applicant for the
proposed project,
resulting in the final
design determination
related locations feasible
for infiltration?

g) What site design
alternatives were
considered to achieve
infiltration or partial
infiltration on site?

h) What physical
impairments (i.e., fire
road egress, public safety
considerations, utilities)
and public safety
concerns influenced site
layout and infiltration
feasibility?

i) What LID Principles (site
design BMPs) were
included in the project
site design?

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 25 -

D.4 LID BMP Sizing
Each LID BMP must be designed to ensure that the D CV will be captured by the selected BMPs with no discharge to the storm drain or surface waters during the DCV size storm . Infiltration BMPs must at minimum be sized to capture the DCV to achieve pollutant control requirements.

Biofiltration BMPs must at a minimum be sized to:
• Treat 1.5 times the DCV not reliably retained on site using a volume -base or flow -based sizing method, or
• Include static storage volume, including pore spaces and pre-filter detention volume, at least 0.75 times the portion of the DCV not reliably retained on site.

First, calculate the DCV for each LID BMP using the V BMP worksheet in Appendix F of the LID BMP Design Handbook. Second, design the LID BMP to meet the required VBMP using the methods included in Section 3 of the LID BMP Design Handbook . Utilize the worksheets found in the LID BMP Design Handbook or consult with the Copermittee to assist you in correctly sizing your LID BMPs . Use Table D-7 below to document the DCV each LID BMP. Provide the completed design procedure sheets for each LID BMP in Appendix 6. You may add additional rows to the table below as needed.

Table D-7 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
(square
feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas
x
Runoff
Factor Porous Pavement (DMA 2 & 7)
[A] [B] [C] [A] x
[C]
DMA 8 4,474 Concrete/landscaping 0.66 0.46 2,045
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)

DCV, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 9 4,478 Asphalt Paving 1 0.9 3,994
DMA
11 1,094 Concrete Sidewalk 1 0.9 976

AT =
10,046
Σ=
7,015 0.806
471
= 7015x0.806
12 2800
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.6.1.b of the SMR WQMP [E] is obtained from Exhibit A in the SMR WQMP
[G] is obtained from a design procedure sheet, such as in LID BMP Design Handbook and placed in Appendix 6.

Complete Table D-8 below to document the Design Capture Volume and the Proposed Volume for each LID BMP. You can add rows to the table as needed. Alternatively, the Santa Margarita Hydrology Model (SMRHM) can be used to size LID BMPs to address the DCV and, if applicable, to size Hydrologic Control BMPs to meet the Hydrologic Performance Standard described in the SMR WQMP, as identified in Section E.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 26 -

Table D-8 LID BMP Sizing
BMP Name /
ID
DMA No. BMP Type / Description Design Capture
Volume (ft3)
Proposed Volume
(ft3)

If bioretention will include a capped underdrain, then include sizing calculations demonstrating that the BMP will meet infiltration sizing require ments with the underdrain capped and also meet biofiltration sizing requirements if the underdrain is uncapped.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 27 -

Section E: Implement Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs
If a completed Table 1.2 demonstrates that the project is exempt from H ydromodification Performance Standards, specify N/A and proceed to Section G.

N/A Project is Exempt from Hydromodification Performance Standards.

If a PDP is not exempt from hydromodification requirements than the PDP must satisfy the requirements of the performance standards for hydrologic control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs. The PDP may choose to satisfy hydrologic control requirements using onsite or offsite BMPs (i.e. Alternative Compliance). Sediment supply requirements cannot be met via a lternative compliance. If N/A is not selected above, select one of the two options below and complete the applicable sections.

Project is Not Hydromodification Exempt and chooses to implement Hydrologic Control and Sediment Supply BMPs Onsite (complete Section E).

Project is Not Hydromodification Exempt and chooses to implement Hydrologic Control Requirements using Alternative Compliance (complete Section F). Selection of this option must be approved by the Copermittee.

E.1 Hydrologic Control BMP Selection
Capture of the DCV and achievement of the Hydrologic Performance Standard may be met by combined and/or separate structural BMPs. The user should consider the full suite of Hydrologic Control BMPs to manage runoff fro m the post -development condition and meet the Hydrologic Performance Standard identified in this section.

The Hydrologic Performance Standard consists of matching or reducing the flow duration curve of post - development conditions to that of pre -existing, naturally occurring conditions, for the range of geomorphically significant flows (10% of the 2 -year runoff event up to the 10 -year runoff event). Select each of the hydrologic control BMP types that are applied to meet the above performance standard on the site.

LID principles as defined in Section 3.2 of the SMR WQMP.

Structural LID BMPs that may be modified or enlarged, if necessary, beyond the DCV.

Structural Hydrologic Control BMPs that are distinct from the LID BMPs above. The LID BMP Design Handbook provides information not only on Hydrologic Control BMP design, but also on BMP design to meet the combined LID requirement and Hydrologic Performance Standard. The Handbook specifies the type of BMPs that can be used to meet the Hydrologic Performance Standard.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 28 -

E.2 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing
Hydrologic Control BMPs must be designed to ensure that the flow duration curve of the post - development DMA will not exceed that of the pre -existing, naturally occurring, DMA for the range of geomorphically significant flows. Using SMRHM, (or another acceptable continuous simulation model if approved by the Copermittee) the applicant shall demonstrate that the performance of the Hydrologic Control BMPs co mplies with the Hydrologic Performance Standard. Complete Table E-1 below and identify, for each DMA, the type of Hydrologic Control BMP, if the SMRHM model confirmed the management (Identified as “passed” in SMRHM), the total volume capacity of the Hydrologic Control BMP, the Hydrologic Control BMP footprint at top floor elevation, and the drawdown time of the Hydrologic Control BMP. SMRHM summary reports should be documented in Appendix 7. Refer to the SMRHM Guidance Document for additional information on SMRHM. You can add rows to the table as needed.

Table E-1 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing
BMP
Name / ID
DMA
No.

BMP Type / Description SMRHM
Passed
BMP Volume
(ac-ft)
BMP
Footprint (ac)
Drawdown
time (hr)

If a bioretention BMP with capped underdrain is used and hydromodification requirements apply, then sizing calculations must demonstrate that the BMP meets flow duration control criteria with the underdrain capped and uncapped. Both calculations must be included.

E.3 Implement Sediment Supply BMPs
The sediment supply performance standard applies to PDPs for which hydr omodification applied that have the potential to impact Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas. Refer to Exhibit G of the WQMP to determine if there are onsite Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Source Areas . Select one of the two options below and include the Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Exhibit showing your project location in Appendix 7.

There are no mapped Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Source Areas on the site. The Sediment Supply Performance Standard is met with no further action.

There are mapped Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Source Areas on the site, the Sediment Supply Performance Standard will be met through Option 1 or Option 2 below.

The applicant may refer to Section 3.6.4 of the SMR WQMP for a description of the methodology to meet the Sediment Supply Performance Standard. Select the applicable compliance pathway and complete the appropriate sections to demonstrate compliance with the Sediment Supply Performance Standard if the second box is selected above:

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 29 -

Avoid impacts related to any PDP activities to Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas.

Proceed to Section E.3.1.

Complete a Site-Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Analysis. Proceed to Section E.3.2.

E.3.1 Option 1: Avoid Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas and Potential Sediment Source Areas
The simplest approach for complying with the Sediment Supply Performance Standard is to avoid impacts to areas identified as Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Supply Areas.

If a portion of PDP is identified as a Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area or a Potential Sediment Source Area, that PDP may still achieve compliance with the Sediment Supply Performance Standards if Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas and Potential Sediment Supply Areas are avoided, i.e. areas are not developed and thereby delivery of Critical Coarse Sediment to the receiving waters is not impeded by site developments.

Provide a narrative describing how the PDP has avoided impacts to Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas and/or Potential Sediment Source Areas below.

Insert narrative description here

If it is not feasible to avoid these areas, proceed to Option 2 to complete a Site -Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Analysis.

E.3.2 Option 2: Site-Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Analysis Perform a stepwise assessment to ensure the maintenance of the pre-project source(s) of Critical Coarse Sediment (i.e., Bed Sediment Supply):

1. Determine whether the site or a portion of the site is a Significant Source of Bed Sediment Supply to the Receiving Channel (i.e., an actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area);

2. Avoid areas identified as actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas in the PDP design and maintain pathways for discharge of Bed Sediment Supply from these areas to receiving waters.

Step 1: Identify if the site is an actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area supplying Bed Sediment Supply to the receiving channel
 Step 1.A – Is the Bed Sediment of onsite streams similar to that of receiving streams?

Rate the similarity: High
Medium
Low
Results from the geotechnical and sieve analysis to be performed both onsite and in the receiving channel should be documented in Appendix 7. Of particular interest, the results of the sieve analysis, the soil erodibility factor, a description of the topographic relief of the project area, and the lithology of onsite soils should be reported in Appendix 7.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 30 -

 Step 1.B – Are onsite streams capable of delivering Bed Sediment Supply from the site, if any, to the receiving channel?

Rate the potential: High
Medium
Low
Results from the analyses of the sediment delivery potential to the receiving channel sho uld be documented in Appendix 7 and identify, at a minimum, the Sediment Source, the distance to the receiving channel, the onsite channel density, the project watershed area, the slope, length, land use, and rainfall intensity.
 Step 1.C – Will the receiving channel adversely respond to a change in Bed Sediment Load?

Rate the need for bed sediment supply:

High
Medium
Low
Results from the in -stream analysis to be performed both onsite should be d ocumented in Appendix 7.

The analysis should, at a minimum, quantify the bank stability and the degree of incision, provide a gradation of the Bed Sediment within the receiving channel, and identify if the channel is sediment supply- limited.

 Step 1.D – Summary of Step 1
Summarize in Table E.3 the findings of Step 1 and associate a score (in parenthesis) to each step. The sum of the three individual scores determines if a stream is a significant contributor to the receiving stream. • Sum is equal to or greater than eight - Site is a significant source of sediment bed material – all on-site streams must be preserved or by -passed within the site plan. The applicant shall proceed to Step 2 for all onsite streams.
• Sum is greater than five but lower than eight. Site is a source of sediment bed material – some of the on -site streams must be preserved (with identified streams noted). The applicant shall proceed to Step 2 for the identified streams only. • Sum is equal to or lower than five. Site is not a significant source of sediment bed material.

The applicant may advance to Section F.

Table E-2 Triad Assessment Summary
Step Rating Total Score

1.A High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)

1.B High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 31 -

1.C High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Significant Source Rating of Bed Sediment to the receiving channel(s)

Step 2: Avoid Development of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas , Potential Sediment Sources Areas, and Preserve Pathways for Transport of Bed Sediment Supply to Receiving Waters Onsite streams identified as a actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas should be avoided in the site design and transport pathways for Critical Coarse Sediment should be preserved Check those that apply:

The site design does avoid all onsite channels identified as a ctual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
AND
The drainage design bypasses flow and sediment from onsite upstream drainages identified as actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas to maintain Critical Coarse Sediment supply to re ceiving waters
(If both are yes, the applicant may disregard subsequent steps of Section E.3 and directly advance directly to Section G).
- Or -
The site design does NOT avoid all onsite channels identified as actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
OR
The project impacts transport pathways of Critical Coarse Sediment from onsite upstream drainages. (If either of these are the case, the applicant may proceed with the subsequent steps of Section E.3).

Provide in Appendix 7 a site map that identifies all onsite channels and highlights those onsite channels that were identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. The site map shall demonstrate, if feasible, that the site design avoids those onsite c hannels identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. In addition, the applicant shall describe the characteristics of each onsite channel identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. If the design plan cannot avoid the onsite channels, please provide a rationale for each channel individually.

The site map shall demonstrate that the drainage design bypasses those onsite channels that supply Critical Coarse Sediment to the receiving channel(s). In addition, the applicant shall describe the characteristics of each onsite channel identified as an actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area.

Identified Channel #1 - Insert narrative description here Identified Channel #2 - Insert narrative description here Identified Channel #3 - Insert narrative description here Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 32 -

E.3.3 Sediment Supply BMPs to Result in No Net Impact to Downstream Receiving Waters If impacts to Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas cannot be avoided, sediment supply BMPs must be implemented such there is no net impact to receiving waters. Sediment supply BMPs may consist of approaches that permit flux of bed sediment supply from Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas within the project boundary. This approach is subject to acceptance by th e [Insert Jurisdiction]. It may require extensive documentation and analysis by qualified professionals to support this demonstration.

Appendix H of the San Diego Model BMP Design Manual provides additional information on site -specific investigation of Critical Coarse Sediment Supply areas. http://www.projectcleanwater.org/download/2018-model-bmp-design-manual/

If applicable, insert narrative description here

Documentation of sediment supply BMPs should be detailed in Appendix 7.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 33 -

Section F: Alternative Compliance
Alternative Compliance may be used to achieve compliance with pollutant control and/or hydromodification requirements for a given PDP. Alternative Compliance may be used under two scenarios, check the applicable box if the PDP is proposing to use Alternative Compliance to satisfy all or a portion of the Pollutant Control and/or Hydrologic Control requirements (but not sediment supply requirements)
If it is not feasible to fully implement Infiltration or Biofiltration BMPs at a PDP site, Flow-Through Treatment Control BMPs may be used to treat pollutants contained in the portion of DCV not reliably retained on site and Alternative Compliance measures must also be implemented to mitigate for those pollutants in the DCV that are not retained or removed on site prior to discharging to a receiving water.

Alternative Compliance is selected to comply with either pollutant control or hydromodification flow control requirements even if complying with these requirements is potentially feasible on-site. If such voluntary Alternative Compliance is implemented, Flow-Through Treatment Control BMPs must still be used to treat those pollutants in the portion of the DCV not reliably retained on site prior to discharging to a receiving water.

Refer to Section 2.7 of the SMR WQMP and consult the Local Jurisdiction for currently available Alternative Compliance pathways. Coordinate with the Copermittee if electing to participate in Alternative Compliance and complete the sections below to document implementation of the Flow- Through BMP component of the program.

F.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern
The purpose of this section is to help you appropriately plan for mitigating your Pollutants of Concern in lieu of implementing LID BMPs and to document compliance and.

Utilize Table A-1 from Section A, which noted your project’s Receiving Waters, to identify impairments for Receiving Waters (including downstream receiving waters) by completing Table F-1. Table F-1 includes the watersheds identified as impaired in the Approved 2010 303(d) list; check box corresponding with the PDP’s receiving water. The most recent 303(d) lists are available from the State Water Resources Control Board website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml).https://www.wa terboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 34 -

Table F-1 Summary of Approved 2010 303(d) listed waterbodies and associated pollutants of concern for the Riverside County SMR Region and downstream waterbodies.

Water Body
Nutrients1
Metals2
Toxicity
Bacteria and
Pathogens
Pesticides and
Herbicides
Sulfate
Total Dissolved
Solids
De Luz Creek X X X
Long Canyon Creek X X X
Murrieta Creek X X X X
Redhawk Channel X X X X X
Santa Gertudis Creek X X X X
Santa Margarita Estuary X
Santa Margarita River (Lower) X X
Santa Margarita River (Upper) X X
Temecula Creek X X X X X
Warm Springs Creek X X X X
1 Nutrients include nitrogen, phosphorus and eutrophic conditions caused by excess nutrients. 2 Metals includes copper, iron, and manganese.

Use Table F-2 to identify the pollutants identified with the project site. Indicate the applicable PDP Categories and/or Project Features by checking the boxes that apply. If the identified General Pollutant Categories are the same as those listed for your Receiving Waters, then these will be your Pollutants of Concern; check the appropriate box or boxes in the last row.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 35 -

Table F-2 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type
Priority Development
Project Categories and/or
Project Features (check those
that apply)
General Pollutant Categories
Bacterial
Indicators Metals Nutrients Pesticides
Toxic
Organic
Compounds
Sediments Trash &
Debris
Oil &
Grease
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Sulfate
Detached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P N N
Attached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P(2) N N
Commercial/Industrial
Development P(3) P(7) P(1) P(1) P P(1) P P N N
Automotive Repair
Shops N P N N P(4, 5) N P P N N
Restaurants
(>5,000 ft2) P N N P(1) N N P P N N
Hillside Development
(>5,000 ft2) P N P P N P P P N N
Parking Lots
(>5,000 ft2) P(6) P(7) P(1) P(1) P(4) P P P N N
Streets, Highways, and
Freeways P(6) P(7) P(1) P(1) P(4) P P P N N
Retail Gasoline Outlets N P(7) N N P(4) N P P N N
Project Priority
Pollutant(s) of Concern
P = Potential
N = Not Potential
(1) A potential Pollutant if non-native landscaping exists or is proposed onsite; otherwise not expected (2) A potential Pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas; otherwise not expected (3) A potential Pollutant is land use involving animal waste products; otherwise not expected (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons
(5) Including solvents
(6) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff (7) A potential source of metals, primarily copper and zinc. Iron, magnesium, and aluminum are commonly found in the environment and are commonly associated with soils, but are not primarily of anthropogenic stormwater origin in the municipal environment.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 36 -

F.2 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Treatment Control BMPs typically provide proprietary treatment mechanisms to treat potential Pollutants in runoff, but do not sustain significant biological processes. Treatment Control BMPs must be selected to address the Project Priority Pollutants of Concern (identified above) and meet the acceptance criteria described in Section 2.3.7 of the SMR WQMP. Documentation of acceptance criteria must be included in Appendix 6. In addition, ensure that proposed Treatment Control BMPs are properly identified on the WQMP Site Plan in Appendix 1.

Table F-3 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Selected Treatment Control BMP
Name or ID1
Priority Pollutant(s) of
Concern to Mitigate2
Removal Efficiency
Percentage3
Impervious area dispersion Bacteria, Metals, Nutrients, Pesticides, Toxicity
Infiltration/bioretention
is listed as “High” per
Appendix D of the
guidance document

1 Treatment Control BMPs must not be constructed within Receiving Waters. In addition, a proposed Treatment Control BMP may be listed more than once if they possess more than one qualifying pollutant removal efficiency. 2 Cross Reference Table E.1 above to populate this column. 3 As documented in a Copermittee Approved Study and provided in Appendix 6.

F.3 Sizing Criteria
Utilize Table F-4 below to appropriately size flow -through BMPs to the DCV, or Design Flow Rate, as applicable. Please reference Chapter 3.5.1 of the SMR WQMP for further information.

Table F-4 Treatment Control BMP Sizing
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
Post-
Project
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name /
Identifier Here
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]

Design
Storm
(in)
Design Flow
Rate (cfs)

AT = Σ[A] Σ= [D] [E] [F] = [D]x[E]
[G]
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.6.1.b from the SMR WQMP [E] either 0.2 inches or 2 times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity [G] = 43,560,.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 37 -

F.4 Hydrologic Performance Standard – Alternative Compliance Approach
Alternative compliance options are only available if the governing Copermittee has acknowledged the infeasibility of onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs and approved an alternative compliance approach. See Section 3.5 and 3.6 of the SMR WQMP.

Select the pursued alternative and describe the specifics of the alternative:
 Offsite Hydrologic Control Management within the same channel system Insert narrative description here

 In-Stream Restoration Project
Insert narrative description here

For Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Option
Each Hydrologic Control BMP must be designed to ensure that the flow duration curve of the post- development DMA will not exceed that of the pre-existing, naturally occurring, DMA by more than ten percent over a one-year period. Using SMRHM, the applicant shall demonstrate that the performance of each designed Hydrologic Control BMP is equivalent with the Hydrologic Performance Standard for onsite conditions. Complete Table F-5 below and identify, for each Hydrologic Control BMP, the equivalent DMA the Hydrologic Control BMP mitigates, that the SMRHM model passed, the total volume capacity of the BMP, the BMP footprint at top floor elevation, and the drawdown time of the BMP.

SMRHM summary reports for the alternative approach should be documented in Appendix 7. Refer to the SMRHM Guidance Document for additional information on SMRHM. You can add rows to the table as needed.

Table F-5 Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing
BMP Name / Type Equivalent
DMA (ac)
SMRHM
Passed
BMP Volume
(ac-ft)
BMP
Footprint (ac)
Drawdown
time (hr)

For Instream Restoration Option
Attach to Appendix 7 the technical report detailing the condition of the receiving channel subject to the proposed hydrologic and sediment regimes. Provide the full design plans for the in-stream restoration project that have been approved by the Copermittee. Utilize the San Diego Regional Water Quality Equivalency Guidance Document.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 38 -

Section G: Implement Trash Capture BMPs
The Local Jurisdiction may require full trash capture BMPs to be installed as part of the project. Consult with the Local Jurisdiction to determine applicability.

Trash Capture BMPs may be applicable to Type 'D' DMAs, as defined in Section 2.3.4 of the SMR WQMP.

Trash Capture BMPs are designed to treat QTRASH, the runoff flow rate generated during the 1-year 1- hour precipitation depth. Utilize Table G-1 to size Trash Capture BMP. Refer to Table G-2 to determine the Trash Capture Design Storm Intensity (E).

Table G-1 Sizing Trash Capture BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
Post-
Project
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]

Trash Capture
Design Storm
Intensity (in)
Trash Capture Design Flow
Rate (cubic feet or cfs)

AT =
Σ[A] Σ= [D] [E] [F] = [D]x[E]
[G]
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.6.1.b from the SMR WQMP [G] = 43,560
Table G-2 Approximate precipitation depth/intensity values for calculation of the Trash Capture Design Storm City 1-year 1-hour Precipitation
Depth/Intensity (inches/hr)
Murrieta 0.47
Temecula 0.50
Wildomar 0.37

Use Table G-3 to summarize and document the selection and sizing of Trash Capture BMPs.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 39 -

Table G-3 Trash Capture BMPs
BMP Name /
ID
DMA
No(s) BMP Type / Description
Required Trash
Capture Flowrate
(cfs)
Provided Trash
Capture Flowrate
(cfs)

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 40 -

Section H: Source Control BMPs
Source Control BMPs include permanent, structural features that may be required in your Project plans, such as roofs over and berms around trash and recycling areas , and Operational BMPs, such as regular sweeping and “housekeeping,” that must be implemented by the site’s occupant or user. The Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) standard typically requires both types of BMPs. In general, Operational Source Control BMPs cannot be substituted for a feasible and effective Structural Source Control BMP. Complete checklist below to determine applicable Source Control BMPs for your site.

Project-Specific WQMP Source Control BMP Checklist
All development projects must implement Source Control BMPs. Source Control BMPs are used to minimize pollutants that may discharge to the MS4. Refer to Chapter 3 (Section 3.8) of the SMR WQMP for additional information. Complete Steps 1 and 2 below to identify Source Control BMPs for the project site.

STEP 1: IDENTIFY POLLUTANT SOURCES
Review project site plans and identify the applicable pollutant sources. “Yes” indicates that the pollutant source is applicable to project site. “No” indicates that the pollutant source is not applicable to project site.

Yes No Storm Drain Inlets Yes No Outdoor storage areas Yes No Floor Drains Yes No Material storage areas
Yes No Sump Pumps Yes No Fueling areas
Yes No Pest Control/Herbicide Application Yes No Loading Docks Yes No Food Service Areas Yes No Fire Sprinkler Test/Maintenance water Yes No Trash Storage Areas Yes No Plazas, Sidewalks and Parking Lots Yes No Industrial Processes Yes No Pools, Spas, Fountains and other water features
Yes No Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning and
Maintenance/Repair Areas
STEP 2: REQUIRED SOURCE CONTROL BMPS
List each Pollutant source identified above in column 1 and fill in the corresponding Structural Source Control BMPs and Operational Control BMPs by referring to the Stormwater Pollutant Sources /Source Control Checklist included in Appendix 8. The resulting list of structural and operational source control BMPs must be implemented as long as the associated sources are present on the project site. Add additional rows as needed.

Pollutant Source
Structural Source Control BMP Operational Source Control BMP Pest Control/Herbicide Application Preserve existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover to the maximum
extent possible.

Design landscaping to minimize
irrigation and runoff, to promote
surface infiltration where
appropriate, and to minimize the use
of fertilizers and pesticides that can
contribute to stormwater
pollution.

Where landscaped areas are used to
retain or detain stormwater, specify
Maintain landscaping using minimum
or no pesticides

Provide IPM information to new
owners, lessees and operators
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 41 -

plants that are tolerant of saturated
soil conditions.

Consider using pest-resistant plants,
especially adjacent to hardscape. To
insure successful establishment,
select plants appropriate to site soils,
slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land
use, air movement, ecological
consistency, and plant interactions.

Loading Docks Move loaded and unloaded items
indoors as soon as possible.

See Fact Sheet SC-30, “Outdoor
Loading and Unloading,” in the
CASQA Stormwater Quality
Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Refuse Areas Trash enclosure provided on the site. Provide adequate number of receptacles. Inspect receptacles
regularly; repair or replace leaky
receptacles. Keep receptacles
covered.

Prohibit/prevent dumping of liquid or
hazardous wastes. Post “no
hazardous
materials” signs. Inspect and pick up
litter daily and clean up spills
immediately. Keep spill control
materials available on-site. See Fact
Sheet SC-34, “Waste Handling and
Disposal” in the CASQA Stormwater
Quality Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Parking Lots Sweep plazas, sidewalks, and parking
lots regularly to prevent accumulation
of litter and debris. Collect debris
from
pressure washing to prevent entry
into
the storm drain system. Collect
washwater containing any cleaning
agent or degreaser and discharge to
the sanitary sewer not to a storm
drain
Section I: Coordinate Submittal with Other Site Plans
Populate Table I-1 below to assist the plan checker in an expeditious review of your project. During construction and at completion, [Insert Jurisdiction] inspectors will verify the installation of BMPs against the approved plans. The first two columns will contain information that was prepared in previous steps, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 42 -

while the last column will be populated with the corresponding plan sheets. This table is to be completed with the submittal of your final Project-Specific WQMP.

Table I-1 Construction Plan Cross-reference
BMP No. or ID BMP Identifier and Description Corresponding Plan Sheet(s) Insert text here Insert text here Insert text here
Insert text here Insert text here Insert text here
Insert text here Insert text here Insert text here
Insert text here Insert text here Insert text here
Insert text here Insert text here Insert text here

Note that the updated table — or Construction Plan WQMP Checklist — is only a reference tool to facilitate an easy comparison of the construction plans to your Project -Specific WQMP. The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site can advise you regarding the process required to propose changes to the approved Project-Specific WQMP.

Use Table I-2 to identify other applicable permits that may impact design of the site. If yes is answered to any of the items below, the Copermittee may require proof of approval/coverage from those agencies as applicable including documentation of any associated requirements that may affect this Project -Specific WQMP.

Table I-2 Other Applicable Permits
Agency Permit Required
State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Y N State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Y N US Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Y N US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion Y N Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage Y N
Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage Y N
Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency Approval (e.g., JPR, DBESP) Y N Other (please list in the space below as required)
CUP, Grading Permit, Building Permit Y N

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 43 -

Section J: Operation, Maintenance and Funding
The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site will periodically verify that BMPs on your Project are maintained and continue to operate as designed. To make this possible, the Copermittee will require that you include in Appendix 9 of this Project-Specific WQMP:

1. A means to finance and implement maintenance of BMPs in perpetuity, including replacement cost.

2. Acceptance of responsibility for mai ntenance from the time the BMPs are constructed until responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred. A warranty covering a period following construction may also be required.

3. An outline of general maintenance requirements for the Stormwater BMPs you have selected.

4. Figures delineating and designating pervious and impervious areas, location, and type of Stormwater BMP, and tables of pervious and impervious areas served by each facility. Geo - locating the BMPs using a coordinate system of latitude and longitude is recommended to help facilitate a future statewide database system.

5. A separate list and location of self -retaining areas or areas addressed by LID Principles that do not require specialized O perations and Maintenance or inspections but will require typical landscape maintenance as noted in Chapter 5, in the SMR WQMP. Include a brief description of typical landscape maintenance for these areas.

The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site will also require that you prepare and submit a detailed BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan that sets forth a maintenance schedule for each of the BMPs built on your site. An agreement assigning responsibility for maintenance and providing for inspections and certification may also be required.

Details of these requirements and instructions for preparing a BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan are in Chapter 5 of the SMR WQMP.

Maintenance Mechanism: Property Owner
Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) or Pro perty Owners Association (POA)?
Y N

Include your Operation and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Mechanism in Appendix 9. Additionally, include all pertinent forms of educational materials for those personnel that wil l be maintaining the proposed BMPs within this Project-Specific WQMP in Appendix 10.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 44 -

Section K: Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions
Regional MS4 Permit Order No. R9 -2013-0001 as amended by Order No. R9 -2015-0001 and Order No. R9 -2015-0100 an NPDES Permit issu ed by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Applicant Public or private entity seeking the discretionary approval of new or replaced improvements from the Copermittee with jurisdiction over the project site. The Applicant has overall responsibility for the implementation and the approval of a Priority Development Project. The WQMP uses consistently the term “user” to refer to the applicant such as developer or project proponent.

The WQMP employs also the designation “user” to identify the Registered Professional Civil Engineer responsible for submitting the Project-Specific WQMP, and designing the required BMPs.

Best Management
Practice (BMP)
Defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedur es, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. In the case of municipal storm water permits, BMPs are typically used in place of numeric effluent limits.

BMP Fact Sheets BMP Fact Sheets are available in the LID BMP Design Handbook.

Individual BMP Fact Sheets includ e sitting considerations, and design and sizing guidelines for seven types of structural BMPs (infiltration basin, infiltration trench, permeable pavement, harvest-and-use, bioretention, extended detention basin, and sand filter).

California
Stormwater Quality
Association (CASQA)
Publisher of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks, available at
www.cabmphandbooks.com.

Conventional
Treatment Control
BMP
A type of BMP that provides treatm ent of stormwater runoff.

Conventional treatment control BMPs, while designed to treat particular Pollutants, typically do not provide the same level of volume reduction as LID BMPs, and commonly require more specialized maintenance than LID BMPs. As such, the Regional MS4 Permit and this WQMP require the use of LID BMPs wherever feasible, before Conventional Treatment BMPs can be considered or implemented.

Copermittees The Regional MS4 Permit identifies the Cities of Murrieta, Temecula, and Wildomar, the County, and the District, as Copermittees for the SMR.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 45 -

County The abbreviation refers to the County of Riverside in this document.

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act - a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.

CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System - an integrated network of 118 automated active weather stations all over California managed by the California Department of Water Resources.

CWA Clean Water Act - is the primary federal law governing water pollution. Passed in 1972, the CWA established the goals of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983.

CWA Section 402(p) is the federal statute requiring NPDES permits for discharges from MS4s.

CWA Section 303(d)
Waterbody
Impaired water in which water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards and/or is not expected to meet water quality standards, even after the application of technology based pollution controls required by the CWA. The discharge of urban runoff to these water bodies by the Copermittees is significant because these discharges can cause or contribute to violations of applicable water quality standards.

Design Storm The Regional MS4 Permit has established the 85th percentile, 24- hour storm event as the "Design Storm". The applicant may refer to Exhibit A to identify the applicable Design Storm Depth (D85) to the project.

DCV Design Capture Volume (DCV) is the volume of runoff produced from the Design Storm to be mitigated through LID Retention BMPs, Other LID BMPs and Volume Based Conventional
Treatment BMPs, as appropriate.

Design Flow Rate The design flow rate represents the minimum flow rate capacity that flow-based conventional treatment control BMPs should treat to the MEP, when considered.

DCIA Directly Connected Impervious Areas - those impervious areas that are hydraulically connected to the MS4 (i.e. street curbs, catch basins, storm drains, etc.) and thence to the structural BMP without flowing over pervious areas.

Discretionary
Approval
A decision in which a Copermittee uses its judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project.

District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 46 -

DMA A Drainage Management Area - a delineated portion of a project site that is hydraulically connected to a common structural BMP or conveyance point. The Applicant may refer to Section 3.3 for further guidelines on how to delineate DMAs.

Drawdown Time Refers to the amount of time the design volume takes to pass through the BMP. The specified or incorporated drawdown times are to ensure that adequate contact or detention time has occurred for treatment, while not creating vector or other nuisance issues. It is important to abide by the drawdown time requirements stated in the fact sheet for each specific BMP.

Effective Area Area which 1) is suitable for a BMP (for example, if infiltration is potentially feasible for the site based on infeasibility criteria, infiltration must be allowed over this area) and 2) receives runoff from impervious areas.

ESA An Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA) designates an area "in which plants or animals life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments". (Reference: California Public Resources Code § 30107.5).

ET Evapotranspiration (ET) is the loss of water to the atmosphere by the combined processes of evaporation (from soil and plant surfaces) and transpiration (from plant tissues). It is also an indicator of how much water crops, lawn, garden, and trees need for healthy growth and productivity
FAR The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the total square feet of a building divided by the total square feet of the lot the building is located on.

Flow-Based BMP Flow-based BMPs are conventional treatment control BMPs that are sized to treat the design flow rate.

FPPP Facility Pollution Prevention Plan
HCOC Hydrologic Condition of Concern - Exists when the alteration of a site’s hydrologic regime caused by development would cause significant impacts on downstream channels and aquatic habitats, alone or in conjunction with impacts of other projects.

HMP Hydromodification Management Plan – Plan defining Performance Standards for PDPs to manage increases in runoff discharge rates and durations.

Hydrologic Control
BMP
BMP to mitigate the increases in runoff discharge rates and durations and meet the Performance Standards set forth in the HMP.

HSG Hydrologic Soil Groups – soil classification to indicate the minimum rate of infiltration obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting. The HSGs are A (very low runoff potential/high infiltration rate), B, C, and D (high runoff potential/very low infiltration rate)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 47 -

Hydromodification The Regional MS4 Permit identifies that increased volume, velocity, frequency and discharge duration of storm water runoff from developed areas has the potential to greatly accelerate downstream erosion, impair stream habitat in natural drainages, and negatively impact beneficial uses.

JRMP A separate Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) has been developed by each Copermittee and identifies the local programs and activities that the Copermittee is implementing to meet the Regional MS4 Permit requirements.

LID Low Impact Development (LID) is a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the pre -development hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques. LID site design BMPs help preserve and restore the natural hydrologic cycle of the site, allowing for filtration and infiltration which can greatly reduce the volume, peak flow rate, velocity, and pollutant loads of storm water runoff.

LID BMP A type of stormwater BMP that is based upon Low Impact Development concepts. LID BMPs not only provide highly effective treatment of stormwater runoff, but also yield potentially significant reductions in runoff volume – helping to mimic the pre- project hydrologic regime, and also require less ongoi ng maintenance than Treatment Control BMPs. The applicant may refer to Chapter 2.

LID BMP Design
Handbook
The LID BMP Design Handbook was developed by the
Copermittees to provide guidance for the planning, design and maintenance of LID BMPs which may be used to mitigate the water quality impacts of PDPs within the County.

LID Bioretention BMP LID Bioretention BMPs are bioretention areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped) shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration, and pr ovide for pollutant removal (e.g., filtration, adsorption, nutrient uptake) by filtering stormwater through the vegetation and soils. In bioretention areas, pore spaces and organic material in the soils help to retain water in the form of soil moisture and to promote the adsorption of pollutants (e.g., dissolved metals and petroleum hydrocarbons) into the soil matrix.

Plants use soil moisture and promote the drying of the soil through transpiration.

The Regional MS4 Permit defines “retain” as to keep or hol d in a particular place, condition, or position without discharge to surface waters.

LID Biofiltration BMP BMPs that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges by intercepting rainfall on vegetative canopy, and through incidental infiltration and/or evapotranspiration, and filtration, and other biological and chemical processes. As stormwater passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded, and sequestered by the soil and plants, and collected through an underdrain.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 48 -

LID Harvest and
Reuse BMP
BMPs used to facilitate capturing Stormwater Runoff for later use without negatively impacting downstream water rights or other Beneficial Uses.

LID Infiltration BMP BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing and infiltrating the runoff into in -situ soils or amended onsite soils. Typical LID Infiltration BMPs include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches and pervious pavements.

LID Retention BMP BMPs to ensure full onsite retention without runoff of the DCV such as infilt ration basins, bioretention, chambers, trenches, permeable pavement and pavers, harvest and reuse.

LID Principles Site design concepts that prevent or minimize the causes (or drivers) of post -construction impacts, and help mimic the pre - development hydrologic regime.

MEP Maximum Extent Practicable - standard established by the 1987 amendments to the CWA for the reduction of Pollutant discharges from MS4s. Refer to Attachment C of the Regional MS4 Permit for a complete definition of MEP.

MF Multi-family – zoning classification for parcels having 2 or more living residential units.

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutter s, ditches, man -made channels, or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; (ii) Designated or used for collecting or conveying storm water; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; (iv) Which is not part of the Publicly Owned Treat ment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.26.

New Development
Project
Defined by the Regional MS4 Permit as 'Priority Development Projects' if the project, or a component of the project meets the categories and thresholds described in Section 1.1.1.

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - Federal program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under Sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the CWA.

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 49 -

PDP Priority Development Project - Includes New Development and Redevelopment project categories listed in Provision E.3.b of the Regional MS4 Permit.

Priority Pollutants of
Concern
Pollutants expected to be present on the project site and for which a downstream water body is also listed as Impaired under the CWA Section 303(d) list or by a TMDL.

Project-Specific
WQMP
A plan specifying and documenting permanent LID Principles and Stormwater BMPs to control post -construction Pollutants and stormwater runoff for the life of the PDP, and the plans for operation and maintenance of those BMPs for the life of the project.

Receiving Waters Waters of the United States.

Redevelopment
Project
The creation, addition, and or replacement of impervious surface on an already developed site. Examples include the expansion of a building footprint, road widening, the addition to or replacement of a structure, and creation or addition of impervious surfaces.

Replacement of impervious surfaces includes any activity that is not part of a routine maintenance activity where impervious material(s) are removed, exposing underlying soil during construction. Redevelopment does not include trenching and resurfacing associ ated with utility work; resurfacing existing roadways; new sidewalk construction, pedestrian ramps, or bike lane on existing roads; and routine replacement of damaged pavement, such as pothole repair.

Project that meets the criteria described in Section 1.

Runoff Fund Runoff Funds have not been established by the Copermittees and are not available to the Applicant.

If established, a Runoff Fund will develop regional mitigation projects where PDPs will be able to buy mitigation credits if it is determined that implementing onsite controls is infeasible.

San Diego Regional
Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board - The term "Regional Board", as defined in Water Code section 13050(b), is intended to refer to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Diego Region as specified in Water Code Section 13200. State agency responsible for managing and regulating water quality in the SMR.

SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Site Design BMP Site design BMP s prevent or minimize the causes (or drivers) of post-construction impacts, and help mimic the pre -development hydrologic regime.

SF Parcels with a zoning classification for a single residential unit.

SMC Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition SMR The Santa Margarita Region (SMR) represents the portion of the Santa Margarita Watershed that is included within the County of Riverside.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 50 -

Source Control BMP Source Control BMPs land use or site planning practices, or structural or nonstructura l measures that aim to prevent runoff pollution by reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution. Source control BMPs minimize the contact between Pollutants and runoff.

Structural BMP Structures designed to remove pollutants from st ormwater runoff and mitigate hydromodification impacts.

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Tentative Tract Map Tentative Tract Maps are required for all subdivision creating five (5) or more parcels, five (5) or more condominiums as defined in Section 783 of the California Civil Code, a community apartment project containing five (5) or more parcels, or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing five (5) or more dwelling units.

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load - the maximum amount of a Pollutant that can be discharged into a waterbody from all sources (point and non-point) and still maintain Water Quality Standards. Under CWA Section 303(d), TMDLs must be developed for all
waterbodies that do not meet Water Quality Standard s after application of technology-based controls.

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Volume-Based BMP Volume-Based BMPs applies to BMPs where the primary mode of pollutant removal depends upon the volumetric capacity such as detention, retention, and infiltration systems.

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Wet Season The Regional MS4 Permit defines the wet season from October 1 through April 30.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 51 -

Appendix 1: Maps and Site
Plans
Location Map, WQMP Site Plan and Receiving Waters Map

Complete the checklist below to verify all exhibits and components are included in the Project- Specific WQMP. Refer Section 4 of the SMR WQMP and Section D of this Template.

Map and Site Plan Checklist
Indicate all Maps and Site Plans are included in your Project-Specific WQMP by checking the boxes below.

Vicinity and Location Map
Existing Site Map (unless exiting conditions are included in WQMP Site Plan) WQMP Site Plan
Parcel Boundary and Project Footprint
Existing and Proposed Topography
Drainage Management Areas (DMAs)
Proposed Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Drainage Paths
Drainage infrastructure, inlets, overflows
Source Control BMPs
Site Design BMPs
Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
Impervious Surfaces
Pervious Surfaces (i.e. Landscaping)
Standard Labeling
25' STREET SETBACK
10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
TOTAL BUILDING AREA15,579± S.F.

NOT A PART

NOT A PART
25' STREET SETBACK
10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
69'-0"TYP.
31'-10"
8'-0"12'-0"0' INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK AT PROP. LINE
E;ISTING U-HAULNOT IN CONSTRUCTION187'-7" CENTER TO CENTER OF DRIVEWAY 100'-0" CENTER TO CENTER OF DRIVEWAY
10'-0"
18'-0"TYP.7'-0"

GRADE LEVELCUSTOMERLOADINGAREALOADING RAMPSLOPE DOWN
7'-0"65'-0"PROP'DACCESS
5'-0"PED. PATH
5'-0"ADDITIONALL/S
5'-0"
5'-0"PED. PATH
5'-0"
30'-0"PROP'DNON-GATEDACCESS

CITY OF MURRIETA
Know what'sbelow.before you dig.Call
R
1 LEGEND
2 IESEIE SURVEY &ENGINEERING, INC.41146 ELM STREET, SUITE GMURRIETA, CA 92562T: (951) 698.1830E: [email protected] 3 3
2 22
3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 52 -

Appendix 2: Construction
Plans
The latest set of Grading, Drainage and Street Improvement Plans shall be included.

For Bioretention and Biofiltration facilities, the following construction notes shall be shown on the Grading and/or Drainage plans.
1) BSM and Aggregates should not be delivered or placed in frozen, wet or muddy conditions. The Contractor should protect materials from absorbing excess water and from erosion at all times.

The Contractor shall not store materials unprotected during large rainfall events (>.25 inches). If water is introduced into material while it is stockpiled, the Contractor shall allow the material to drain to an acceptable level before it is placed.
2) The Engineer shall furnish to the City a copy of the source testing and a signed certification that the fully blended Bioretention/Biofiltration Soil Media (BSM) material meets all of the WQMP requirements before the material is imported or if the material is mixed onsite prior to installation. Onsite mixing may only occur if sand or topsoil components are sourced from the Project site. Onsite mixing may be conducted by using loaders. 3) BSM shall be lightly compacted and placed in loose lifts of 12 inches thick. Compaction should not exceed 75% standard procter. Machinery should not be used in the BSM area to place BSM.

As BSM material is being installed, Quality Assurance (QA) tests shall be conducted or for every 1,200 tons or 800 cubic yards mixed on-site from a completely mixed stockpile or windrow, with a minimum of three tests. For imported material from a supplier with a quality control program the QA tests shall be conducted 2,400 tons or 1,600 cubic yards from the supplier. 4) The Engineer conducting the Quality Control testing shall furnish to the City a copy of the QA testing and a certification that the BSM for the project meets all of the following requirements. a. BSM shall consist of 60-80% clean sand, up to 20% clean topsoil, and 20% of a nutrient- stabilized organic amendment. The initial infiltration rate shall be greater than 8 inches per hour per laboratory test.
b. pH: 6.0 – 8.5; Salinity: 0.5 to 3.0 mmho/cm as electrical conductivity; sodium absorption ratio: < 6.0; Chloride: <800 ppm in saturated extract; Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC): > 10 meq/100 g; Organic Matter: 2 to 5 percent on a dry weight basis; Carbon: Nitrogen ratio: 12 to 40, preferably 15 to 40; Gravel larger than 2mm: 0 to 25-percent of the total sample; Clay smaller than 0.005 mm: 0 to 5 percent of the non-gravel fraction. c. BSM shall be tested to limit the leaching of potential inherent pollutants. BSM used in Biofiltration BMPs shall conform to the following limits for pollutant concentrations in saturated extract: Phosphorous: < 1 mg/L; Nitrate < 3 mg/L, Copper <0.025 mg/L. These pollutant limits are for the amount that is leached from the sample, not from the soil sample itself. Testing may be performed after laboratory rinsing of media with up to 15 pore volumes of water. Equivalent test results will be accepted if certified by a laboratory or appropriate testing facility.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 53 -

d. Low nutrient compost used in BSM shall be sourced from a facility permitted through CalRecyle, preferably through USCC STA program. Compost shall conform to the following requirements: Physical contaminants <1% by dry weight; Carbon:Nitrogen ratio: 12:1 to 40:1, Maturity/Stability shall conform to either: Solvita Maturity Index: ≥

5.5, CO2 Evolution: < 2.5 mg CO2-C per g compost organic matter per day, or < 5 mg CO2 – shall be more than 6 months old and representative of current stockpiles. e. Coconut coir pith used in BSM shall be thoroughly rinsed with freshwater and screened to remove coarse fibers as part of production and aged > 6 months. Peat used in BSM shall be sphagnum peat.

Potential BSM sources may include (not part of construction note): Gail Materials (Temescal Valley), Agriservice (Oceanside), Greatsoils (Escondido), and Earthworks (Riverside).

Potential Laboratories may include (not part of construction note): Fruit Growers Laboratory, Inc. (Santa Paula, http://www.fglinc.com/), Wallace Laboratories (El Segundo, http://us.wlabs.com/), Control Labs (Watsonville, http://controllabs.com) and A&L Western Laboratories (Modesto, http://www.al-labs- west.com/)

TOTAL BUILDING AREA15,579± S.F.
25' STREET SETBACK
10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
69'-0"TYP.
31'-10"
8'-0"12'-0"0' INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK AT PROP. LINE
187'-7" CENTER TO CENTER OF DRIVEWAY
100'-0" CENTER TO CENTER OF DRIVEWAY
10'-0"
18'-0"TYP.7'-0"

GRADE LEVELCUSTOMERLOADINGAREA

LOADING RAMPSLOPE DOWN
7'-0"
65'-0"PROP'DACCESS
5'-0"PED. PATH
5'-0"ADDITIONALL/S
5'-0"
5'-0"PED. PATH
5'-0"
30'-0"PROP'DNON-GATEDACCESS
CITY OF MURRIETAKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.Call
R
IESEIE SURVEY &ENGINEERING, INC.41146 ELM STREET, SUITE GMURRIETA, CA 92562T: (951) 698.1830E: [email protected]

TOTAL BUILDING AREA15,579± S.F.

NOT A PART

NOT A PART
6 CITY OF MURRIETA
Know what'sbelow.before you dig.Call
R
IESEIE SURVEY &ENGINEERING, INC.41146 ELM STREET, SUITE GMURRIETA, CA 92562T: (951) 698.1830E: [email protected]

CITY OF MURRIETA
Know what'sbelow.before you dig.Call
R
IESEIE SURVEY &ENGINEERING, INC.41146 ELM STREET, SUITE GMURRIETA, CA 92562T: (951) 698.1830E: [email protected] Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
U-Haul of Murrieta

- 54 -

Appendix 3: Soils Information
Geotechnical Study, Other Infiltration Testing Data, and/or Other Documentation

Examples of material to provide in Appendix 3 may include but are not limited to the following:
• Geotechnical Study/Report prepared for the project,
• Additional soils testing data (if not included in the Geotechnical Study), • Exhibits/Maps/Other Documentation of the Hydrologic Soils Groups (HSG)s at the project site.

This information should support the Full Infiltration Applicability, and Biofiltration Applicability sections of this Template. Refer to Section 2.3 of the SMR WQMP and Sections A and D of this Template.

Geotechnical Evaluation
Murrieta U-Haul Facility
41458 Los Alamos Road and 25086 Jefferson Avenue
Murrieta, California
Amerco Real Estate Company/U-Haul International
2727 North Central Avenue, Suite 5N | Phoenix, Ar izona 85004 March 25, 2019 | Project No. 108673001
Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Ins pection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS 5710 Ruffin Road | San Diego, California 92123 | p. 858.576.1000 | www.ninyoandmoore.com March 25, 2019
Project No. 108673001
Ms. Sabrina Perez
Amerco Real Estate Company/U-Haul International
2727 North Central Avenue, Suite 5N
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
Murrieta U-Haul Facility
41458 Los Alamos Road and 25086 Jefferson Avenue
Murrieta, California
Dear Ms. Perez:

In accordance with our proposal dated September 12, 2018, and your authorization, Ninyo & Moore has performed a geotechnical evaluation for the new and existing U-Haul facilities in Murrieta, California. This report presents our findings, conc lusions, and geotechnical recommendations for this project.

Ninyo & Moore appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project.

Respectfully submitted,

NINYO & MOORE
Christina A. Tretinjak, PG, CEG
Senior Project Geologist
Madan Chirumalla, PE, GE
Senior Engineer
Donald M. Tharp, PE
Principal Engineer
CMK/CAT/MAC/DT/gg
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2
4 SITE DESCRIPTION 3
5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
6 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4
7 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5

7.1 Geologic Setting 5

7.2 Subsurface Conditions 6

7.2.1 Pavement 6

7.2.2 Fill 6

7.2.3 Alluvium 6

7.2.4 Pauba Formation 6

7.3 Groundwater 7

7.4 Surface Water 7
8 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 7

8.1 Faulting and Seismicity 7

8.2 Surface Rupture 9

8.3 Strong Ground Motion 9

8.4 Seismic Design Considerations 10

8.5 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement 10

8.6 Landslides 11

8.7 Tsunamis 11
9 CONCLUSIONS 12
10 RECOMMENDATIONS 13

10.1 Earthwork 13

10.1.1 Pre-Construction Survey 13

10.1.2 Site Preparation 13

10.1.3 Remedial Grading for Building Pad 14

10.1.4 Remedial Grading for Pavement and Flatwork 14
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 i

10.1.5 Excavation Characteristics 15

10.1.6 Temporary Slopes 15

10.1.7 Temporary Shoring 16

10.1.8 Protection of Existing Structures/Utilities 17

10.1.9 Bottom Stability 17

10.1.10 Construction Dewatering 18

10.1.11 Materials for Fill and Re-use of On-site Soils 18

10.1.12 Fill Placement and Compaction 19

10.1.13 Pipe Bedding 20

10.1.14 Modulus of Soil Reaction (E’) 20

10.1.15 Utility Pipe Zone Backfill 21

10.1.16 Utility Trench Zone Backfill 21

10.1.17 Thrust Blocks 22

10.1.18 Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) 22

10.1.19 Constructed Slopes 22

10.2 Foundations 23

10.2.1 Spread Footings 23

10.2.2 Mat Foundations 24

10.3 Floor Slabs 25

10.4 Concrete Flatwork 25

10.5 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design 25

10.6 Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design 26

10.7 Corrosion 27

10.8 Concrete 27

10.9 Site Drainage 28

10.10 Pre-Construction Conference 28

10.11 Plan Review and Construction Observation and Testin g 28 11 LIMITATIONS 29
12 REFERENCES 31
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 ii TABLES
1 – Principal Active Faults 8
2 – 2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria 10 3 – Modulus of Soil Reaction (E’) for Onsite Soils 21
4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections 2 6

FIGURES
1 – Site Location
2 – Boring Locations
3 – Fault Locations
4 – AP Earthquake Fault Zone
5 – Geology
6 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Cantilevered Shoring Below Groundwater 7 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Braced Excavation Below Groundwater 8 – Thrust Block Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram

APPENDICES
A – Boring Logs
B – CPT Logs
C – Laboratory Testing
D – Liquefaction Analysis Results
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 iii 1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your authorization and our propo sal dated September 12, 2018, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the propose d New U-Haul Facility located at 41458 Los Alamos Road and the adjacent existing U-Haul Facility at 25086 Jefferson Avenue in Murrieta, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this geotechnical evaluation was to assess the general soil and geologic conditions at the site and to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding potential geologic and seismic impacts associated with the proposed facility at 41458 Los Alamos Road and the existing facility at 25086 Jefferson Avenue. This report presents a summary of our findings and conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions within the project area and our recommendations regarding design and construction of the proposed project. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following is an executive summary related to the project and our findings, conclusions and recommendations:
x The project consists of two adjacent lots. Lot one is an approximately 0.48-acre parcel located at Longitude -117.2037, Latitude 33.5561, on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 949- 220-013, at 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, CA. Lot one is currently vacant. Lot two is an approximately 2.8-acre parcel located at Longitude -1 17.2034, Latitude 33.5556, on APN 949-220-055, at 25086 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, CA. Lot two is currently occupied by an existing U-Haul facility.
x The project is anticipated to include the construction of paved access roads and a potential storage warehouse. The warehouse is anticipated to be su pported on shallow, spread footings or mat foundation.
x The Elsinore fault crosses the southwestern portion of the site. Accordingly, the site is located within the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). The potential for surface ground rupture is considered high. x In accordance with 2016 California Building Code (CBC ) guidelines, the site is classified as seismic Site Class D and is located in a zone where the pe ak ground acceleration with 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is 0.85g. x Groundwater was encountered as shallow as approximately 17 feet below ground surface, bgs (i.e., an elevation of approximately 1087 feet a bove mean sea level (MSL) in our borings. Previous subsurface evaluations performed at t he site encountered groundwater at depths as shallow as approximately 13 feet (i.e., an el evation of approximately 1091 feet above MSL) (LGC Inland, 2011).

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 1 x The site is located in an area that is mapped as be ing potentially susceptible to liquefaction  (DOC, 2018). Post-earthquake total settlement up to approximately 4inches was calculated  for the site. Differential settlements on the order of approximately 2inches over a horizontal  span of 40 feet should be expected. We understand that the proposed warehouse will not be  designed to mitigate liquefaction induced settlement.
x Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), th e project site is mapped as being in Zone X. As such, the site is considered an ar ea of minimal flood hazard, having a

0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, but may encount er surface waters during periods of heavy precipitation.
x Undocumented fill, extending up to approximately 10 f eet bgs was encountered in our borings. This fill should be excavated and replaced wi th compacted, engineered fill beneath the building footprint, including new spread footings , mat foundations, and concrete slabs- on-grade.
x The on-site soils can be generally excavated using heavy duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. However, cemented zones were e ncountered in our explorations and additional excavation effort should be anticipated. x The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for re-use as engineered fill provided they meet the criteria provided herein.
x Based on the results of our soil corrosivity tests and Ca ltrans (2018a) criteria, the on-site soils would not be classified as corrosive.
x New pavements and flatwork should be supported on a zone of adequately moisture-conditioned and compacted engineered fill.
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for the project included:
x Performing geologic reconnaissance of the project site an d reviewing readily available published and in-house geotechnical literature of the g eneral site area including existing geotechnical reports, topographic maps, geologic and ge ologic hazard maps, fault maps, flood zone maps, stereoscopic aerial photographs, and information provided by the client. x Conducting a site visit to select and mark out the propo sed exploration locations.

Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified prior to our subsurface evaluation.

Additionally, a private utility locator was retained to clear exploration locations x Drilling, logging, and sampling three exploratory bor ings to depths ranging from approximately 46.5 to 101.5 feet bgs.
x Advancing three Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) to depths ranging from 45 to 100 feet bgs.

The CPT logs are included in Appendix B.
x Collecting soil samples in the borings at selected intervals using ASTM International (ASTM) Methods D 1586 (standard penetration test (SPT) with sp lit-barrel sampling of soils) and D3550 (ring-lined barrel sampling of soils) for laboratory testing and analysis.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 2 x Performing laboratory testing to evaluate the in-situ moisture content and dry density, gradation analysis, Atterberg limits, consolidation, dire ct shear, expansion index, corrosivity (including pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and solub le sulfate and chloride content), and R-value. Laboratory test results for in-situ moisture co ntent and dry density are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A and the results of the remaining tests are included in Appendix C.
x Preparing this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 4 SITE DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the development of a new U-Hau l facility on an approximately 0.48-acre parcel at Longitude -117.2037, Latitude 33.5561, on APN 949-220-013, at 41458 Los Alamos Road in Murrieta, California and the evaluation of an existing U-Haul facility on an approximately

2.8-acre parcel at Longitude -117.2034, Latitude 33. 5556, on APN 949-220-055, at 25086 Jefferson Avenue in Murrieta, California (Figure 1).

Based on the preliminary project drawings, Sheet 2 an d 3, dated September 22, 2018, Scale 1 inch = 30 feet, (Red Plains, 2018); the elevation at the project site ranges from roughly 1,103 to 1,120 feet, relative to MSL. The project site gene rally slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest. At the time of our field work, the project si te was relatively flat, included a vacant parcel and a parcel developed with an existing U-Haul facility.

Aerial photographs from an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report for the site (Nova, 2018), historic aerial photographs (historicalaerials.com), and Google Earth © were reviewed for this project. Based on these historical aerial photograph s, portions of the site have been developed since 1938 as agricultural land with farm ho uses. Since the 1950s, the site has been developed with residential houses. The site remained relatively unchanged until the early 2000s, until the existing building in the southwestern porti on of the site was constructed between 2002 and 2005. Additionally, historic topographic maps show a drainage path going through the western portion of the site (historicaerials.com).
5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the development of a new U-Hau l facility on an approximately 0.48-acre parcel at Longitude -117.2037, Latitude 33.5561, on A PN 949-220-013, at 41458 Los Alamos Road in Murrieta, California and the evaluation of an existing U-Haul facility on an approximately

2.8-acre parcel at Longitude -117.2034, Latitude 33. 5556, on APN 949-220-055, at 25086 Jefferson Avenue in Murrieta, California (Figure 1).

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 3 We understand a conceptual site plan has not yet been developed for the proposed new U-Haul facility, however, the project is anticipated to include the construction of paved access roads and a potential storage warehouse. The warehouse is anticip ated to be supported on shallow, spread footings or mat foundation. Wall and column loa ds are anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 10 kips per foot and 100 to 150 kips, respectively. Recreational vehicle (RV) canopies may also be constructed. Retaining walls are not anticipated to be constructed.

The site located at 41458 Los Alamos Road is curren tly vacant. Site grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared; however, we understand the proposed ground floor level will be situated at or within 2 feet of existing site grades. New access drives and parking areas will be paved with concrete or asphalt. Traffic loa ds will be typical for RVs and fire trucks per Riverside County and/or City of Murrieta standards. The site located at 25086 Jefferson Avenue is currently occupied by an existing U-Haul facility. The existing U-Haul facility consists of a single story, approximately 5,775 square foot building and a two-story, approximately 24,460 square foot building. Additionally, the site includes associated parking and driveways.

The site is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fa ult Zone and is in an area mapped as being susceptible to liquefaction, however, we understand the proposed storage warehouse will have less than 2,000 human occupancy hours per year, so fault evaluation is not included in this scope. Additionally, we understand that the proposed warehouse will not be designed to mitigate liquefaction induced settlement.
6 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
On October 16 and October 22, 2018, we performed field explorations to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the project site. Our field explorati on program consisted of drilling, logging, and sampling three small-diameter exploratory borings, designated as B-1 through B-3, to depths of approximately 46.5 to 101.5 feet bgs, and advancing three CPTs, designated as CPT-1 thorough CPT-3, to depths of approximately 46 to 100 feet bg s. The borings were drilled using a CME-95 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers and the CPTs were advanced using a truck-mounted CPT rig. The approximate locations of the borings and CPTs are depicted on Figure 2. Logs of the borings and CPTs are included in Appendix A and B, respectively.

Soil samples were obtained at selected intervals by driving a sampler approximately 18 inches into the soil, using an automatic 140-pound hammer falli ng approximately 30 inches. Relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained with a modified ring sampler (ASTM D 3550), and disturbed samples were obtained using an unlined SPT sampler (ASTM D 1586). Bulk samples consisting of auger cuttings of representative earth materials were obtained at selected locations.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 4 Ninyo & Moore logged the borings in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) by observing auger cuttings and samples. The ring samples were trimmed in the field, wrapped in plastic bags, and placed in moist ure-tight cylindrical plastic containers.

Larger bulk samples were collected at selected locations fr om the cuttings. Soil classifications and other pertinent data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

The samples collected during our drilling activities wer e transported to the Ninyo & Moore laboratory in San Diego, California, for geotechnical laboratory testing. Geotechnical testing included in-situ moisture content and dry density, grada tion, Atterberg limits, consolidation, direct shear, expansion index, corrosivity (including pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and soluble sulfate and chloride content), and R-value. The results of the in-situ moisture and density testing are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. A description of each test method and the laboratory results of the remainder of the tests are presented in Appendix C. 7 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The following sections describe the geology at the site as well as potential geologic hazards.

7.1 Geologic Setting
The project area is situated in the inland section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province.

This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The portion of the province in Riverside County that includes the proj ect area consists generally of uplifted and dissected Quaternary sedimentary rock.

The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a gr oup of sub-parallel faults and fault zones trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults, which are shown on Figure 3, Fault Location Map, are considered active faults. The San Jacinto and San Andreas faults are active fault systems located northeast of the project area and the Agua Blanca–Coronado Bank, San Clemente, Newport Inglewood and Elsinore faults are active faults located west of the project area. The project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zon e (Figure 4). The Elsinore fault, the nearest active fault, has been mapped approximately 0 .1 mile west of the project site. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other f aults within this regional tectonic framework Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 5 consists primarily of right-lateral, strike-slip movement. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in the Faulting and Seismicity section of this report.

7.2 Subsurface Conditions
Geologic units encountered during our subsurface explor ation included fill soils and Pauba Formation (Kennedy and Morton, 2003). Although not e ncountered in our subsurface exploration, alluvial deposits have been mapped near the western portion project site (Kennedy and Morton, 2003). Our knowledge of the subsurface condi tions at the project site is based on our field exploration and laboratory testing, and our understanding of the general geology of the area. The following sections provide a generalized desc ription of the materials encountered.

More detailed descriptions are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and CPT logs in Appendix B. The geology of the site is shown on Figure 5.

7.2.1 Pavement
Pavement, composed of AC over AB was encountered in bori ng B-3 and CPT-1 through CPT-3. The pavement encountered generally consisted of approximately 2 inches of AC over approximately 6 inches of AB.

7.2.2 Fill
Undocumented fill, composed of loose to medium dense silt y sand, decomposed granite, and firm sandy lean clay was encountered below the aggre gate base in boring B-3 and at the surface in borings B-1 and B-2. The fill extended to a depth up to approximately 10 feet below existing grade in our borings.

7.2.3 Alluvium
While not encountered in our subsurface evaluation, youn g alluvial materials have been mapped near the western portion of the project site. Th ese materials are generally expected to consist of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay.

7.2.4 Pauba Formation
Materials of the Pauba Formation were encountered below the fill in our borings and extended to the total depths explored. As encountered, these materials generally consisted of various shades of brown, gray, and black, moist to wet, mod erately cemented, silty fine to coarse Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 6 grained sandstone, sandy siltstone, and weakly to m oderately indurated, sandy claystone.

Heaving sands were encountered in boring B-1 at approximately 45 feet below existing grade.

7.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered between 17 feet and 24 fe et during drilling (i.e., elevations of approximately 1087 and 1080 feet above MSL). Previous subsurface evaluations performed at the site encountered groundwater at depths as shallow a s 13 feet (i.e., an elevation of approximately 1091 feet above MSL) (LGC Inland, 201 1). However, it should be noted that groundwater levels could fluctuate due to seasonal vari ations, precipitation, irrigation, groundwater withdrawal or recharge, and in areas adja cent to and in ephemeral streams, and other factors.

7.4 Surface Water
The Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA published flood map for the subject site is number 06065C2715G, effective on August 28, 2008. Based on this map the project site is mapped as being in Zone X. As such, the site is considered an area of minimal flood hazard, having a 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, but may encounter surface waters during periods of heavy precipitation.
8 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following sections describe potential geologic haza rds at the site, including faulting and seismicity, ground surface rupture, strong ground motion, liquefaction, tsunamis, landsliding, and tsunamis.

8.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The project area is considered to be seismically ac tive. Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as our geologic field mapping, the subject site is underlain by the Elsinore fault, which crosses the southwestern portion of the site. The subject site is located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) (Hart and B ryant, 1997). Furthermore, the potential for strong ground motion is considered significant duri ng the design life of the proposed structure.

Figure 3 shows the approximate site location relative to the major faults in the region.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 7 Table 1 lists selected principal known active faults that may affect the subject site, the approximate fault to site distance, and the maximum moment magnitude (M max ) and the fault types provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps – Fault Parameters website (USGS, 2008). The locations and magnitudes of the faults were calculated from near the center of the project site at Longitude -117.2037 and Latitude 33.5561.

Table 1 – Principal Active Faults
Faults
Approximate
Fault-to-Site Distance
miles (kilometers)
Maximum Moment
Magnitude
(M max )
Elsinore (Temecula Segment) 0.1 (0.16) 7.1
Elsinore (Glen Ivy Segment) 6.4 (10.2) 6.9
Elsinore (Julian Segment) 18.6 (30.0) 7.4
San Jacinto (Anza Segment) 19.8 (31.9) 7.3
San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley Segment) 22.1 (35.6) 7.0 San Joaquin Hills 27.3 (44.0) 7.1
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 28.6 (46.0) 7.0
Elsinore (Whittier Segment) 29.2 (46.9) 7.0
San Jacinto (San Bernardino Valley Segment) 31.8 (51.2) 7.1 Rose Canyon 32.5 (52.3) 6.9
South San Andreas (South San Bernardino Segment) 35.5 (57.1) 7.0 South San Andreas (Banning/Garnet Hill Segment) 35.8 (57.6) 7.1 San Jacinto (Coyote Creek Segment) 38.6 (62.1) 7.0
San Jacinto (Clark Segment) 40.1 (64.5) 7.1
South San Andreas (North San Bernardino Segment) 40.9 (65.9) 6.9 Coronado Bank 43.9 (70.7) 7.4
Earthquake Valley 44.1 (71.0) 6.8
Pinto Mountain 44.2 (71.1) 7.3
Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) 44.9 (72.3) 6.9
Cucamonga 44.9 (72.3) 6.7
Palos Verdes 45.5 (73.1) 7.3
San Jose 47.4 (76.3) 6.7
Cleghorn 49.6 (79.8) 6.8
Sierra Madre 49.8 (80.1) 7.2
North Frontal (West) 52.6 (84.6) 7.2
Burnt Mountain 53.6 (86.2) 6.8
Puente Hills (Santa Fe Springs) 53.6 (86.2) 6.7
South San Andreas (South Mojave Segment) 56.0 (90.2) 7.3 Eureka Peak 56.9 (91.5) 6.7
South San Andreas (Coachella Segment) 57.4 (92.4) 7.0
Helendale-So Lockhart 57.5 (92.5) 7.4
North Frontal (East) 58.6 (94.3) 7.0
Clamshell-Sawpit 59.9 (96.4) 6.7
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 8

8.2 Surface Rupture
The closest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault which crosses the southwestern portion of the site. The site is located within the State of Califo rnia Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) (Hart and Bryant, 1997), as shown on Figure 4. The Elsinore Fault (Temecula segment) is capabl e of generating an earthquake magnitude of 7.1 (USGS, 2008).

Based on our review of the referenced literature, the potential for ground rupture due to faulting is considered high. Lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.

As noted, we understand the proposed storage warehouse will have less than 2,000 human occupancy hours per year, so fault evaluation is not included in this scope.

8.3 Strong Ground Motion
The 2016 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE R) ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate seismic loads for design of buildings and other structures. The MCE R ground motion response accelerations are based on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent damping in the direction of maximum horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits for near-source effects. The horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) that corresponds to the MCE R for the site was calculated as 0.83g using the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2018b) seismic design tool (web-based).

The 2016 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be evaluated, where applicable, for the Maximum Considered Earthquake G eometric Mean (MCE G) peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard. The MCE G peak ground acceleration is based on the geometric mean peak ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The MCE G peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site c lass effects (PGA M) was calculated as 0.85g using the USGS (USGS, 2018b) seismic design tool th at yielded a mapped MCE G peak ground acceleration of 0.85g for the site and a site coefficient (F PGA ) of 1.00 for Site Class D.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 9

8.4 Seismic Design Considerations
Table 2 presents the seismic design parameters for the sit e in accordance with CBC guidelines and mapped spectral acceleration parameters (USGS, 2018b): These ground motion values are calculated for "Stiff Soil" sites, which correspond to a sh ear-wave velocity of approximately 600 to 1200 feet per second in approximately the top 100 feet bgs. Different soil or rock types may amplify or de-amplify these values. The proposed impro vements should be designed in accordance with the requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes.

Table 2 – 2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria Seismic Design Factors Value
Site Class D
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.000
Site Coefficient, F v 1.500
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, S s 2.082g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S 1 0.849g Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, S MS 2.082g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, S M1 1.274g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, S DS 1.388g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S D1 0.849g

8.5 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited granular soils with silt and clay contents of less than approximately 35 percent and non-plastic silts located below the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength when subjected to strong earthquake-induced ground shaking. Ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact due to a rapid rise in pore water pressure, and causes the soil to behave as a fluid for a short period of time. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or near-saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than 50 feet below the ground surface. Factors known to influence liquefaction potential include composition and thickness of soil layers, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking.

According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Maps Data Viewer (DOC, 2018), the proposed site is located within an area mapped as be ing potentially susceptible to liquefaction. As noted in the previous sections, the sit e is underlain by fill soils, alluvium, and materials of the Pauba Formation, and groundwater wa s encountered as shallow as approximately 17 feet bgs in our borings. Accordingly, we evaluated the liquefaction potential at the project site. Liquefaction evaluation was performed using a maximum moment magnitude of Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 10

7.1 associated with Elsinore (Temecula Segment) fault an d MCE G peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects (PGA M) of 0.85g as discussed in previous sections. A groundwater depth of 13 feet was used in our analysis ba sed on previous subsurface evaluations as discussed in the groundwater section. The li quefaction analysis was performed using the computer program LiquefyPro (CivilTech Software, 2007). The analysis was based on the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Resea rch (NCEER) procedure (Youd, et al., 2001) using Modified Robertson Method (1997).

As a result of liquefaction, the proposed structure may be subject to several hazards, including liquefaction-induced settlement. In order to estimate the amount of post-earthquake settlement, the method proposed by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) was used for the evaluation of dynamic settlement using the computer program LiquefyPro (Civil Tech Software, 2007). The amount of soil settlement during a strong seismic event depends on the thickness of the liquefiable layers and the density and/or consistency of the soils. Liquef action calculations were performed based on our boring and CPT data. Post-earthquake total settlement up to approximately 4-inches was calculated for the site. Differential settlements on th e order of approximately 2-inches over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected. Our liquefaction analysis results are presented in Appendix D. As noted, we understand that the proposed w arehouse will not be designed to mitigate liquefaction induced settlement.

8.6 Landslides
Landslides, slope failures, and mudflows of earth materi als generally occur where slopes are steep and/or the earth materials are too weak to suppo rt themselves. No landslides or indications of deep-seated landslides were noted underly ing the project site during our field exploration or our review of available geologic lite rature and topographic maps. Based on the relatively level topography at the site, the potenti al for landslides or mudflows to affect the project site is considered low.

8.7 Tsunamis
Tsunamis are long wavelength seismic sea waves (long com pared to ocean depth) generated by the sudden movements of the ocean floor during sub marine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. Based on the inland location of the site, the potential for damage due to tsunamis is not a design consideration.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 11 9 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinio n that construction of the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and constructio n of the project. Geotechnical considerations and conclusions include the following:
x The site is generally underlain by fill soils, alluvium , and materials of the Pauba Formation.

Fill soils were encountered in our borings to depths up to approximately 10 feet bgs. The fill materials are compressible and not considered unsuitable f or support of structures in their current condition. Recommendations for remedial grading are presented in the following sections of this report.
x Groundwater was encountered as shallow as approximately 17 feet bgs (i.e., an elevation of approximately 1087 feet above MSL) in our borings . Previous subsurface evaluations performed at the site encountered groundwater at dept hs as shallow as approximately 13 feet (i.e., an elevation of approximately 1091 fe et above MSL) (LGC Inland, 2011).

Fluctuations in the depth to groundwater will occur du e to tidal fluctuations, flood events, seasonal precipitation, variations in ground elevations, subsurface stratification, irrigation, groundwater pumping, storm water infiltration, and other factors. x The contractor should be prepared to address issues associat ed with seepage, perched water conditions and groundwater such as excavation stabi lity, dewatering, and the presence of wet subgrade soils that may require stabilization. x The on-site soils can be generally excavated using heavy duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. However, cemented zones were e ncountered in our explorations and additional excavation effort should be anticipated . As noted previously, the site was developed in the past with residential houses. Therefore, construction debris should also be anticipated.
x The on-site soils are considered suitable for re-use as en gineered fill provided they meet the criteria provided herein.
x Caving should be anticipated by the contractor and exca vations may require shoring if loose soils, seepage, perched water conditions, and groundwater are encountered. x The Elsinore fault crosses the southwestern portion of the site. Accordingly, the site is located within the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). The potential for surface ground rupture is considered high. x The site is located in an area that is mapped as being p otentially susceptible to liquefaction (DOC, 2018). Post-earthquake total settlement up to approximately 4-inches was calculated for the site. Differential settlements on the order of approximately 2-inches over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected. As noted previously , we understand that the proposed warehouse will not be designed to mitigate liquefaction induced settlement. x Based on the results of our soil corrosivity tests and Cal trans (2018a) criteria, the on-site soils would not be classified as corrosive.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 12 10 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present our geotechnical recommen dations for the proposed construction. The proposed improvements should be construc ted in accordance with the following recommendations and the requirements of the applicable governing agencies. If the proposed construction is changed from that discussed in thi s report, Ninyo & Moore should be contacted for additional recommendations.

10.1 Earthwork
The following sections provide our earthwork recommenda tions for this project. If the site grade is planned to change by more than 2 feet vertically, Ninyo & Moore should be contacted for additional recommendations.

10.1.1 Pre-Construction Survey
Prior to construction activities, it may be desirable to recognize the condition of the existing utilities, underground structures, or other features th at are near the planned construction and to survey or document (e.g., photographs, video, official documentation, etc.) their pre-construction condition. The findings of the survey could be used to document any damage that might result from this project.

10.1.2 Site Preparation
Vegetation, unsuitable materials, or debris from the clearing operation should be removed from the site and disposed of. Obstructions that exten d below finish grade, if present, should be removed and the resulting voids filled with moisture-conditioned and compacted engineered fill.

After rough grade has been achieved and prior to fur ther earthwork, the exposed subgrade should be proof-rolled and visually observed for the p resence of debris, organic matter and other unsuitable materials. If unsuitable soils are encou ntered at subgrade level during earthwork operations, these soils should be removed to t heir full depth, and be replaced with engineered fill.

The geotechnical consultant should carefully evaluate an y areas of loose, soft, or wet soils prior to placement of fill or other construction. Dryi ng or over-excavation of some materials may be appropriate.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 13

10.1.3 Remedial Grading for Building Pad
We recommend that the existing fill soils be overexcava ted down to competent formational materials or 6 feet below the proposed grade, whicheve r is deeper. This overexcavation should extend to the horizontal limits of the structu ral footprint (including foundations for attached overhangs, canopies, and other building appurt enances) plus a horizontal distance of 5 feet. The extent and depths of removals an d overexcavations should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the fie ld based on the materials exposed.

The resultant overexcavation surface should be scarified t o a depth of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a relati ve compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by the ASTM D 1557 prior to placing new fi ll. The resulting excavation should then be backfilled with granular soils with a very low to low expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] of 50 or less) up to 2 feet below bottom of slab-on-grade. The upper 2 feet below bottom of slab-on-grade should backfilled w ith granular soils with a very low expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] of 20 or less). These materials should be placed and compacted in accordance with the Fill Placemen t and Compaction section of this report.

10.1.4 Remedial Grading for Pavement and Flatwork
In the proposed pavement and flatwork areas, we recomm end that the on-site soils be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below the subgrade elevation. The proposed overexcavations should extend outward horizontally 2 fe et from the horizontal limits of the pavement or flatwork. The extent and depth of remov als should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field based on the mater ial exposed. The resulting surface should be scarified 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and r ecompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. T he overexcavation should then be filled with engineered fill. The engineered fill should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The upper 12 inches of subgr ade soils beneath vehicular pavements should be placed at a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 14

10.1.5 Excavation Characteristics
Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials is based on the results of subsurface exploration, site observations, and e xperience with similar materials.

Excavation of the surface materials can generally be accom plished using heavy-duty earthmoving equipment in good operating condition. H owever, very dense soils, and cemented materials were observed in our borings. These materials are anticipated to be more difficult to excavate and/or slow the rate of exca vation during construction. Due to the relatively widely spaced nature of our borings and th e past history of the site, differing subsurface conditions should also be anticipated during construction.

10.1.6 Temporary Slopes
The contractor should provide safely sloped excavations o r an adequately constructed shoring system in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations for employees working in an excavation that may expose them to the danger of moving ground. The contractor should make his own evaluation of OSHA soil type based on actual conditions encountered in the field. Based on th e soil conditions encountered at the site during our field explorations, we recommend that OSHA Soil “Type C” classification be used for excavations in fill and alluvium and that OSHA Soil “Type B” classification be used for excavations in Pauba Formation. This corresponds to t emporary slopes of 1.5H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical [H:V]) for OSHA Soil “Type C” and 1H:1V for OSHA Soil “Type B”.

This side slope inclination is for excavations that are le ss than 20 feet deep. Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-ca se basis. On-site safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.

Excavations that encounter soils with low cohesion will no t stand open without shoring or bracing. Temporary excavations that encounter groundwater seepage or surface runoff may need shoring or may be stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along the base of the seepage zone. Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Slope stability for trenches deeper than 20 feet, though not anticipated, should be designed by the contractor’s engineer based on alignment -specific soil properties and settlement-sensitive features. If material is stored or e quipment is operated near an excavation, stronger shoring should be used to resist the extra pressure due to superimposed loads.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 15 Additionally, due to the heterogeneity of the site so il conditions, sloughing of the surficial native soils during construction should be anticipated wh ere the excavation abuts fill soils from adjacent utilities and/or is subject to the influence of vibration from nearby traffic.

10.1.7 Temporary Shoring
In excavations where loose soils or soils with low cohesion , seepage, perched water conditions, and groundwater are encountered we recommend that a temporary earth retention system be utilized. Temporary earth retenti on systems may include braced systems, such as trench boxes or shields with internal suppor ts or cantilever systems (e.g., soldier piles and lagging); however, the risk of excessive lateral deflection may render a cantilevered shoring system inappropriate for the project.

For preliminary design of the shoring system, the m agnitude and distribution of lateral earth pressures presented on Figure 6 for cantilevered sh oring and Figure 7 for braced shoring should be used. The recommended design earth pressures are based on the assumptions that the shoring system will be constructed without raising the ground surface elevation behind the shoring system, that there are no stockpiles of soil and/or construction materials, or other loads that act above a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane extending up and back from the dredge line.

For earth retention systems subjected to the above-mentioned surcharge loads, the contractor should include the effect of these loads on the design lateral earth pressures. In addition, where loose, low cohesion soils are encountered, the excavations may not stand open long enough to install the trench boxes. The contractor should be prepared to deal with these soil conditions and plan accordingly. Once installed, some sloughing is possible at the ends of the trench box; therefore, any loose material should be removed pri or to backfilling of the trench. We recommend that an experienced structural engineer design the shoring system. The shoring parameters presented in this report should be considered as guidelines.

We anticipate that settlement of the ground surface will occur behind shoring systems during excavation. The amount of settlement will depend on the type of shoring system used, the contractor’s workmanship, and soil conditions. We recommend that embankments, roadways, utilities, and other structures in the vicinity of the planned excavation be evaluated with regard to foundation support and tolerance to settlement. To reduce the potential for distress to these structures, we recommend that the shoring system be designed to limit the ground settlement behind it to ½-inch or less. Possible causes of settl ement that should be addressed include settlement during excavation, construction vibrations, de-watering (if needed), and removal of the shoring system. We recommend that shoring insta llation be evaluated carefully by the Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 16 contractor prior to construction and that ground vi bration and settlement monitoring be performed during construction.

The contractor should evaluate the adequacy of the shor ing parameters presented in this report, and make the appropriate modifications for t heir design. We recommend that the contractor take appropriate measures to protect the wor kers. OSHA requirements pertaining to workers’ safety should be observed. We fu rther recommend that the construction methods provided herein be carefully evalu ated by a qualified specialty contractor prior to commencement of the construction.

10.1.8 Protection of Existing Structures/Utilities
Lateral movement of a shored excavation will depend on the type and relative stiffness of the system used and other factors beyond the scope of th is study. The shoring designer should perform a deflection analysis for the proposed sh oring system. A survey of existing utilities, embankments, and structures adjacent to those portions of the proposed excavation that will be shored should also be performed prior to construction. The purpose of the analysis and survey would be to evaluate the a bility of existing structures, embankments, pipelines, or conduits to withstand anticip ated horizontal and vertical movements associated with a shored excavation. If moveme nts exceed the tolerance of existing project features (utilities, embankments, struct ures, etc.), alternative shoring systems employing the at-rest earth pressure, tie-backs, dead-man anchors, or cross bracing may be needed to reduce deflections to acceptabl e levels. The Contractor should anticipate repairing cracks in any improvements adjacen t to shored portions of the excavation due to anticipated lateral displacements of t he shoring system. Horizontal and vertical movements of the shoring system should be monito red by a surveyor and the results reviewed by the project Geotechnical Engineer.

10.1.9 Bottom Stability
Trench excavations that encounter wet soils or that are close to or below the water table may be unstable. In general, unstable bottom conditions may be mitigated by using a stabilizing geogrid (such as a Tensar Biaxial Grid Type 2, Tria xial Grid TX140 or an approved equivalent), overexcavating the excavation bottom to suitable depths and replacing with gravel wrapped in filter fabric, or other suitable method. Recommendations for stabilizing the excavation bottoms should be based on an evaluation on a case by case basis in the field by Ninyo & Moore at the time of construction.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 17 The project site is mapped within FEMA Zone X. The site may encounter surface waters during periods of heavy precipitation. If the excavations are open during a heavy rain event, the trench material(s) might become saturated and unstable and a dewatering system may be needed for these conditions. Should this occur, further remedial measures may be needed.

Excavations that do encounter surface run-off (if a ny) could be dewatered by pumping the water out from the bottom and away from the excavation. However, heavily saturated units or perched water or groundwater, if encountered, may c all for more aggressive means of dewatering.

10.1.10 Construction Dewatering
As noted in the previous sections, groundwater was encounter ed as shallow as 13 feet below ground surface at the site. In addition, significa nt fluctuations in the groundwater levels may also occur as noted in previous sections. Dewate ring measures, if needed, during excavation operations should be planned by th e contractor and reviewed by the design engineer. Considerations for construction dewat ering should include geotechnical characteristics, fluctuations in groundwater depth, antici pated drawdown, volume of pumping, potential for settlement, and groundwater discharge. Disposal of groundwater should be permitted in accordance with guidelines of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

10.1.11 Materials for Fill and Re-use of On-site Soi ls On-site and imported granular soils that exhibit relati vely low plasticity indices and a very low to low expansion potential are generally suitable for re-use as engineered fill. Relatively low plasticity indices, as evaluated by ASTM D 318, are defined as a Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or less for this project. The Atterberg limits test s performed on soil samples obtained from our borings resulted in PI values of ranging from non-plastic (NP) to 13. The results of our expansion index test performed on a soil sample obta ined from our borings resulted in very low expansion potential. As such, it is our opinion that some of the on-site soils are considered suitable for re-use as engineered fill for th is project. We suggest additional field sampling and laboratory testing be conducted by the con tractor either prior to or during construction to better evaluate the limits of suitable and unsuitable materials.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 18 In addition, suitable engineered fill should not incl ude construction debris, organic material, or other non-soil fill materials. Fill material shoul d not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 3 inches in diameter, and not more than approximately 30 percent larger than ¾ inch. Large chunks, if generated during excavati on, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or disposed of offsite. Obstructions that ext end below finish grade should be removed and the resulting holes filled with compacted soil. Unsuitable fill material should be disposed of offsite.

Engineered and imported fill material should also be n on-corrosive in accordance with the Caltrans (2018a) corrosion guidelines, which is defined as a soil with an electrical resistivity value greater than 1,100 ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm), a chloride content of less than 500 parts per million (ppm), a soluble sulfate content of less than 1,500 ppm, and a pH greater than 5.5. In lieu of this, corrosion protection techniques (e.g., cathodic protection, pipe wrapping, etc.) can be implemented. A corrosion sp ecialist should be consulted for recommendations of an appropriate corrosion protection technique.

The contractor should be responsible for the uniformity of import material brought to the site. We recommend that materials proposed for use as im port fill be evaluated from a contractor’s stockpile rather than in-place materials. Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by the project geotechnical consultant’s representative prior to filling or importing.

Do not import soils that exhibit a known risk to human health, the environment, or both.

10.1.12 Fill Placement and Compaction
Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor sh ould request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by the project geotechnical consult ant. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve moisture contents generally above the optimum moisture content. The scar ified materials should then be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as eva luated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The evaluation of compaction by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 19 Fill soils should be moisture conditioned to generally a bove the laboratory optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moistu re content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent within the soil mass.

Prior to placement of additional compacted fill materi al following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted f ill should be prepared to receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.

Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a moisture content generally above the laboratory optim um, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557.

Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner unt il the desired finished grades are achieved. The upper 12 inches of the subgrade materials un derneath vehicular pavements should be placed to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557.

Additionally, aggregate base materials underneath veh icular pavements should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relati ve density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557.

10.1.13 Pipe Bedding
We recommend that new pipelines, where constructed in an open excavation, be supported on 6 or more inches of granular bedding material. Gr anular pipe bedding should be provided to distribute vertical loads around the pipe. Bedding material and compaction requirements should be in accordance with this report. Pipe bedding typically consists of graded aggregate with a coefficient of uniformity of three or greater.

10.1.14 Modulus of Soil Reaction (E’)
The modulus of soil reaction (E’) is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed at the sides of buried flexible pipes for the purpose o f evaluating deflection caused by the weight of the backfill over the pipe (Hartley and Dun can, 1987). A soil reaction modulus of 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) may be used for an excavation depth of up to approximately 5 feet when backfilled with granular so il compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by the ASTM D 1557. A soi l reaction modulus of 1,400 psi may be used for trenches deeper than 5 feet.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 20 The E’ for native materials will vary with material t ype and stiffness of the trench sidewalls.

Approximate values of E’ for the materials generally encountered in our borings are presented in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Modulus of Soil Reaction (E’) for Onsite Soils Trench Wall Soil
Classification
(USCS)
Approximate E’ (psi)
Loose/Firm Medium Dense/Stiff Dense/Very Stiff/Hard
Silty Sand (SM) 400 700 2000

10.1.15 Utility Pipe Zone Backfill
The pipe zone backfill extends from the top of the pipe bedding material and continues to extend to 1 foot or more above the top of the pipe in accordance with the recent edition of the Standard Specifications for the Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”). Pipe zone backfill should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, and be placed around the sides and top of the pipe. Special care should be taken not to al low voids beneath and around the pipe.

Compaction of the pipe zone backfill should proceed up both sides of the pipe.

It has been our experience that the voids within a cr ushed rock material are sufficiently large to allow fines to migrate into the voids, thereby creating the potential for sinkholes and depressions to develop at the ground surface. If open-graded gravel is utilized as pipe zone backfill, this material should be separated from the adj acent trench sidewalls and overlying trench backfill with a geosynthetic filter fabric.

10.1.16 Utility Trench Zone Backfill
Utility trench zone backfill material should be generally free of trash, debris, roots, vegetation, or deleterious materials. Trench zone backfill should generally be free of rocks or hard lumps of material in excess of 3 inches in diameter. Rocks or hard lumps larger than about 3 inches in diameter should be broken into smaller pieces or should be removed from the site.

Oversize materials should be separated from material to be used as trench backfill. Moisture conditioning (including drying and/or mixing) of ex isting on-site materials is anticipated if reused as trench backfill.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 21

10.1.17 Thrust Blocks
Thrust restraint for buried pipelines may be achieved by transferring the thrust force to the soil outside the pipe through a thrust block. Thrust blo cks may be designed using the magnitude and distribution of passive lateral earth pr essures presented on Figure 8. Thrust blocks should be backfilled with granular backfill mater ial and compacted following the recommendations presented in this report.

10.1.18 Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM)
It is our opinion that the backfill zone may be fille d with CLSM as an alternative to the material described in this report. CLSM consists of a fl uid, workable mixture of aggregate, Portland cement, and water. The use of CLSM has some advantages:
ƒ A narrower backfill zone can be used, thereby reducing the quantity of soil to be excavated and possibly reducing disturbance to the near-by traffic. ƒ Relatively higher E’ values may be used (E’= 3,000 psi). ƒ The support given to the connecting pipes is generally better. ƒ Because little compaction is needed to place CLSM, ther e is less risk of damaging the connecting pipes.
ƒ CLSM can be batched to flow into irregularities in the trench bottom and walls.

The CLSM design mix should be in accordance with current Standard Specifications for the Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”). Additional mix design information can be provided upon request. The 28-day strength of the material sho uld be no less than 50 psi and no more than 120 psi.

Buoyant or uplift forces on the piping should be consid ered when using CLSM and prudent construction techniques may result in multiple pours to a void inducing excessive uplift forces. Sufficient time should be provided to allow th e CLSM to cure before placing additional lifts of CLSM or trench backfill.

10.1.19 Constructed Slopes
We recommend that constructed cut slopes, if any are pl anned for this project, and constructed embankment fill slopes be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). New embankment fills should be benched into existing embankm ents, where appropriate.

Benches should be level and wide enough to allow operat ion of and compaction by, construction equipment. Fill slopes should be constructed i n a manner (e.g., overfilling and Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 22 cutting to grade) such that the recommended degree of compaction is achieved to the finished slope face. Cut and fill slopes should be protec ted from erosion. This should promote re-vegetation and a stable slope. Periodic mai ntenance of exposed slopes should be anticipated.

Unprotected slopes may rill and erode if exposed to ru nning water. Silty soils and soils containing fine sand are more susceptible in this regard. Laying slopes back to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) will decrease runoff vel ocity and decrease the likelihood of serious erosion. Adequate drainage and temporary erosio n protection covering could minimize erosion problems and promote post-constructio n vegetation. Plating the slopes with gravelly material will reduce precipitation impa ct and slow the rate of erosion. Along longer slopes, brow ditches should be considered to redu ce the amount of surface flow on the slope face. Where feasible, the existing vegetation should be salvaged and replaced.

10.2 Foundations
Based on the results of our field and laboratory evaluations and our understanding that the proposed warehouse building will not be designed to mitigate liquefaction induced dynamic settlement, it is our opinion that the proposed structures can be support ed on shallow spread footings or mat foundations. Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. In addition, requirements of the governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes should be considered in the design of the proposed structures.

10.2.1 Spread Footings
Spread footings should bear at a depth of 36 inches or m ore below the adjacent finished grade, on 3 feet or more of moisture-conditioned and co mpacted engineered fill as described in this report. Footings should have a width o f 24 inches or more, and isolated spread footings should have a width of 30 inches or more. Spread footings should be reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer.

Spread and pad footings founded on engineered fill may be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds psf. The allowable be aring capacity may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such a s wind or seismic forces. Total and differential settlement of up to about 1 inch and ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet, respectively, may occur.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 23 Foundations bearing on moisture-conditioned, compacted engineered fill and subject to lateral loadings may be designed using an ultimate coef ficient of friction of 0.35 (total frictional resistance equivalent to the coefficient of fr iction multiplied by the dead load). A passive resistance value of 350 psf per foot of depth can b e used with a value of up to 3,500 psf. This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. The lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and passive resistance, provided that the passive resistance does not exceed one-half of the total allowable resistance. The passive resistance may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

10.2.2 Mat Foundations
Mat foundations may be used as an alternative to spread footings for the proposed warehouse.

We recommend that mat foundations be supported on 3 feet or more of moisture-conditioned and compacted engineered fill, as described in this report. A net allowable equivalent soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf is recommended for mat foundations bearing on engineered fill.

We recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction, Kv, of 250 kips per cubic foot, be used for design. This value is based on a unit square foot area and should be adjusted for the planned mat size. Adjusted values of the modulus of subgrade reaction, K b, can be obtained from the following equation for mats of various widths:

Kb = Kv [(B+1)/2B] 2
The B in the above equation represents the width (i. e., the lesser dimension of the width and length) of the mat in feet.

Total settlements of the mat-supported area are estimat ed to be on the order of 1 inch.

Differential settlements will depend upon the structu ral rigidity of the mat. We recommend that these settlements be considered during the design.

For resistance of mat foundation to lateral loads, we recommend a passive pressure of 350 psf per foot of depth be used with a value of up to 3,500 psf. This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passi ve resistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering lo ads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 24 For frictional resistance to lateral loads on mat, we recommend a coefficient of friction of

0.35 at the concrete-soil interface. The lateral resistan ce can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and passive resistance provided the p assive resistance does not exceed one-half of the total resistance.

10.3 Floor Slabs
The design of the floor slabs is the responsibility of t he structural engineer; however, we recommend that they be reinforced with steel re-bars. P lacement of the steel reinforcement in the slab is vital for satisfactory performance. If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a vapor retard er and capillary break system consisting of a 10-mil polyethylene (or equivalent) membrane placed over 4 inches of medium to coarse, clean sand or pea gravel. The steel reinforcements for the floor slabs shall be placed on the vapor retarder using chairs, as appropriate.

10.4 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork should be 4 inches in thickne ss and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on-center both way s. A vapor retarder is not needed for exterior flatwork. To reduce the potential manifestat ion of distress to exterior concrete flatwork due to movement of the underlying soil, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the design engineer. Before placement of concrete, remedial grading should be perf ormed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Positive drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork.

10.5 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design
As part of the new construction, we anticipate that new pavements will be constructed. Our laboratory testing of a near surface soil sample at the project site indicated an R-value of 28. A preliminary design R-value of 20, along with assumed desi gn Traffic Indices (TI) of 5, 6, 7, and

9.5 has been the basis of our preliminary flexible pavement design. The assumed TIs should be evaluated by the Civil Engineer based on anticipated traffic loading at the site. Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils that are exposed at the finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the grading operations. The preliminary recommended flexible pavement sections are presented in Table 4.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 25 Table 4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections Traffic Index
(Pavement Usage)
Design
R-Value
Asphalt Concrete
Thickness
(inches)
Crushed Aggregate
Base Thickness
(inches)
5 (Parking Areas) 20 3.0 7.5
6 (Light Traffic) 20 3.0 10.5
7 (Medium Traffic) 20 4.5 11.0

9.5 (Heavy Traffic/ Fire Lanes) 20 6.5 16.0
As indicated, these values assume TIs of 9.5 or less for site pavements. If traffic loads are different from those assumed herein, the pavement desi gn should be re-evaluated. In addition, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade an d aggregate base materials be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relat ive density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557.

10.6 Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design
Rigid PCC pavements are recommended for areas that will experience regular truck traffic, main ingress and egress areas, and in areas where vehicles will be turning or loading (e.g., adjacent to trash dumpsters). For rigid pavements Ninyo & Moore r ecommends sections composed of 9 inches of 600 psi flexural strength Portland cement con crete reinforced with No. 3 bars, 18-inches on center, be placed over 12 inches or more of aggregate base materials compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 at a moisture content at or near optimum. Additionally, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade beneath the aggregate base should be compacted to 95 percent of its Proctor densit y as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The above section may also be used for fire lane PCC pavements.

For light and moderately trafficked vehicle pavement s, we recommend 6 and 7½ inches of 600 psi flexural strength PCC, respectively, over 6 inches or more of aggregate base.

Additionally, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade bene ath the aggregate base should be compacted to 95 percent of its Proctor density as evalua ted by ASTM D 1557. We also recommend that a qualified structural engineer be consu lted for appropriate reinforcement of concrete pavement.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 26

10.7 Corrosion
The corrosion potential of the on-site soils was tested to evaluate its potential effect on the foundations and structures. Our corrosion evaluation is based on the results of our field and laboratory testing done for this project. A corrosion specialist should perform their own analysis.

Laboratory testing consisted of pH, minimum electrical r esistivity, and chloride and soluble sulfate contents. The pH and minimum electrical resistiv ity tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method (CT) 643, while sulfate and chloride tests were performed in accordance with CT 417 and 422, respectiv ely. The results of these corrosivity tests are presented in Appendix C.

The soil pH values of tested samples were measured at ap proximately 6.8 and 6.9, the electrical resistivities were measured at approximately 1 ,300 and 1,500 ohm-centimeters, the chloride contents were measured at approximately 70 and 9 5 parts per million (ppm), and the sulfate contents were measured at approximately 0.001 pe rcent (i.e., 10 ppm). Based on the Caltrans (2018) corrosion criteria, the project site wou ld not be classified as a corrosive site.

Caltrans (2018) defines a corrosive site as having earth materials with chloride concentration of 500 ppm or greater, sulfates concentration of 0.15 percent o r greater (i.e., 1,500 ppm or greater), a pH of 5.5 or less, and/or an electrical resistivity of 1,100 ohm-centimeters or less.

10.8 Concrete
Laboratory chemical tests performed on on-site soil samples indicated a soluble sulfate content of

0.001 percent (i.e., 10 ppm) by dry weight of soil. Based on American Concrete Institute criteria, the on-site soils should be considered to present a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete.

Notwithstanding the sulfate test results and due to th e limited number of chemical tests performed, as well as our experience with similar soil conditions and regional practice, we recommend that “Type II/V” cement be used for the const ruction of concrete structures at this site. Due to potential uncertainties as to the use of reclaimed irrigation water, or topsoil that may contain higher sulfate contents, pozzolan or admixtures designed to increase sulfate resistance may be considered.

We recommend that the structural concrete have a water -cementitious materials ratio no more than 0.45 by weight for normal weight aggregate concre te. The structural engineer should ultimately select the concrete design strength based on th e project specific loading conditions.

Higher strength concrete may be selected for increased d urability and resistance to slab curling and shrinkage cracking.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 27

10.9 Site Drainage
Roof, pad, and slope drainage should be conveyed such that runoff water is diverted away from slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by non erodible devices (e.g., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales, etc.). Positive drainage adja cent to structures should be established and maintained. Positive drainage may be a ccomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations of the structure at a gradient of 5 percent or steeper for a distance of 10 feet or more outside the building perimeter, or 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 10 feet or more outside the building perimeter if paved. Dra inage should be further maintained by a graded swale leading to an appropriate outlet, in acco rdance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and/or landscape architect.

Surface drainage on the site should be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the pad area and drainage patterns should be established to divert and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets.

Care should be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final grading should be maintained for the life of the project. The property owner and the maintena nce personnel should be made aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.

10.10 Pre-Construction Conference
We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held . Representatives of the owner, civil engineer, the geotechnical consultant, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss the project plans and schedule. Our office should be notifie d if the project description included herein is incorrect, or if the project characteristics are significantly changed.

10.11 Plan Review and Construction Observation and T esting The conclusions and recommendations presented in th is report are based on analysis of observed conditions in widely spaced exploratory bor ings. If conditions are found to vary from those described in this report, Ninyo & Moore should be notified, and additional recommendations will be provided upon request. Ninyo & Moore should review the final project drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of constru ction. Ninyo & Moore should perform the needed observation and testing services during construction operations.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 28 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore will provide geotechnical observation and testing service s during construction. In the event that it is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that the selected consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore’s recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with the design parameters and recommendations containe d in this report. Construction of proposed improvements should be performed by qualifie d subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials.
11 LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation and laboratory testing presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendati ons, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to re veal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in thi s report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface condition s can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request.

Please also note that our evaluation was limited to as sessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structu ral issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the proje ct described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditi ons in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 29 If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject s ite or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.

This report is intended exclusively for use by the client . Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by pa rties other than the client is undertaken at said parties’ sole risk.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 30 12 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, ACI 318 Build ing Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, Min imum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10.

ASTM International (ASTM), Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

Building News, 2015, “Greenbook,” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Publications.

California Building Standards Commission, 2016, Calif ornia Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2: dated July 1.

California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2018, Geologic Hazards Data and Maps website, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/ .

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2 018a, Corrosion Guidelines (Version 3.0), Division of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch: dated March.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2018b, CalFP v1.5: Expiry date December 31.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5-MinuteSeies, Riverside County, California, Scale 1:24,000.

CivilTech Software, 2007, LiquefyPro (Version 5.5j), A Computer Program for Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis.

Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2011, Well Installation Report, Former Chevron Service Station Property, 41541 Ivy Street, Murrieta, California 92562: dated February 7.

GeoTracker, 2018, www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map.

GoogleEarth, 2018, Website for Viewing Aerial Photographs, http://maps.google.com/.

Harden, D.R., 2004, California Geology: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-Rupture H azard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquak e Fault Zone Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2 Added in 1999.

Historic Aerials website, 2018, www.historicaerials.com: accessed in October.

Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M, 1992, Evaluation of Se ttlements in Sand Deposits following Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 32, No. 1: dated March.

Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activit y Map: California Geological Survey, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 31 Kennedy, M.P ., 1977, Geologic Map of the Elsinore Fau lt Zone Southern Riverside County, California: California Department of Conservation, D ivision of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131.

Kennedy, M.P ., Morton, D.M., 2003, Preliminary Geol ogic Map of Murrieta 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, Open-File Report OF-2003-189:

Scale 1:24,000.

LGC Inland, 2011, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigat ion and Percolation Study, U-HAUL Murrieta, 25086 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, Californi a, Project No. 111-2523-10: dated October 20.

Ninyo & Moore, In-house proprietary information.

Ninyo & Moore, 2018, Proposal to Perform Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed New U-Haul Facility, 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California: dated September 12.

Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California: John Wiley & Sons, 541 pp.

Nova Consulting Group, Inc., 2018, Phase I Environment al Site Assessment Report, U-Haul Moving & Storage of Murrieta, 25086 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, California, Project No. R18-0808: dated March 9.

Red Plains Surveying Company, (2018), Preliminary Dra wings for Review, U-HAUL Murrieta, 25086 Jefferson Avenue & 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrie ta, CA 92562: dated September 22.

Robertson, P .K., et al., (1995). Liquefaction of San ds and Its Evaluation, Special Keynote and Themes Lectures, 1st International Conference on Geote chnical Earthquake Engineering.

Robertson, P .K., and Wride, C.E. (1997). Cyclic liquef action and its evaluation based on the SPT and CPT, Proceedings of NCEER Workshop on Evaluat ion of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER 97-0022.

Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Se ttlement in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, American Society of Civil Engineering Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861-878.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2013, Method for Prediction of Flexible Pipe Deformation, Report M-25 Second Edition, Revised 2015.

United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FE MA), 2008, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06065C2715G.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters website,
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm .

United State Geological Survey (USGS), 2018a, Murrie ta Quadrangle, California – Riverside County, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2018b, U.S. Seismic Design Maps website, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php .

Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M. (Editors), 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, Ut ah, January 5 through 6, 1996, NCEER Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, New York.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 32 Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P ., Liao, S.S.C., Marcusson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y ., Power, M.S., Robertson, P .K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of L iquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng ineering: American Society of Civil Engineering 124(10), pp. 817-833.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 1086 73001 | March 25, 2019 33 Appendix A
Photographic Documentation

FIGURES
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 SITE
"
!o 0 1,500 3,000
FEET

MAP INDEX
San Dieg o
Coun ty
1_108673001_SL.mxd 3/22/2019 AOBNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPO, 2017

SITE LOCATION

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE 1
@?
@?
@A
@A
@A
@?
LEGEND

SITE BOUNDARY
2_108673001_BL.mxd 3/22/2019 AOBNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2017

BORING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2
!o 0 100 200
FEET
@A B-3
TD=101.5
BORING
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
@? CPT-3
TD=45.7

CONE PENETRATION TEST
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
108673001 | 3/19
B-3
TD=101.5
CPT-3
TD=45.7
CPT-2
TD=100.3
CPT-1
TD=97.4
B-2
TD=51.5
B-1
TD=46.5

LOS ALAM
OS
ROAD
JE

FFERSON
A
VENUE

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA

M E X I C O
U S A
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA
SAN

JACINTO

ELSI NORE
IM
PERIAL

WHI T T I ER
NEW

PORT-INGLEWOOD

CORONADO
BANK
SAN
DIEGO
TROUGH
SAN

CLEMENTE
SANTA

CRUZ-SANTA CATALINA RIDGE
PALOS
VERDES
OFFSH

ORE ZONE
OF D
EFOR
MA
TION

GARLOCK

CLEARWATERSAN

GABRIEL

SIERRA MADR E

B A N N I N G

MI S S I O N C R E E K

BLACKWATERHARPER

LOCKHART

LENWOOD

CAMPROCK
CALICO
LU
D
LO
W
PISGAH

BULLION

MOUNTAIN

JOHNSON
VALLEY

EMERSON

PINTO MOUNTAIN
MANIX

MIRAGE VALLEY
NORTH

HELENDALE

FRONTAL
CHINO

SAN JOSECUCAMONGA

MALIBU COAST SANTA MONICA
SAN

CAYETANO
SANTA
SUSANA
SANTA
ROSA

NORTHRIDGE

CHARNOCK
SAWPIT
CANYON

SUPERSTITIONHILLS
RO
SE
C
A
N
Y
O
N

E MOUNTAIN

WHITE WOLF

SAN ANDREA
S FA

ULT ZONE
PLEITO
HEELER
CREEK

BLUE CUT

SALTON CREEK
SAN
AND

REAS FAU
LT ZON

ECOYOTE
CREEK
CLARK
GLEN
IVY

EARTHQUAKE
VALLEY
ELMORE
RANCH
LAGUNA
SALADA
BR
AWLE

Y SEISMICZONE
San Bernardino
County
Kern
County
Riverside
County
San Diego
County
Imperial
County
Los Angeles
County
Inyo
County
Tulare
County
Ventura
County
Orange
County

CAL I F ORN IA

HOLOCENE ACTIVE

CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY

HISTORICALLY ACTIVE

LATE QUATERNARY
(POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)

STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY

QUATERNARY
(POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)
SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY , 2006, QUATERNARY FAULT AND FOLD DATABASE FOR THE UNITED STATES.

SITE"
3_108673001_FL.mxd 3/22/2019 AOBNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

FAULT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3
!o 0 30 60
MILES
LEGEND
!
108673001 | 3/19

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: 1990, EARTHQUAKE ZONE OF REQUIRED INVESTIGA TION, MURRIETA QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

SITE
"
LEGEND
!o 0 2,000 4,000
FEET
4_108673001_EFZ.mxd 11/19/2018 AOBNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

AP EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE
FIGURE 4
108673001 | 3/19
!"a$

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
SITE
"
REFERENCE: MORTON, D.M., AND MILLER F.K., 2006, GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA ANA 30 X 60-MINUTE QUADRANGLES, CALIFORNIA 5_108673001_G.mxd 3/22/2019 AOBNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

GEOLOGY
FIGURE 5
!o 0 2,000 4,000
FEET
LEGEND_____________________________________
Young axial channel deposits
108673001 | 3/19
"
""
""
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
Qyva
Qyaa
Young alluvial valley deposits
Qps
Qyv a
Qpf
Qps Sandstone member
Qpf Fanglomerate member
QTws Sandstone and conglomerate of Wildomar area
Sandstone unit

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
pP
D
H
Pa
NOTES:

ACTIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, P
P = 40 H psf;

1. 4.

P = 300 D psf

PASSIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, P

6. H, h AND D ARE IN FEET
a
a
p
p

SHORING
Ps

2. s
s
P = 120 psf

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC INDUCED SURCHARGE PRESSURE, P
GROUNDWATER TABLE 7.
+
2 Pa1
+
wP
h
1 P = a 2
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE, P 3.

P =62.4 (H - h) psf w
w
SURCHARGES FROM EXCAVATED SOIL OR CONSTRUCTION 5.

MATERIALS ARE NOT INCLUDED
1aP + 20 (H - h) psf

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY

CANTILEVERED SHORING BELOW GROUNDWATER
108673001 I 3/19
FIGURE 6
6 108673001 D-CS.DWG

pP
h
Pa
+
sP
NOTES:

APPARENT LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES, P AND P
P = 26 H psf

1. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC INDUCED SURCHARGE PRESSURE, P
P = 120 psf

2. P = 62.4 h psf
WATER PRESSURE, P 3.

4. SURCHARGES FROM EXCAVATED SOIL OR 5.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ARE NOT INCLUDED
+ 2
1h
2 Pw
Pa1
1 2
1 P = 13 H psf

PASSIVE PRESSURE, P
P = 300 D psf
D

6. GROUNDWATER TABLE
2 7.

H, h , h AND D ARE IN FEET 2 1
a a 2
a
a
s
w
p
w
p
s

SHORING
BRACES
H

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR BRACED EXCAVATION

BELOW GROUNDWATER
FIGURE 7
7 108673001 D-BEBG.DWG

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 I 3/19
NOTES:

GROUNDWATER BELOW BLOCK
GROUNDWATER ABOVE BLOCK 2.

1. P = 175 p (D -d ) 2 2 lb/ft
THRUST
BLOCK
d (VARIES)
P
Pp
p

D (VARIES)

3. ASSUMES BACKFILL IS GRANULAR MATERIAL

4. ASSUMES THRUST BLOCK IS ADJACENT TO COMPETENT MATERIAL 1 Pp2
pP = 1.5 ( D - d )[ 124.8h + 58 ( D+d )]
GROUNDWATER TABLE 6.

D, d AND h ARE IN FEET 5.
h
lb/ft

THRUST BLOCK LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 8
8 108673001 D-TB.DWG
108673001 I 3/19

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.

Bulk Samples
Bulk samples consisting of auger cuttings of representativ e earth materials were obtained from selected exploratory borings. The samples were b agged and transported to the laboratory for testing.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler
Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtaine d by means of a Standard Penetration Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The sampler was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pou nd hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reporte d on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.

The Modified Split-Barrel (California) Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inche s. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer free-falling fro m a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The samples were removed fro m the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 6RLO&ODVVL¿FDWLRQ&KDUW3HU ASTM D 2488
3ULPDU\'LYLVLRQV
6HFRQGDU\'LYLVLRQV
*URXS6\PERO *URXS1DPH

COARSE-
*5$,1('
SOILS
more than
50% retained
on No. 200
sieve
GRAVEL
more than
50% of
coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve

CLEAN GRAVEL
OHVVWKDQ¿QHV
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with
DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS
WR¿QHV
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with
GRAVEL with
FINES
more than
¿QHV
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
6$1'
50% or more
of coarse
fraction
passes
No. 4 sieve

CLEAN SAND
OHVVWKDQ¿QHV
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with
DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS
WR¿QHV
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES
more than
¿QHV
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
),1(
*5$,1('
SOILS
50% or
more passes
No. 200 sieve
6,/7DQG
CLAY
liquid limit
less than 50%

INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY

ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY

ORGANIC
OL (PI > 4) organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4) organic SILT
6,/7DQG
CLAY
liquid limit
50% or more

INORGANIC
CH fat CLAY
MH elastic SILT

ORGANIC
OH
(plots on or
above “A”-line) organic CLAY
OH (plots
below “A”-line) organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat
86&60(7+2'2)62,/&/$66,),&$7,21
$SSDUHQW'HQVLW\&RDUVH*UDLQHG6RLO
$SSDUHQW
'HQVLW\
6SRROLQJ&DEOHRU&DWKHDG $XWRPDWLF7ULS+DPPHU
637
(EORZVIRRW

0RGL¿HG
6SOLW%DUUHO
(EORZVIRRW

637
(EORZVIRRW

0RGL¿HG
6SOLW%DUUHO
(EORZVIRRW

Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium
Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
&RQVLVWHQF\)LQH*UDLQHG6RLO
&RQVLV -
WHQF\
6SRROLQJ&DEOHRU&DWKHDG $XWRPDWLF7ULS+DPPHU
637
(EORZVIRRW

0RGL¿HG
6SOLW%DUUHO
(EORZVIRRW

637
(EORZVIRRW

0RGL¿HG
6SOLW%DUUHO
(EORZVIRRW

Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
6WLႇ 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
9HU\6WLႇ 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
/,48,'/,0,7
//

3/$67,&,7<,1'(;
3,

0 10
10 7
4 20
30 40
50 60
70 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0+RU2+
0/RU2/ CL - ML
3ODVWLFLW\&KDUW
*UDLQ6L]H
'HVFULSWLRQ 6LHYH
6L]H *UDLQ6L]H $SSUR[LPDWH
6L]H
Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than
basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to
basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to
¿VWVL]HG
Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to
thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to
rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 -

0.017”
Flour-sized to
sugar-sized
Fines Passing
#200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and
smaller
&+RU2+
&/RU2/





;;;;
SM
CL
%XONVDPSOH
0RGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKPRGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
6DPSOHUHWDLQHGE\RWKHUV
6WDQGDUG3HQHWUDWLRQ7HVW
637

1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKD637
6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOH'LVWDQFHSXVKHGLQLQFKHVOHQJWKRIVDPSOHUHFRYHUHGLQLQFKHV  1RUHFRYHU\ZLWK6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOHU
&RQWLQXRXV3XVK6DPSOH
6HHSDJH
*URXQGZDWHUHQFRXQWHUHGGXULQJGULOOLQJ
*URXQGZDWHUPHDVXUHGDIWHUGULOOLQJ
0$-250$7(5,$/7<3(
62,/

6ROLGOLQHGHQRWHVXQLWFKDQJH
'DVKHGOLQHGHQRWHVPDWHULDOFKDQJH
$WWLWXGHV
6WULNH'LS
E
%HGGLQJ
F
&RQWDFW
M
-RLQW
I
)UDFWXUH
)
)DXOW
FV
&OD\6HDP
V
6KHDU
EVV
%DVDO6OLGH6XUIDFH
VI
6KHDU)UDFWXUH
V]
6KHDU=RQH
VEV
6KHDU%HGGLQJ6XUIDFH
7KHWRWDOGHSWKOLQHLVDVROLGOLQHWKDWLVGUDZQDWWKHERWWRPRIWKHERULQJ DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET

BORING LOG

20 0
10 20
30 40
15 52
30 33
28 39
45 22
32 51

11.6 15.0

14.0 14.6

10.5 15.4

14.9 115.0
116.8
109.8
111.9
120.2
113.6
113.8
SM FILL:

Yellow and light brown, dry to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; decomposed granite. @ 3': Dark brown.
@ 6': Reddish brown.

PAUBA FORMATION:

Reddish brown, moist, moderately indurated, sandy SILTSTONE.

Reddish brown, moist, moderately cemented, fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE.

Wet.

Coarse-grained.

Reddish brown, wet, moderately indurated, CLAYSTONE.

Brown, wet, moderately cemented, fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE.

BORING LOG FIGURE A- 1
MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY, 41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND
25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 10/16/18 BORING NO. B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 1,107' r (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja) (CME-95) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CMK LOGGED BY CMK REVIEWED BY CAT
2 40
50 60
70 80
48 58
PAUBA FORMATION: (Continued)
Gray, wet, moderately cemented, fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE.

Heaving sands.

Total Depth = 46.5 feet
Groundwater encountered at 20 feet during drilling.

Backfilled with grout shortly after drilling on 10/16/18.

Note:

Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.

The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

BORING LOG FIGURE A- 2
MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY, 41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND
25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 10/16/18 BORING NO. B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 1,107' r (MSL) SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja) (CME-95) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CMK LOGGED BY CMK REVIEWED BY CAT
2 0
10 20
30 40
20 29
41 27
18 16
11 8.8

10.3 17.8

21.9 108.4
117.8
113.5
104.2
SM FILL:

Yellow and light brown, dry, medium dense, silty SAND; decomposed granite.

PAUBA FORMATION:

Dark brown, moist, moderately cemented, silty fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE.

Wet.

Dark reddish brown; wet.

Brown, wet, weakly indurated, fine-grained sandy CLAYSTONE.

BORING LOG FIGURE A- 3
MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY, 41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND
25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 10/16/18 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 1,106' r (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja) (CME-95) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CMK LOGGED BY CMK REVIEWED BY CAT
2 40
50 60
70 80
28 35
68 PAUBA FORMATION: (Continued)
Brown, wet, moderately cemented, silty fine- to medium-grained SANDSTONE.

Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Groundwater encountered at 24 feet during drilling and approximately 34.5 feet after drilling.

Backfilled with grout shortly after drilling on 10/16/18.

Note:

Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.

The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

BORING LOG FIGURE A- 4
MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY, 41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND
25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 10/16/18 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 1,106' r (MSL) SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja) (CME-95) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CMK LOGGED BY CMK REVIEWED BY CAT
2 0
10 20
30 40
16 8
18 22
32 41
28 46
26 15

14.7 15.9

10.9 16.5

24.9 109.8
115.1
112.1

99.0 CL
SM
ASPHALT CONCRETE:

Approximately 2 inches thick.

AGGREGATE BASE:

Approximately 6 inches thick.

FILL:

Olive gray, moist, firm, sandy lean CLAY; petroleum odor.

Olive gray, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.

Brown.

Loose.

PAUBA FORMATION:

Brown, moist, moderately cemented, silty fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE.

Clay lenses.

Reddish brown, moist, moderately indurated, sandy CLAYSTONE.

Wet.

Brown, wet, moderately cemented, silty coarse-grained SANDTONE.

Reddish brown, wet, moderately indurated, sandy CLAYSTONE.

Light brown.

BORING LOG FIGURE A- 5
MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY, 41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND
25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 10/16/18 BORING NO. B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 1,105' r (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja) (CME-95) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CMK LOGGED BY CMK REVIEWED BY CAT
3 40
50 60
70 80
28 21
12 56
39 59
50/4"
34 PAUBA FORMATION: (Continued)
Brown, wet, moderately cemented, silty fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE.

Grayish brown, wet, weakly indurated, fine-grained sandy CLAYSTONE.

Gray, wet, weakly cemented, fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE.

Moderately cemented.

Light gray; coarse-grained.

Gray.

Black, wet, moderately indurated, CLAYSTONE.

BORING LOG FIGURE A- 6
MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY, 41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND
25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 10/16/18 BORING NO. B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 1,105' r (MSL) SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja) (CME-95) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CMK LOGGED BY CMK REVIEWED BY CAT
3 80
90 100
110
120
51 66
43 65
74 PAUBA FORMATION: (Continued)
Black, wet, moderately indurated, CLAYSTONE.

Gray, wet, moderately to strongly cemented, fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE.

Grayish brown.

Coarse-grained.

Total Depth = 101.5 feet
Groundwater encountered at 21 feet during drilling and approximately 18 feet after drilling.

Backfilled with grout shortly after drilling on 10/16/18.

Note:

Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.

The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

BORING LOG FIGURE A- 7
MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY, 41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND
25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673001 | 3/19
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 10/16/18 BORING NO. B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 1,105' r (MSL) SHEET 3 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja) (CME-95) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY CMK LOGGED BY CMK REVIEWED BY CAT
3 APPENDIX B
CPT Logs
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 Project: Ninyo & Moore
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 97.38 ft, Date: 10/22/2018
41458 Los Alamos Rd, Murrieta, CA Cone Type: Vertek
CPT-1
Location:

CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.15 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/25/2018, 6:28:03 PM 1 Project file:

Project: Ninyo & Moore
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 100.27 ft, Date: 10/22/2018
41458 Los Alamos Rd, Murrieta, CA Cone Type: Vertek
CPT-2
Location:

CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.15 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/25/2018, 6:29:28 PM 1 Project file:

Project: Ninyo & Moore
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 45.74 ft, Date: 10/22/2018
41458 Los Alamos Rd, Murrieta, CA Cone Type: Vertek
CPT-3
Location:

CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.15 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/25/2018, 6:29:55 PM 1 Project file:

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.

In-Place Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density of relatively und isturbed samples obtained from the exploratory excavations were evaluated in general accord ance with ASTM D2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A.

Gradation Analysis
Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected re presentative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D422. The grain-size distribution cur ves are shown on Figures C-1 through C-3. These test results were utilized in evalua ting the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS.

Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general a ccordance with ASTM D4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classificatio n in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The test results and classifications are shown on Figure C-4.

Consolidation Tests
A consolidation test was performed on a selected relativel y undisturbed soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D2435-04. The sample was inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation fo r each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the orig inal height of the sample. The results of the tests are summarized on Figure C-5.

Direct Shear Strength Tests
Shear strength tests were performed on relatively undi sturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D3080 to evaluate the shear strength characte ristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adve rse field conditions. The test results are shown on Figures C-6 and C-7.

Expansion Index Test
The expansion index of selected material was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829.

The specimen was molded under a specified compactiv e energy at approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimen was loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and was inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of this test are presented on Figure C-8.

Soil Corrosivity Tests
Soil pH tests were performed on representative samples i n general accordance with Arizona Test ARIZ 236b. The sulfate content and chloride conte nts of selected samples were also evaluated in general accordance with ARIZ 733 and 736, respectively. The test results are presented on Figure C-9.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | November 28, 2018 R-Value
The resistance value, or R-value, for site soils were e valuated in general accordance with CT 301. A sample was prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure.

The equilibrium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results. The test results are shown on Figure C-10.

Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 2 Coarse Fine Coarse Mediu m SILT CLAY 3" 2 " ¾" ½" Ǫ" 4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422

Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc

GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft) D30 Cu
Equivalent
USCS D60
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
B-1 10.0-11.5 -- -- -- -- -- ML -- -- -- 58

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
100.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 110 100

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE

NUMBERS HYDROMETER

GRADATION TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MU RRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE C-1
108673001_SIEVE w No 8 B-1 @ 10.0-11.5.xlsx
Coarse Fine Coarse Fine SILT CLAY
3" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 4 8 16 3 0 50 100 200 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Sample
Location Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
Depth
(ft) C
cCu USCS D60
B-2 0.0-5.0 --
Medium

GRAVEL SAND FINES
D30 D10
SM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 39
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 110 100

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

GRADATION TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MU RRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE C-2
108673001_SPLITSIEVE B-2 @ 0.0-5.0.xlsx
Coarse Fine Coarse Mediu m SILT CLAY 3" 2 " ¾" ½" Ǫ" 4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422

Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc

GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft) D30 Cu
Equivalent
USCS D60
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
B-3 17.5-19.0 -- -- -- -- -- CL -- -- -- 60

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
100.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 110 100

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE

NUMBERS HYDROMETER

GRADATION TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MU RRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE C-3
108673001_SIEVE w No 8 B-3 @ 17.5-19.0.xlsx

NP - INDICATES NON-PLASTIC
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH (ft) LIQUID
LIMIT

PLASTIC
LIMIT
ML
CL
ML
CL 13
NP
No. 40 Sieve)

PLASTICITY
INDEX

CLASSIFICATION

7.5-9.0 NP NP
Equivalent
USCS
B-1

35.0-36.5
USCS
(Fraction Finer Than
32 19 B-3
CH or OH
CL or OL MH or OH
ML or OL CL - ML
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

PLASTICITY INDEX, PI

LIQUID LIMIT, LL
FIGURE C-4

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MU RRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
108673001_ATTERBERGx2.xlsx
Seating Cycle Sample Location B-1
Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft) 5.0-6.5
Loading After Inundation Soil Type Silty SAND (SM)
Rebound Cycle
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)

STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE C-5
108673001_CONSOLIDATION B-1 @ 5.0-6.5.xlsx
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080
Sandy SILTSTONE X Ultimate 7.5-9.0 B-1
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees) Soil Type
Formation 28
28 190
Formation
Description Symbol Sample
Location
540
Depth
(ft)
Shear
Strength

7.5-9.0 Sandy SILTSTONE B-1 Peak
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

SHEAR STRESS (PSF)

NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
FIGURE C-6

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
108673001_DIRECT SHEAR B-1 @ 7.5-9.0.xlsx
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080
Silty SANDSTONE X Ultimate 5.0-6.5 B-2
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees) Soil Type
Formation 35
36 20
Formation
Description Symbol Sample
Location
40 Depth
(ft)
Shear
Strength

5.0-6.5 Silty SANDSTONE B-2 Peak
0 1000
2000
3000
0 1000 2000 3000

SHEAR STRESS (PSF)

NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
FIGURE C-7

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
108673001_DIRECT SHEAR B-2 @ 5.0-6.5.xlsx

PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH

INITIAL

MOISTURE
(percent)

COMPACTED DRY
DENSITY (pcf)

EXPANSION
INDEX

POTENTIAL

EXPANSION
FINAL

MOISTURE
(percent)

VOLUMETRIC
SWELL (in)
SAMPLE

LOCATION
B-1
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)

0.0-5.0 Very Low 21.0 0.002 2 8.5 116.6
UBC STANDARD 18-2
ASTM D 4829

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE C-8
108673001_EXPANSION - SD B-1 @ 0.0-5.0.xlsx
1 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643 2 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 3 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422 10 B-1 7.5-9.0
1,500 B-2

CHLORIDE
CONTENT 3
(ppm)
pH 1SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
SAMPLE

LOCATION
RESISTIVITY 1
(ohm-cm)

6.8 95
70 1,300 10 0.001

0.001 0.0-5.0 6.9
SULFATE CONTENT 2
(ppm) (%)

CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE C-9
108673001_CORROSIVITYx2.xlsx
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2844/CT 301 28 Silty SAND 0.0-5.0 B-1

SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH
(ft) SOIL TYPE R-VALUE

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD AND 25086 JEFFERSON AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 108673001 | 3/19
FIGURE C-10
108673001_RVTABLE1.xlsx

APPENDIX D
Liquefaction Analysis Results
Ninyo & Moore | Murrieta U-Haul Facility, Murrieta, California | 10 8673001 | March 25, 2019 11 128 15
36 134 50
21 125 50
23 128 50
20 132 5
27 131 5
32 130 5
22 125 5
32 125 50
51 125 5
48 125 5
58 125 5
LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civi ltech.com CivilTech Corporation

DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Murrieta U-Haul
108673001
Hole No.=B-1 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=1107 Magnitude =7.1 Acceleration=0.85g
Raw Unit Fines
SPT Weight % (ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1
Factor of Safety
0 5 1
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 1.93 in.
0 (in.) 10
fs1=1
14 118 39
20 130 25
29 133 20
19 127 20
13 120 20
16 120 NoLq
11 120 NoLq
28 125 20
35 125 20
68 125 20
LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civi ltech.com CivilTech Corporation

DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Murrieta U-Haul
108673001
Hole No.=B-2 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=1107 Magnitude =7.1 Acceleration=0.85g
Raw Unit Fines
SPT Weight % (ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1
Factor of Safety
0 5 1
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 3.85 in.
0 (in.) 10
fs1=1
11 127 20
6 120 20
13 127 20
15 125 20
22 130 NoLq
29 125 NoLq
20 123 NoLq
46 125 20
26 125 NoLq
15 125 NoLq
28 125 20
21 125 NoLq
12 125 5
LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civi ltech.com CivilTech Corporation

DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Murrieta U-Haul
108673001
Hole No.=B-3 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=1105 Magnitude =7.1 Acceleration=0.85g
Raw Unit Fines
SPT Weight % (ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1
Factor of Safety
0 5 1
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 3.72 in.
0 (in.) 10
fs1=1
0 0.415 120 14.53 0.582 36.03 0.753 64.39 0.941 130.9 1.006 132.1 1.039 112.2 1.142 96.8 1.321 90.81 1.516 88.61 1.800 89.32 2.006 89.05 2.352 88.96 2.687 85.97 2.156 86.14 1.990 84.56 2.050 81.21 2.080 82.53 2.117 89.4 2.156 74.69 2.353 116.2 2.798 121.3 2.977 115.3 3.129 104.9 3.286 93.19 3.351 86.23 3.368 76.28 3.390 70.29 3.336 67.03 3.162 67.47 2.947 67.38 2.536 68.88 2.295 73.64 2.438 74.61 2.526 71.43 2.586 63.42 2.498 51.7 2.382 62.63 2.245 49.77 2.142 61.83 2.140 75.66 2.138 82.97 2.196 87.82 2.317 93.9 2.290 103.1 2.188 109.0 2.048 111.2 1.863 107.7 1.706 104.0 1.599 97.42 1.468 89.23 1.426 80.51 1.426 72.49 1.426 65.71 1.443 61.13 1.549 57.17 1.619 48.89 1.643 42.81 1.630 38.4 1.613 38.14 1.604 35.67 1.523 32.5 1.458 31.18 1.449 30.3 1.449 31.09 1.462 31.89 1.509 33.12 1.556 33.74 1.612 34.53 1.709 34.88 1.780 34.35 1.632 33.3 1.264 30.56 1.054 28.89 1.110 28.27 1.163 27.92 1.205 26.91 1.230 25.9 1.233 24.22 1.22 23.78 1.201 23.08 1.171 22.55 1.108 22.28 1.015 22.37 0.912 22.11 0.856 21.93 0.826 22.2 0.802 22.99 0.786 23.96 0.780 24.75 0.796 25.19 0.806 26.51 0.830 28.71 0.856 31.71 0.884 35.76 0.881 39.73 0.885 42.19 0.972 44.04 1.087 45.98 1.200 49.33 1.305 53.2 1.391 57.25 1.448 60.86 1.473 63.07 1.475 65 1.506 67.03 1.555 68 1.678 68.26 1.815 67.47 1.846 64.56 1.891 60.69 2.228 59.98 2.330 59.37 2.519 58.66 2.667 58.75 2.834 60.6 2.951 61.92 3.064 62.45 3.156 63.33 3.255 63.95 3.334 65.27 3.444 65.36 3.502 63.95 3.541 62.98 2.853 60.78 2.080 59.1 2.373 58.93 2.598 59.9 2.790 58.93 2.939 58.93 3.105 62.27 3.242 64.39 3.334 65.8 3.390 65.45 3.445 65.49 3.487 65.49 3.512 65.53 3.507 65.71 3.487 66.68 3.403 68.97 3.454 71.79 3.433 71.26 3.473 71.26 3.425 70.2 3.346 68.62 3.293 59.98 3.187 56.46 3.114 55.49 3.075 53.47 3.033 53.29 3.030 52.85 3.050 52.85 2.991 52.58 2.903 127 60 52.06 2.846 53.11 2.873 56.02 2.895 59.46 2.887 60.78 2.847 57.78 2.785 54.08 2.728 51.79 2.71 51 2.71 49.94 2.562 50.82 1.953 48.8 1.974 50.65 1.880 56.99 1.857 62.19 1.910 53.55 1.988 60.42 2.026 55.32 1.973 50.91 1.867 51.26 1.693 47.48 1.651 51.62 1.673 60.69 1.758 71.26 1.863 87.64 1.975 101.0 2.026 110.5 2.032 116.8 1.987 120.4 1.893 117.9 1.728 113.1 1.577 104.0 1.465 97.68 1.623 88.26 1.588 80.95 1.639 72.93 1.762 60.34 1.997 55.05 2.109 54.08 2.16 53.55 2.227 50.47 2.263 49.77 2.302 51.26 2.341 56.02 2.333 56.2 2.326 54.52 2.324 50.91 2.303 45.63 2.240 42.72 1.642 40.87 0.849 39.73 1.128 38.49 1.272 38.49 1.437 38.49 1.669 38.49 1.861 38.32 1.952 36.91 1.987 34.97 2.004 34.18 1.987 34.92 1.945 34 1.910 34.88 1.699 34.97 1.150 35.06 1.318 34.7 1.432 34.79 1.628 35.32 1.828 36.82 1.999 38.14 2.009 38.23 1.966 39.2 1.970 44.39 1.886 51 1.598 55.67 1.110 54.52 1.472 51.97 1.675 47.65 1.858 130 39.46 2.05 40.52 2.140 39.11 2.198 38.05 2.206 37.79 2.209 37.52 2.165 37.61 2.119 37.52 2.073 37.52 1.982 37.96 1.930 37.35 1.808 36.38 1.777 37.17 1.757 35.14 1.730 36.99 1.928 43.51 2.103 55.84 2.097 73.55 2.510 86.94 3.121 102.4 3.665 129.8 4.008 129.4 3.997 121.4 3.968 102.0 3.967 92.66 3.954 81.21 3.917 79.98 3.825 76.02 3.592 64.83 2.976 50.03 2.307 42.9 2.164 39.81 2.062 36.03 1.867 35.23 1.754 35.76 1.553 34.88 1.450 33.65 1.427 32.94 1.397 32.06 1.351 31.27 1.315 31 1.270 31 1.236 31 1.210 31.8 1.306 33.03 1.356 32.15 1.263 31.62 1.243 30.83 1.201 30.74 1.164 29.95 1.155 29.95 1.163 29.95 1.169 30.3 1.195 31.71 1.227 32.77 1.240 33.12 1.272 34.18 1.351 35.41 1.484 37.26 1.630 39.28 1.836 41.4 1.981 48.53 2.296 56.55 2.664 61.57 2.849 58.75 2.893 51.18 1.999 46.77 1.710 39.28 1.604 35.06 1.538 31.71 1.467 30.65 1.428 31.84 1.288 31.27 1.183 31.97 1.108 32.06 1.106 32.15 1.104 124 32.33 1.133 32.85 1.253 34.35 1.578 36.91 1.912 47.83 2.447 60.6 2.721 74.61 3.075 81.04 3.377 79.8 3.591 73.02 3.554 65.27 3.176 57.08 2.724 49.15 2.401 42.81 2.152 37.7 1.982 35.94 2.051 39.99 2.172 46.33 2.346 55.49 2.653 71.52 2.992 88.26 3.387 103.5 3.814 113.7 4.286 112.4 4.630 99.71 4.702 81.21 4.409 65 3.870 52.32 3.348 44.22 2.183 38.23 1.262 34.44 1.234 33.12 1.186 34.57 1.128 28.63 1.155 34.7 1.183 34.62 1.273 34.62 1.350 34.62 1.477 34.79 1.473 35.14 1.572 35.85 1.631 35.85 1.634 35.23 1.634 34.88 1.634 35.06 1.637 35.41 1.641 36.2 1.716 37.7 1.793 39.64 1.658 43.78 1.776 49.33 2.460 58.4 2.967 71.43 3.423 81.48 3.832 113.7 4.197 124.6 4.315 139.3 4.282 146.9 4.141 156.8 3.847 161.6 3.651 164.8 3.407 167.0 3.274 168.0 3.245 169.9 3.280 171.1 3.338 173.0 3.447 174.8 3.540 175.7 3.640 176.3 3.673 176.6 3.698 177.8 3.701 179.6 3.708 181.1 3.718 185.4 3.751 191.4 3.799 198.3 3.858 206.1 3.954 215.9 4.061 229.1 4.158 246.6 4.267 266.9 4.342 287.5 4.374 301.3 4.350 318.1 4.282 330.4 3.890 343.9 2.661 350.8 2.467 358.5 1.860 367.6 1.465 362.9 1.722 372.6 2.093 386.3 2.658 354.1 2.992 404.0 3.398 402.2 3.715 402.2 3.063 401.0 2.291 398.0 2.528 393.0 2.707 389.5 2.866 387.4 2.911 379.9 2.855 377.2 2.734 371 2.711 365.3 2.737 360.2 2.790 361.1 2.833 361.9 2.851 361.2 2.839 354.6 2.736 350.3 2.532 343.7 2.261 341.8 2.017 323.9 1.727 312.1 1.496 300.6 1.327 289 1.071 274.3 0.752 263.6 0.812 249.1 0.938 240.2 1.094 214.5 1.386 198.6 1.849 189.5 2.165 167.2 2.622 140.2 2.998 127.0 3.311 107.4 3.582 97.24 3.807 88.7 4.064 84.38 4.241 78.66 4.299 77.34 4.196 74.87 4.028 69.85 3.674 66.06 3.381 62.63 3.136 60.07 2.787 56.9 2.285 54.52 1.070 53.03 0.601 51.26 0.653 50.12 0.715 49.59 0.770 49.94 0.872 48.8 1.034 56.46 1.235 57.87 1.372 60.34 1.525 61.92 1.652 64.04 1.873 66.33 2.126 68.88 2.421 70.99 2.661 73.46 2.893 74.78 3.197 75.13 3.468 74.25 3.658 72.4 3.725 63.68 3.705 58.84 3.680 47.65 3.348 41.05 2.986 36.47 2.688 33.65 2.417 29.95 2.083 26.95 1.87 26.91 1.715 26.91 1.620 26.87 1.581 29.16 1.562 31.89 1.540 32.06 1.504 31.36 1.376 30.04 1.229 28.19 1.169 27.22 1.182 26.51 1.167 25.54 1.158 26.29 1.144 26.07 1.100 27.66 1.080 28.27 1.081 27.04 1.081 25.54 1.071 23.61 1.081 22.02 1.148 24.13 1.053 26.51 0.880 26.34 0.955 26.25 1.024 27.31 1.056 28.54 1.067 29.16 1.075 30.12 1.068 29.42 1.027 28.19 0.961 26.87 0.899 26.51 0.869 25.72 0.835 24.66 0.809 23.25 0.763 22.64 0.728 22.11 0.689 21.49 0.651 20.96 0.636 20.7 0.616 20.35 0.597 19.99 0.583 20.08 0.548 20.17 0.524 20.17 0.518 20.08 0.519 19.91 0.506 19.73 0.455 19.47 0.427 19.11 0.415 18.85 0.418 18.85 0.407 18.76 0.395 18.67 0.397 18.67 0.403 18.41 0.340 18.23 0.231 17.97 0.295 17.7 0.335 17.26 0.351 17.22 0.372 17 0.39 17.18 0.381 16.65 0.338 16.47 0.315 16.12 0.264 15.41 0.153 14.97 0.129 14.01 0.110 12.95 0.095 12.07 0.095 11.1 0.108 10.83 0.161 11.19 0.251 12.42 0.370 13.92 0.457 16.82 0.501 18.15 0.473 18.59 0.439 18.76 0.476 18.15 0.591 18.19 0.736 18.19 0.872 18.23 1.026 20.79 1.151 25.28 1.319 31.36 1.490 40.61 1.676 57.61 1.930 65.45 2.056 69.76 2.046 72.49 1.374 73.46 1.584 73.81 1.902 72.76 2.147 69.67 2.509 71.92 2.633 71.08 2.808 67.12 2.971 62.98 3.132 67.47 3.338 63.95 3.454 67.82 3.542 68.09 3.564 65.36 3.579 64.12 3.562 66.06 3.562 73.2 3.595 77.86 3.627 79.63 3.651 78.48 3.727 74.78 3.818 73.2 3.902 71.26 3.356 69.5 2.891 65.89 3.232 62.98 3.465 61.83 3.641 63.16 3.774 79.19 3.902 83.68 3.918 92.57 3.855 98.56 3.753 105.6 3.656 112.9 3.528 114.5 3.457 111.0 3.446 101.2 3.488 93.01 3.539 80.15 3.589 68.88 3.537 62.27 3.436 53.73 3.246 47.04 2.995 43.07 2.817 37.96 2.506 35.59 2.173 35.14 1.976 35.54 1.923 34.7 1.915 35.5 1.886 36.82 2.119 41.22 2.381 48.01 2.617 60.78 2.859 80.07 3.118 122.6 3.160 157.0 3.075 187.0 3.298 231.3 3.220 251.3 3.308 262.4 3.322 263.5 3.309 264.5 3.225 261.5 3.192 253.5 3.275 245.3 3.534 235.1 3.906 230.7 4.317 225.4 4.789 215.9 5.248 211.3 5.221 215.8 5.344 212.4 5.808 215.8 6.086 212.5 6.284 223.2 6.371 244.3 6.499 251.3 6.504 258.6 6.561 265.9 6.652 273.5 6.749 280.3 6.825 287.5 6.898 292.0 6.954 298.6 7.039 303.8 7.068 308.1 7.007 308.4 6.844 305.8 6.590 299.3 6.227 288.5 5.819 267.1 5.431 250.5 5.431 234.7 5.431 220.9 5.500 208.8 6.056 204.3 6.416 203.6 5.948 204.9 5.058 209.9 5.441 220.4 5.711 230.9 5.847 233.2 5.820 241.2 5.461 245.3 5.251 249.7 4.889 252.1 4.624 251.3 4.303 247.6 3.876 241.7 3.417 234.2 3.141 224.9 3.042 215.2 3.039 204.2 3.038 193.0 3.084 177.1 2.81 162.6 2.438 148.7 2.985 121.7 3.675 104.2 4.129 83.68 4.339 74.17 4.057 66.77 3.769 60.6 3.607 53.64 3.500 49.24 3.496 46.16 3.49 63.86 3.495 88.96 3.574 129.3 3.753 161.8 3.973 185.9 4.231 218.7 4.540 235.9 4.612 258.2 4.697 274.2 4.730 286.0 4.686 295.8 4.530 305.5 4.080 311.2 3.556 312.7 2.955 311.6 2.430 308.3 2.107 305.6 2.019 301.5 2.098 294.9 2.359 274.3 3.106 241.1 3.694 211.8 4.017 176.6 4.470 145.6 4.879 122.5 5.235 114.8 5.650 113.4 5.727 110.1 5.671 103.3 5.772 89.49 5.783 80.42 5.79 68.88 5.585 69.32 5.249 64.39 4.600 60.16 4.251 54.17 3.612 48.89 3.116 46.07 2.799 41.75 2.245 39.46 1.814 36.82 1.707 34.97 1.600 33.12 1.452 32.24 1.355 31.36 1.237 31.62 1.191 31.8 1.224 33.03 1.375 35.41 1.552 38.58 1.729 42.63 1.93 46.16 2.165 50.03 2.627 53.64 3.015 59.37 3.371 68.26 3.766 79.89 4.115 95.48 4.314 99.89 4.445 92.49 4.598 83.59 4.624 77.07 4.745 77.07 4.865 77.07 2.614 89.49 2.522 116.0 3.192 158.4 3.62 216.8 3.864 318.0 3.916 330.3 3.754 373.3 3.634 377.9 3.652 LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civi ltech.com CivilTech Corporation

DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Murrieta U-Haul
108673001
Hole No.=CPT-1 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=1105 Magnitud e=7.1 Acceleration=0.85g
Raw Unit Fines
qc fc Weight % (ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1
Factor of Safety
0 5 1
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 0.38 in.
0 (in.) 1
fs1=1
0 0.505 127 17.8 0.924 11.28 1.067 7.31 0.997 11.99 0.759 54.11 0.569 72.35 0.591 75.17 0.529 78.96 0.394 64.77 0.424 56.84 0.422 50.94 0.433 34.81 0.444 27.76 0.345 22.38 0.261 19.39 0.214 16.48 0.214 14.36 0.242 13.04 0.272 11.19 0.291 10.31 0.304 9.87 0.313 9.08 0.284 8.46 0.273 7.84 0.262 7.23 0.224 7.14 0.157 6.79 0.109 6.43 0.127 6.52 0.134 6.08 0.136 6.08 0.144 6.08 0.150 6.08 0.152 5.9 0.157 5.82 0.167 5.82 0.179 5.73 0.196 5.73 0.197 5.73 0.198 5.55 0.198 5.82 0.199 6.7 0.199 8.2 0.196 11.54 0.194 16.04 0.198 19.39 0.210 20 0.233 18.24 0.244 16.48 0.255 14.72 0.266 13.57 0.273 12.34 0.293 11.99 0.309 11.99 0.320 12.16 0.320 12.6 0.321 11.99 0.317 12.25 0.306 11.46 0.287 10.66 0.263 10.71 0.271 10.75 0.258 10.75 0.265 11.9 0.295 11.28 0.292 11.99 0.279 13.84 0.270 17.98 0.247 20.97 0.220 21.77 0.197 22.12 0.175 21.94 0.127 21.59 0.064 20.36 0.065 19.48 0.066 18.51 0.068 17.27 0.070 15.86 0.071 15.6 0.078 14.8 0.089 13.84 0.101 13.04 0.113 12.07 0.124 11.72 0.127 11.54 0.136 11.46 0.149 11.37 0.168 12.07 0.178 12.07 0.213 12.51 0.242 13.48 0.266 14.72 0.298 15.51 0.319 17.18 0.413 19.92 0.542 23.53 0.712 25.91 0.800 29.96 1.021 31.37 1.099 33.22 1.240 34.37 1.498 35.43 1.637 35.6 1.681 35.69 1.693 35.95 1.721 35.6 1.715 35.6 1.263 35.6 1.037 36.04 1.161 37.36 1.314 37.54 1.470 36.13 1.598 32.78 1.709 33.84 1.784 33.13 1.848 33.05 1.887 33.4 1.902 33.4 1.909 32.96 1.910 33.13 1.910 34.02 1.917 35.78 1.989 37.72 2.042 40.27 2.172 41.33 2.292 42.48 2.418 42.83 2.471 43.18 2.494 44.5 2.585 47.06 2.706 49 2.784 49.26 2.809 49 2.818 49 2.815 49 2.813 48.91 2.813 49.17 2.787 49.44 2.493 49.44 2.195 49.17 2.238 48.82 2.241 48.29 2.231 46.79 2.226 48.29 2.218 47.41 2.347 48.29 2.501 49.7 2.623 51.46 2.650 52.7 2.653 53.49 2.708 52.87 2.790 52.26 2.783 52.21 2.756 52.21 2.765 52.17 2.737 53.05 2.802 55.87 2.861 58.96 2.895 61.16 2.993 62.22 3.060 61.51 3.094 60.01 3.085 58.96 3.019 57.9 2.876 55.96 2.773 53.93 2.766 55.74 2.706 54.46 2.802 55.52 2.861 56.75 2.902 56.84 2.915 55.52 3.034 55.52 3.114 56.14 3.204 55.43 3.214 54.28 3.082 53.23 2.998 50.58 2.901 47.68 2.734 46.44 2.627 46.35 2.556 45.12 2.549 46.22 2.546 44.86 2.552 46.09 2.620 47.94 2.736 50.85 2.875 56.75 3.061 63.36 3.158 73.5 3.315 85.92 3.243 115.6 3.114 130.2 3.089 138.4 3.089 136.4 3.090 131.5 3.043 116.4 2.966 95.97 2.917 80.02 2.909 63.19 2.887 56.14 2.842 52.87 2.763 52.96 2.411 54.11 2.026 54.37 1.953 54.55 1.910 54.99 1.943 54.02 1.996 53.4 2.009 52.96 1.962 52.79 1.986 52.52 2.075 54.99 2.200 56.05 2.305 62.22 2.507 73.06 2.650 90.06 2.903 113.2 3.647 118.4 3.979 122.9 4.464 116.1 4.721 100.5 4.587 88.39 4.345 83.98 4.092 80.99 3.920 107.3 3.820 158.4 3.885 198.9 4.110 220.9 4.471 239.7 5.217 250.3 5.870 254.8 6.244 253.3 6.604 254.5 6.628 267.9 6.488 268.1 6.133 254.2 5.662 229.9 5.122 203.6 4.485 171.1 4.018 139.2 3.684 110.6 3.475 92.09 3.480 87.42 3.484 83.37 3.482 85.66 3.481 83.01 3.428 72.17 2.448 64.07 2.457 59.4 2.264 54.73 1.833 59.26 1.677 48.91 1.632 59.13 1.582 59.84 1.583 56.75 1.602 55.34 1.661 54.11 1.599 51.46 1.528 48.38 1.452 47.32 1.345 47.37 1.346 47.41 1.395 50.5 1.433 51.38 1.417 49.35 1.391 47.32 1.365 45.74 1.338 47.5 1.283 45.12 1.292 47.68 1.307 49.61 1.412 50.76 1.478 51.11 1.533 48.73 1.515 44.41 1.414 40.89 1.333 37.63 1.248 36.31 1.208 37.1 1.129 39.22 1.109 41.68 1.163 45.12 1.162 48.12 1.188 50.14 1.192 51.38 1.256 51.46 1.310 52.87 1.373 52.35 1.415 54.2 1.590 56.58 1.707 56.4 1.75 55.34 1.754 54.02 1.751 51.55 1.737 49.79 1.691 48.12 1.608 47.15 1.534 46.35 1.442 45.21 1.350 44.15 1.322 45.12 1.321 43 1.312 45.03 1.353 48.65 1.246 51.55 1.329 56.49 1.733 58.87 2.086 58.07 2.227 53.93 2.263 53.14 2.211 49.61 2.077 44.77 1.859 42.83 1.626 43.09 1.421 42.92 1.287 40.8 1.163 38.51 1.080 36.92 1.043 35.87 1.033 34.99 1.030 34.54 1.022 33.93 0.999 34.02 0.959 34.37 0.944 34.99 0.929 35.51 0.931 36.75 0.984 37.63 1.130 41.51 1.368 49.7 1.688 61.95 2.082 72.26 2.492 76.05 2.775 71.91 2.853 62.48 2.842 56.22 2.715 50.58 2.399 46.62 2.064 43.8 1.804 41.15 1.619 38.78 1.515 36.75 0.939 34.9 0.708 33.66 0.801 33.31 0.91 32.43 0.970 32.61 0.991 32.78 1.053 32.61 1.166 33.22 1.226 38.6 1.449 45.3 1.725 53.84 2.049 62.57 2.453 71.47 2.907 80.28 3.303 94.38 3.739 106.2 3.823 115.2 3.814 122.6 3.742 127.2 3.647 132.0 3.557 137.3 3.481 142.9 3.402 148.2 3.323 152.9 3.242 155.9 3.126 155.1 3.088 151.8 3.197 146.9 3.401 141.3 3.699 136.4 4 128.9 4.3 124.8 4.402 120.2 4.493 126.2 4.525 133.0 4.500 150.8 4.391 166.7 4.157 177.4 3.861 183.0 3.637 183.9 3.554 181.6 3.449 175.8 3.404 166.8 3.186 155.8 2.566 143.2 3.027 129.4 2.832 114.9 3.281 101.4 3.468 90.06 3.575 93.59 3.729 86.8 4.044 82.93 4.243 84.78 4.521 90.5 4.758 94.91 4.914 93.68 4.963 88.65 4.785 80.11 4.409 70.85 4.068 62.3 3.699 56.49 3.362 62.57 3.405 55.78 3.620 62.83 3.834 93.59 4.203 116.4 4.346 125.8 4.428 146.6 4.753 157.0 4.858 160.4 4.946 164.8 5.128 163.8 5.251 157.9 4.289 144.5 2.664 129.9 3.127 128.2 3.437 138.9 3.708 161.8 3.720 162.6 3.714 200.7 3.758 216.1 3.710 231.1 3.616 234.6 3.615 229.4 3.602 225.5 3.701 227.5 4.03 226.8 4.548 207.7 4.959 191.4 5.408 174.5 5.711 159.6 5.910 150.1 6.183 159.2 6.453 155.3 6.679 158.7 6.835 163.6 7.133 169.4 7.415 167.8 5.939 150.7 4.451 130.1 4.727 111.3 4.934 96.94 4.905 78.34 4.792 81.07 4.563 79.05 4.220 75.88 3.852 71.56 3.611 68.56 3.383 66.71 3.065 66.45 3.069 67.5 3.105 68.03 3.208 66.18 3.180 63.36 3.207 62.57 3.275 60.89 3.139 58.34 2.860 55.96 2.681 54.02 2.487 50.94 2.255 48.03 2.121 46.88 2.121 46.88 2.117 46.88 2.113 47.85 2.207 49.09 2.141 49.88 2.079 49.17 2.072 47.41 2.048 45.3 1.832 44.77 1.777 43.45 1.759 42.12 1.811 40.71 1.560 40.71 1.210 40.71 1.735 43.97 2.196 43.8 2.651 65.65 2.853 72.79 3.239 82.04 3.656 93.15 3.937 100.9 3.927 100.2 3.676 90.15 3.402 77.11 3.218 71.29 3.198 61.25 3.167 54.28 3.058 50.41 2.754 48.2 2.576 45.82 2.343 44.68 2.066 44.59 1.746 44.15 1.542 42.3 1.464 37.45 1.533 33.58 1.597 31.46 1.647 35.95 1.778 40.98 1.806 42.83 1.837 44.5 2.059 43.89 2.331 49.53 2.565 61.25 2.648 65.57 1.795 66.62 1.371 64.07 1.718 64.07 1.994 62.13 2.237 61.42 2.287 66.71 2.236 66.62 2.164 62.92 2.049 58.78 1.935 55.17 1.864 52.87 1.798 51.91 1.792 52.17 1.805 51.99 1.812 49.97 1.806 48.12 1.833 47.59 1.819 46.09 1.750 44.59 1.414 43.53 0.957 43 1.101 42.74 1.254 42.83 1.287 42.3 1.381 45.38 1.492 46.88 1.466 45.12 1.357 42.74 1.23 41.42 1.145 40.45 1.102 38.16 1.045 36.75 0.976 35.69 0.913 34.99 0.884 34.19 0.872 33.84 0.864 33.13 0.863 32.34 0.852 31.99 0.818 31.64 0.768 31.11 0.692 30.67 0.669 29.61 0.563 28.29 0.526 27.67 0.524 26.88 0.522 26.44 0.567 27.32 0.686 28.64 0.793 32.43 1.005 35.07 1.276 37.45 1.546 40.1 1.800 41.77 2.01 42.56 2.127 42.83 2.143 42.12 2.026 40.1 1.463 37.54 1.339 35.43 1.470 34.19 1.467 32.25 1.425 31.02 1.312 27.67 1.269 30.32 1.204 30.14 1.180 29.96 1.121 30.4 1.066 31.02 1.037 31.2 1.014 31.11 1.001 30.93 0.676 31.37 0.455 31.46 0.523 31.9 0.623 32.34 0.751 32.43 0.919 34.02 1.146 35.78 1.343 37.28 1.506 37.98 1.581 39.57 1.676 41.07 1.687 42.65 1.743 44.77 1.767 46.88 1.684 46.44 1.653 46.35 1.684 46.53 1.681 45.82 1.739 46.79 1.846 49.26 2.037 52.26 2.311 53.67 2.443 56.31 2.775 63.01 3.120 74.11 3.51 88.39 4.209 98.7 4.714 96.41 4.855 82.57 4.619 68.65 3.915 59.04 3.503 51.2 3.114 46 3.022 50.85 3.026 48.91 3.005 50.5 2.986 53.58 2.984 55.25 2.946 56.84 2.811 58.87 3.563 64.6 4.173 75.26 4.682 89.45 5.189 119.6 5.824 135.1 6.129 152.2 6.224 161.8 6.184 182.8 5.924 206.4 5.569 221.8 5.247 222.8 4.933 215.6 4.722 201.7 4.938 179.5 4.774 152.7 5.005 126.1 5.203 104.2 5.175 89.01 4.889 79.05 4.481 71.2 4.204 65.92 4.046 52.43 3.556 52.48 3.450 52.48 3.337 52.52 3.335 55.78 3.439 61.51 3.790 70.85 4.207 81.16 4.706 87.6 5.113 88.48 5.378 86.01 5.559 82.57 5.716 86.54 5.782 82.13 5.842 87.07 6.011 92.88 6.222 101.2 6.329 107.7 6.453 126.1 6.064 151.4 5.099 178.7 5.386 205.6 5.476 223.3 5.474 220.7 5.286 227.6 5.015 237.5 4.898 236 4.896 225.8 4.901 216.1 4.907 205.4 4.923 199.8 3.997 187.5 2.807 174.0 3.009 158.5 3.371 141 3.736 122.8 4.110 103.4 4.391 98.08 4.585 80.02 4.648 65.65 4.468 57.11 4.041 50.32 3.468 44.77 2.904 38.25 2.493 32.96 2.164 30.23 1.832 29.26 1.484 28.82 1.167 28.64 0.888 28.64 0.745 28.64 0.704 28.64 0.706 28.73 0.77 29.26 0.947 30.58 1.186 33.49 1.448 39.48 1.676 51.91 1.694 70.94 1.704 93.68 2.130 112.9 3.102 108.5 3.734 109.3 4.064 105.9 4.187 100.3 4.201 90.06 4.305 80.55 4.548 88.87 4.727 76.76 4.823 87.68 4.865 100.2 4.889 108.7 4.88 109.8 4.748 101.7 4.388 85.31 4.056 69.18 3.643 57.99 3.282 50.14 2.847 45.65 2.726 41.15 2.162 36.57 1.746 41.29 2.123 36.31 2.329 41.42 2.922 33.31 3.084 60.54 3.499 71.12 3.879 83.28 4.150 91.12 4.207 87.07 3.977 73.85 3.337 66.98 2.977 56.14 2.463 48.82 2.222 43.53 2.222 36.84 2.223 43.14 2.232 36.13 2.321 42.74 2.473 51.02 2.835 58.6 3.293 65.21 3.808 70.59 4.246 75.79 4.444 78.26 4.119 76.05 3.439 73.32 3.041 65.48 2.553 57.28 2.518 50.41 2.553 44.68 2.538 44.9 2.617 45.12 2.823 50.67 3.132 58.43 3.772 62.74 3.948 75.08 4.564 92.09 5.208 LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civi ltech.com CivilTech Corporation

DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Murrieta U-Haul
108673001
Hole No.=CPT-2 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=1108 Magnitud e=7.1 Acceleration=0.85g
Raw Unit Fines
qc fc Weight % (ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1
Factor of Safety
0 5 1
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 0.91 in.
0 (in.) 1
fs1=1

0.53 1.196 120 70.41 1.282 67.24 1.396 91.56 1.507 74.03 1.498 63.71 1.498 197.9 1.377 247.6 1.358 242.0 1.459 216.7 1.433 183.0 1.526 122.2 1.661 101.9 1.715 78.43 1.673 63.1 1.614 55.43 1.560 45.65 1.585 36.66 1.645 33.84 1.696 34.81 1.799 40.45 1.872 41.6 1.863 43.01 1.794 41.6 1.762 40.71 1.881 39.48 1.958 33.4 2.043 35.87 2.054 35.87 2.021 35.87 1.955 35.6 1.900 34.02 1.854 33.22 1.832 32.69 1.793 32.78 1.775 32.25 1.753 32.34 1.773 33.93 1.768 33.31 1.787 32.17 1.800 32.25 1.792 30.32 1.757 29.7 1.667 28.82 1.557 27.76 1.437 26.88 1.293 25.29 1.090 24.5 0.978 23.71 0.866 23 0.762 22.38 0.674 21.77 0.605 20.89 0.600 21.81 0.632 21.24 0.681 21.86 0.717 22.91 0.688 23.44 0.640 22.47 0.597 20.71 0.539 18.68 0.449 14.54 0.396 17.1 0.337 16.13 0.284 15.86 0.279 14.98 0.276 14.72 0.275 15.51 0.399 20.53 0.535 24.68 0.660 27.14 0.726 32.87 0.903 28.38 1.03 27.41 1.162 26.97 1.295 29.26 1.502 31.73 1.609 39.39 1.859 50.67 2.141 61.6 2.328 70.24 2.445 78.78 2.492 87.33 2.490 98.52 2.48 110.9 2.447 119.4 2.379 122.9 2.281 121.7 2.040 119.5 1.855 118.0 1.773 118.6 1.681 120.2 1.546 121.7 1.377 116.7 1.307 128.4 1.306 134.0 1.433 137.8 1.621 138.7 1.807 137.8 1.860 134.0 1.937 134.6 1.971 136.7 1.968 138.7 1.907 139.9 1.834 140.9 1.745 141.5 1.673 141.2 1.636 143.0 1.642 147.5 1.791 152.6 1.912 159.1 2.139 163.0 2.531 162.9 3.064 161.8 3.702 163.4 4.092 165.1 4.097 166.0 4.099 162.8 4.170 158.3 4.301 146.3 4.494 139.7 4.640 123.1 4.584 93.15 4.249 79.22 3.895 71.38 3.493 66.8 3.187 63.54 2.933 60.28 2.664 59.48 2.210 59.57 2.042 59.22 1.983 58.16 2.044 56.49 2.179 54.29 2.388 53.23 2.535 51.11 2.635 49.26 2.717 48.12 2.727 48.03 2.721 47.32 2.725 47.85 2.683 48.38 2.773 49.26 2.801 50.06 2.808 51.2 2.850 54.2 3.083 55.87 3.297 58.43 3.469 60.54 3.527 60.81 3.318 58.78 1.795 58.87 2.14 57.99 2.369 57.99 2.499 57.28 2.623 56.93 2.826 59.66 3.078 61.25 3.248 64.33 3.484 64.86 3.503 64.51 3.531 64.77 3.625 65.12 3.670 64.51 3.618 63.63 3.620 61.51 3.595 61.07 3.599 61.47 3.602 60.81 3.644 61.42 3.720 62.75 3.759 63.27 3.841 63.63 3.886 63.71 3.927 64.24 3.944 65.21 3.992 65.48 4.046 65.48 4.163 66.8 4.251 68.47 4.396 72.17 4.587 72.53 4.667 73.94 4.866 75.7 5.037 78.17 3.778 81.78 3.152 85.75 3.772 89.01 4.349 92 4.686 89.18 4.870 91.61 5.095 89.36 5.394 91.21 5.546 92.18 5.635 94.65 5.696 93.68 5.710 93.41 5.749 93.41 5.83 92.44 5.913 91.21 5.990 92.88 6.076 95.53 6.114 97.64 6.142 97.55 6.285 99.41 6.362 104.5 6.376 112.7 6.370 123.1 5.733 135.1 4.940 144.4 4.814 147.9 4.676 147.5 4.558 141.4 4.327 141.4 4.032 141 3.740 139.0 3.472 140.0 3.272 144.7 3.117 151.1 2.947 156.8 2.706 163.9 2.412 170.8 2.135 176.8 1.927 181.9 1.810 184.9 1.687 187.1 1.643 190.4 1.584 193.3 1.599 197.4 1.637 201.8 1.685 205.7 1.727 207.0 1.765 208.7 1.781 210.4 1.819 210.4 1.822 210.2 1.823 210.8 1.684 213.2 1.601 218.0 1.677 222.8 1.751 226.6 1.804 230.2 1.831 230.8 1.831 231.4 1.827 235.7 1.846 237.8 1.899 240.1 1.953 242.1 1.986 244.2 2.024 247.0 2.072 249.3 2.117 251.3 2.165 252.3 2.214 250.1 2.284 246.4 1.909 243.4 1.686 243.5 1.79 243.5 1.841 243.6 1.847 242.7 1.856 244.2 1.869 241.9 1.869 244.9 1.868 248.0 1.879 249.2 1.881 246.7 1.862 242.4 1.825 235.1 1.788 224.8 1.773 210.3 1.789 198.4 1.827 185.0 1.943 176.2 2.156 164.5 2.654 153.6 3.159 140.8 3.557 130.2 3.829 112.6 4.011 99.76 4.146 98.88 4.192 105.7 4.202 118.9 4.287 134.5 4.584 150.3 4.991 166.3 5.184 182.7 4.560 195.4 4.624 203.2 4.641 214.8 4.475 198.7 4.209 219.3 3.796 229.4 3.235 228.9 2.734 223.5 2.775 215.5 2.710 204.7 2.656 191.0 2.960 178.7 3.370 171.5 3.618 170.3 3.711 172.4 3.598 183.3 3.577 194.5 3.426 201.1 3.101 198.0 2.740 201.8 2.195 202.3 1.799 196.1 1.535 187.5 1.675 175.9 1.960 158.6 2.228 136.5 2.440 108.2 2.614 98.88 2.676 84.42 2.728 78.7 2.673 78.96 2.677 79.75 2.747 79.31 2.802 81.96 2.795 83.01 2.745 75.96 2.648 67.59 2.521 60.81 2.021 55.43 1.539 60.41 1.477 57.55 1.633 60.01 1.787 57.24 1.871 56.93 1.882 61.34 2.036 65.3 2.148 88.3 2.396 110.4 2.495 138.7 2.529 168.5 2.578 193.9 2.687 212.2 2.792 220.1 2.882 226.9 2.874 235.8 2.840 241.3 2.799 245.6 2.702 247.3 2.581 248.6 1.896 247.2 1.336 243.4 1.366 237.0 1.467 227.3 1.695 214.1 2.027 144.0 2.303 182.3 2.989 172.7 3.245 159.3 3.735 155.8 4.362 159.4 5.185 153.6 5.430 159.6 5.443 169.9 5.276 183.6 4.947 198.7 4.462 210 3.985 204.1 3.518 188.5 3.146 164.4 2.919 135.0 2.846 105.1 2.719 93.59 2.590 74.2 2.314 52.43 1.874 45.83 1.59 43.45 1.450 39.04 1.124 36.57 1.073 38.73 1.081 36.4 1.015 38.42 0.984 40.1 1.060 40.89 1.178 39.57 1.344 41.11 1.558 41.33 1.745 44.94 1.731 47.68 1.720 50.23 1.906 54.46 2.405 57.46 2.787 65.48 3.271 70.5 3.688 74.73 3.919 78.78 3.994 80.81 3.956 83.81 3.829 91.47 3.721 102.6 3.720 119.7 3.733 132.8 3.728 138.8 3.787 138.5 3.847 135.3 3.929 130.9 4.081 126.5 4.274 120.4 4.503 113.4 4.739 103.9 4.877 91.83 4.798 78.87 4.441 68.03 3.826 58.52 3.248 51.73 2.783 45.47 1.933 40.19 1.445 38.86 1.415 38.95 1.478 39.04 1.433 39.39 1.686 25.91 1.944 45.3 2.201 52.26 2.487 64.86 2.906 81.52 3.156 100.9 3.852 120.7 4.477 141.4 5.022 156.6 5.192 176.2 5.193 200.3 5.083 228.6 4.844 248.1 4.435 251.3 3.948 242.6 3.528 224.0 3.338 199.5 3.338 168.5 3.364 138.8 3.425 112.4 3.382 90.86 3.285 74.99 2.538 63.36 2.201 56.14 2.309 51.02 2.327 47.5 2.325 45.12 2.152 36.84 2.000 39.04 2.002 34.81 1.993 31.2 1.913 30.05 1.820 30.32 1.707 30.76 1.619 29.26 1.583 30.58 1.586 29.43 1.621 30.4 1.652 31.46 1.615 32.78 1.610 33.84 1.617 34.28 1.581 34.37 1.633 34.99 1.605 35.78 1.693 36.48 1.796 37.72 1.809 38.69 1.671 38.95 1.622 38.33 1.621 38.07 1.620 38.29 1.632 37.54 1.721 38.25 2.313 39.74 2.320 44.42 2.341 52.88 3.008 66.98 3.887 85.92 4.616 60.45 5.174 136.8 5.932 136.5 6.422 129.8 6.651 129.0 6.747 134.8 6.696 144.6 6.604 155.8 6.556 165.5 6.542 174.0 6.503 180.4 6.569 186.2 5.409 192.9 4.291 198.7 4.497 206.5 4.803 214.3 5.165 212.7 5.463 256.8 5.973 262.4 6.404 267.2 6.804 270.0 7.217 277.1 7.585 286.6 7.786 303.7 7.972 307.8 7.974 303.1 7.975 300.9 7.976 292.4 8.009 273.5 8.259 264.6 8.412 230.7 8.666 209.5 8.940 188.0 9.278 166.2 9.355 144 8.929 133.5 8.354 122.8 7.698 109.2 7.239 95 6.814 84.16 6.369 80.63 5.859 78.26 5.296 73.67 4.529 69.18 3.52 64.86 2.216 61.16 1.239 58.07 1.615 56.49 1.814 56.75 1.885 56.14 1.942 50.67 2.19 58.52 2.422 58.6 2.653 59.04 2.779 59.13 2.977 58.78 3.251 60.98 3.502 66.8 3.613 76.76 3.581 92.27 3.560 115.0 3.635 141.4 3.847 174.8 4.174 204.2 4.557 228.7 4.893 249.4 5.084 270.6 5.154 295.2 5.164 317.5 5.050 330.1 4.732 332.3 4.306 327.1 3.803 310.2 3.435 289.7 3.512 256.6 3.753 221.5 3.724 191.5 3.645 159.8 3.889 146.9 4.068 138.1 4.276 127.5 4.389 133.4 4.854 142.9 5.979 171.6 6.809 212.2 8.056 260.4 10.02 269.7 10.86 260.7 12.37 257.4 13.14 256.5 13.40 256.3 13.33 238.1 12.83 211.1 11.48 177.1 9.969 153.0 8.371 116.3 6.091 107.6 5.383 86.63 3.620 76.05 3.025 68.65 2.490 63.01 2.072 58.78 1.820 54.37 1.521 52.52 1.209 51.64 1.094 51.29 1.145 51.47 1.209 50.85 1.25 45.3 1.274 54.46 1.298 54.2 1.307 52.52 1.317 51.82 1.334 52.43 1.366 52.96 1.388 53.32 1.419 54.29 1.536 54.99 1.593 55.78 1.635 55.61 1.680 55.96 1.704 56.93 1.737 55.43 1.77 54.64 1.804 54.55 1.822 54.99 1.845 56.22 1.879 56.66 1.923 57.63 1.946 56.22 1.948 55.25 1.973 55.08 2.016 55.78 2.062 57.11 2.095 57.28 2.074 59.31 2.153 60.28 2.347 61.69 2.554 62.3 2.785 46.97 3.050 71.12 3.430 72.09 3.657 74.64 3.914 76.4 4.126 78.96 4.433 82.66 4.807 87.33 5.047 89.98 5.336 92.09 5.527 94.91 5.851 97.55 5.931 97.47 5.765 99.05 5.653 104.7 6.339 112.4 6.967 106.1 7.42 151.4 8.385 164.4 9.007 171.0 9.256 193.7 9.732 202.7 9.800 236.8 9.780 263.6 9.722 290.2 6.260 321.4 5.029 351.8 5.159 377.7 5.169 397.0 5.104 413.4 4.936 425.7 4.740 444.0 4.715 456.5 4.772 454.5 4.77 449.2 4.788 440.1 4.563 429.1 3.771 417.8 3.955 416.7 3.862 418.6 3.697 425.2 3.374 420.6 3.146 416.1 2.933 413.5 2.822 411.4 2.812 409.1 2.858 404.5 2.952 400.7 3.002 398.4 3.191 402.4 3.341 413.6 3.552 422.1 3.734 429.2 3.861 435.6 3.952 439.3 4.172 439.9 3.880 437.0 2.791 432.7 1.874 420.0 2.624 406.7 2.984 398.6 3.422 376.8 4.182 368.1 5.002 361.4 6.228 351.8 7.692 336.8 9.034 330.4 10.32 333.1 11.36 331.9 12.13 338.4 12.79 356.3 12.39 372.0 7.662 381.7 7.782 389.5 7.863 397.5 7.967 406.7 8.133 423.9 7.183 434.9 6.141 446.0 0 467.8 0 484.2 0 498.8 0 496.1 0 530.3 0 LiquefyPro CivilTech Software USA www.civi ltech.com CivilTech Corporation

DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Murrieta U-Haul
108673001
Hole No.=CPT-3 Water Depth=13 ft Surface Elev.=1110 Magnitud e=7.1 Acceleration=0.85g
Raw Unit Fines
qc fc Weight % (ft)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1
Factor of Safety
0 5 1
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.

S = 0.25 in.
0 (in.) 1
fs1=1
Ninyo & Moore | Imperial Avenue Bikeway, San Diego, California | 108478004 | October 22, 2018 5710 Ruffin Road | San Diego, California 92123 | p. 858.576.1000 ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NEVADA | TEXAS | UTAH www.ninyoandmoore.com
5710 Ruffin Road | San Diego, California 92123 | p. 858.576.1000 | www.ninyoandmoore.com

September 11, 2020
Project No. 108673002
Mr. Travis Cochran
U-Haul Company of Oceanside
27941 Jefferson Avenue
Temecula, California 92590
Subject: Infiltration Testing
Murrieta U-Haul Facility
41458 Los Alamos Road
Murrieta, California
Dear Mr. Cochran:

In accordance with your request, we have performed infiltration testing for the U-Haul Facility located at 41458 Los Alamos Road in Murrieta, California (Figure 1) . Our office previously prepared a geotechnical evaluation report (Ninyo & Moore, 2019 ) for the construction of a new warehouse building at the site. We understand that gravel surfacing will be constructed around the new warehouse building and that infiltration rates are needed for the Water Quality Management Plan for the site. We understand that the Santa Margarita River Watershed is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Regional Water Quality Control Board and that infiltration testing performed under San Diego County guidelines is appropriate. The purpose of this study was to perform infiltration testing to assist in the feasibility analysis for onsite infiltration of storm water.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this work included the following:
• Performing a geologic reconnaissance of the site to observe the existing conditions and to mark out the infiltration test boring locations.
• Manually excavating two shallow infiltration test borings to depths of approximately 5 feet. • Performing infiltration testing in the two borings in accordance with the County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (2019) .
• Compiling and analyzing data obtained from our infiltration testing. • Preparing this letter report providing our findings regarding the infiltration rates at the site.

Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | September 11, 2020 2

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATI ON
Our subsurface exploration was conducted on September 3 and 4, 2020 and consisted of manually excavating, logging, and sampling of two infiltration test borings (IT-1 and IT-2). The infiltration test borings were excavated to depths of up to approximately 5 feet using manual methods . Ninyo & Moore personnel logged the borings in general accordance with the Uni fied Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 2488 by observing cuttings. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2.

Based on the results of our field exploration and the referenced report (Ninyo & Moore, 2019) , the subsurface soils at the site consist of fill underlain by materials of the Pauba Formation. Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered during our current and previous subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections.

Fill
Fill materials were encountered in our borings for this work at the surface and extending to the total depth explored of approximately 5 feet. As encountered, these materials generally consisted of light brown to dark brown, dry to moist, medium dense, silty sand.

Pauba Formation
Materials of the Pauba Formation were encountered in our previous geotechnical report for the site (Ninyo & Moore, 2019). For that report, the materials generally consisted of generally consisted of various shades of brown, gray, and black, moist to wet, moderately cemented, silty fine to coarse grained sandstone, sandy siltstone, and weakly to moderately indurated, sandy claystone. Heaving sands were encountered in boring B-1 at approximately 45 feet below existing grade.

INFILTRATION TESTING
The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps (USDA, 2020) classify the onsite materials as Hydrologic Soil Group C. The County of San Diego Best Management Practice (BMP) Design Manual (2019) states that the range of potential infiltration rates for Hydrologic Soil Group C is 0.0 to 0.08 inches per hour, respectively.

As a means of evaluating the infiltration characteristics of near-surface materials for planning phase feasibility purposes, two infiltration tests (IT-1 and IT-2) were performed. Borings IT-1 and IT-2 were manually excavated to depths of approximately 5 feet using a 6-inch diameter hand auger. Following the excavation on September 3, 2020, each infiltration test location was prepared by placing

Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | September 11, 2020 3

approximately 2 inches of gravel on the bottom, installing a 2-inch diameter, perforated PVC pipe, and backfilling the annulus with pea gravel. As part of the test procedure, a presoak was performed to represent adverse conditions for infiltration. The presoak consisted of maintaining an approximately 3-foot column of water in the borings for approximately 4 hours. The water level was then allowed to drop overnight.

Infiltration testing at the two locations was performed on September 4, 2020 in general accordance with the County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (2019). The infiltration test holes were filled with approximately 3 feet of water and the water depths were measured at 10 and 25 -minute intervals for the duration of the tests. The borings were refilled as needed to maintain t he water level until the infiltration rate stabilized.

Infiltration rates were then calculated from the field measurements using the Porchet method.

Infiltration testing indi cated that the observed (i.e., unfactored) infiltration rates were 6.78 and

8.34 inches per hour. Based on Table D.1-1 of the County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (2019), the site is classified as “Unrestricted” for infiltration. A copy of the completed Table D.1-1 is included in Attachment B of this report.

Table 1 – Infiltration Test Results Summary
Infiltration
Test
Approximate
Test Depth
(feet)
Soil Description
(Geologic Unit)
In-Situ
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
Suitability
Assessment
Safety
Factor,1
SA
Suitability
Factored
Infiltration Rate2
(in/hr)
IT-1 5.0 Silty Sand
(Fill) 6.78 2 3.39
IT-2 5.0 Silty Sand
(Fill) 8.34 2 4.17
Notes:
in/hr = inches per hour
1 Factor of safety of 2.0 is based on the Suitability Assessment criteria presented in Table D.2-3 of the County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (2019). Total safety factor should include the Design criteria as evaluated by the design engineer. 2 Infiltration rate has been estimated based on the Suitability Assessment factor of safety. Actual design infiltration rate may be less depending upon the Design criteria safety factor.

The rates presented in Table 1 are to be used for preliminary informational purp oses and are estimated based on applying a calculated Suitability Assessment safety factor (S A) of 2.0 (see Table D.2-3 of the County of San Diego BMP Design Manual [2019]). The Design safety factor (S B) was not available at the time of this report. The de sign engineer should evaluate S B per Table D.2-3 of the County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (2019). The Design Infiltration Rate may then be calculated based on Table D.2- 1 of the County of San Diego BMP Manual (2019). A copy of Tables D.2-1 and D.2-3 with the geotechnical related results are included in Attachment B.

Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | September 11, 2020 4

RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the potential for site variability, i t is anticipated that lateral movement of water may affect surrounding improvements. Therefore, we recommend that the site design of storm water BMPs include the use of pavement edge drains and cutoff curbs along the sides of infiltration devices to reduce the potential for lateral migration of water. We also recommend that infiltration devices be set back approxi mately 20 feet from buildings and the top of slopes. Additionally, storm water BMP design should also include the use of overflow drain devices. Gravel backfill should generally be fully wrapped with a non-woven filter fabric (such as Mirafi 140N), to reduce the potential for fines to migrate to the voids in the gravel.

LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation and geotechnical analyses presented in this report have been conducted in accordance with current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No warranty, implied or expressed, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and professional opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not obs erved or described in this report may be encountered. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions and the referenced background information.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project.

Respectfully submitted,

NINYO & MOORE
Christina Tretinjak, PG, CEG
Senior Project Geologist
Jeffrey T. Kent, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
CAT/JTK/gg
Attachments: References
Figure 1 – Site Location
Figure 2 – Infiltration Test Locations
Attachment A – Boring Logs
Attachment B – Infiltration Testing
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)
Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | September 11, 2020

REFERENCES
County of San Diego, 2019, BMP Design Manual for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management: dated January 1.

Google, Inc., 2020, www.googleearth.com.

Ninyo & Moore, In-house proprietary information.

Ninyo & Moore, 2019 , Geotechnical Evaluation, Murrieta U-Haul Facility, 41458 Los Alamos Road and 25086 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, California, Project No. 108673001: dated March 25.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2020, Web Soil Survey: accessed September.

Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | September 11, 2020 Appendix A
Phot
ographic Documentation

FIGURES
"
SITE
!"a$
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
UV60
UV91 UV60

MAP INDEX
Riverside
County
""
1_108673002_SL.mxd 9/11/2020 JDLNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPO, 2020 !o

SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 1
108673002 | 9/20

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
0 1,500 3,000
FEET
@?
&
@?
&
IT-1
TD=5.0
IT-2
TD=5.0
2_108673002_IT.mxd 9/11/2020 JDL

LOS ALAMOS ROAD
NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2020

INFILTRATION TEST LOCATIONS
!o 01 00 2 00
FEET
FIGURE 2

JEFFERSON AVENUE

SITE BOUNDARY

INFILTRATION TEST
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET@?
&
IT-2
TD=5.0
LEGEND
108673002 | 9/20

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | September 11, 2020 Appendix A
Photog
raphic Documentation

ATTACHMENT A
Boring Logs
Soil Classification Chart Per ASTM D 2488
Primary Divisions
Secondary Divisions
Group Symbol Group Name

COARSE-

GRAINED
SOILS
more than
50% retained
on No. 200
sieve
GRAVEL
more than
50% of
coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve

CLEAN GRAVEL
less than 5% fines
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with
DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with
GRAVEL with
FINES
more than
12% fines
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
SAND
50% or more
of coarse
fraction
passes
No. 4 sieve

CLEAN SAND
less than 5% fines
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with
DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES
more than
12% fines
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
FINE-

GRAINED
SOILS
50% or
more passes
No. 200 sieve
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
less than 50%

INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY

ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY

ORGANIC
OL (PI > 4) organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4) organic SILT
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
50% or more

INORGANIC
CH fat CLAY
MH elastic SILT

ORGANIC
OH (plots on or
above “A”-line) organic CLAY
OH (plots
below “A”-line) organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat

USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Apparent Density - Coarse-Grained Soil
Apparent
Density
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium
Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
Consistency - Fine-Grained Soil
Consis-
tency
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI), %
0 10
10 7
4 20
30 40
50 60
70 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
Plasticity Chart
Grain Size
Description Sieve
Size Grain Size Approximate
Size
Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than
basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to
basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to
fist-sized
Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to
thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to
rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 -

0.017”
Flour-sized to
sugar-sized
Fines Passing
#200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and
smaller
CH or OH
CL or OL
0 5
10 15
20 XX/XX
SM
CL
Bulk sample.

Modified split-barrel drive sampler.

No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler.

Sample retained by others.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT).

No recovery with a SPT.

Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches.

No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.

Continuous Push Sample.

Seepage.

Groundwater encountered during drilling.

Groundwater measured after drilling.

MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL):

Solid line denotes unit change.

Dashed line denotes material change.

Attitudes: Strike/Dip
b: Bedding
c: Contact
j: Joint
f: Fracture
F: Fault
cs: Clay Seam
s: Shear
bss: Basal Slide Surface
sf: Shear Fracture
sz: Shear Zone
sbs: Shear Bedding Surface
The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring.

BORING LOG
Explanation of Boring Log Symbols
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET
Updated Nov. 2011

BORING LOG
20 0
5 10
15 20
SM FILL:

Light brown, dry, medium dense, silty SAND.

Moist.

Dark brown.

Total Depth = 5 feet.

Groundwater not encountered.

Infiltration test set on 9/03/20. Backfilled after testing on 9/04/20.

Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of excavation, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.

The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

FIGURE A- 1

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673002 | 9/20
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/03/20 BORING NO. IT-1
GROUND ELEVATION 1,017'  (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual

DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP N/A

SAMPLED BY TJT LOGGED BY TJT REVIEWED BY CAT
1 0
5 10
15 20
SM FILL:

Light brown, dry, medium dense, silty SAND.

Dark brown; moist.

Total Depth = 5 feet.

Groundwater not encountered.

Infiltration test set on 9/03/20. Backfilled after testing on 9/04/20.

Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of excavation, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.

The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

FIGURE A- 2

MURRIETA U-HAUL FACILITY
41458 LOS ALAMOS ROAD, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
108673002 | 9/20
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/03/20 BORING NO. IT-2
GROUND ELEVATION 1,017'  (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual

DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP N/A

SAMPLED BY TJT LOGGED BY TJT REVIEWED BY CAT
1 Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | September 11, 2020

ATTACHMENT B
Infiltration Testing
Test Date: Infiltration Test No.: IT-1
Test Hole Diameter, D (inches): 6.0 Excavation Depth (feet): 5.00 Test performed and recorded by: TJT Pipe Length (feet): 4.90 (min/in) (in/hr)
7:39 1.79 8:04 4.39 25 2.60 0.80 1.81 4.84
8:05 1.81 8:30 4.30 25 2.49 0.84 1.85 4.55
8:31 1.20 8:41 3.19 10 1.99 0.42 2.71 6.33
8:42 0.89 8:52 2.97 10 2.08 0.40 2.97 6.05
8:53 0.95 9:03 3.01 10 2.06 0.40 2.92 6.09
9:04 0.85 9:14 3.41 10 2.56 0.33 2.77 7.96
9:15 0.93 9:25 3.28 10 2.35 0.35 2.80 7.24
9:26 0.91 9:36 3.05 10 2.14 0.39 2.92 6.33
9:37 0.80 9:40 3.14 10 2.34 0.36 2.93 6.89
9:48 0.82 9:58 3.12 10 2.30 0.36 2.93 6.78
Test Date: Infiltration Test No.: IT-2
Test Hole Diameter, D (inches): 6.0 Excavation Depth (feet): 5.00 Test performed and recorded by: TJT Pipe Length (feet): 4.88 (min/in) (in/hr)
7:42 1.70 8:07 4.75 25 3.05 0.68 1.66 6.17
8:10 1.61 8:35 4.70 25 3.09 0.67 1.73 6.01
8:36 1.24 8:46 3.59 10 2.35 0.35 2.47 8.17
8:47 1.18 8:57 3.57 10 2.39 0.35 2.51 8.18
8:58 1.08 9:08 3.65 10 2.57 0.32 2.52 8.76
9:09 1.11 9:19 3.60 10 2.49 0.33 2.53 8.46
9:20 1.09 9:30 3.51 10 2.42 0.34 2.58 8.05
9:31 1.04 9:41 3.56 10 2.52 0.33 2.58 8.38
9:42 1.02 9:52 3.54 10 2.52 0.33 2.60 8.32
9:53 1.04 10:03 3.55 10 2.51 0.33 2.59 8.34
Notes:
t1 = initial time when filling or refilling is completed d1 = initial depth to water in hole at t1
t2 = final time when incremental water level reading is taken d2 = final depth to water in hole at t2
Δt = change in time between initial and final water level readings ΔH = change in depth to water or change in height of water column (i.e., d2 - d1) It = tested infiltration rate, inches/hour H0 = Initial height of water column ΔH = change in head over the time interval, inches in/hr = inches per hour Δt = time interval, minutes
r = effective radius of test hole
Havg = average head over the time interval, inches
Havg
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
9/4/2020
ΔH
(feet)
Percolation
Rate Havg
(feet)
Percolation Rate to Infiltration Rate Conversion 1
1 Based on the "Porchet Method" as presented in:

Riverside County Flood Control, 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices: dated September. t1
d1
(feet) t2
d2
(feet)
Δt
(min)
Infiltration RateΔH
(feet)
Percolation
Rate
9/4/2020
t1
d1
(feet) t2
d2
(feet)
Δt
(min)
𝐼௧ ൌ ∆𝐻 ൈ 60 ൈ𝑟
∆𝑡 𝑟൅ 2𝐻௔௩௚
Ninyo & Moore | 41458 Los Alamos Road, Murrieta, California | 108673002 | Attachment B 1 of 1 Appendix D: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater D-1 Effective January 1, 2019 Appendix D Geotechnical Engineer
Analysis
D.1 Analysis of Infiltration Restrictions
This section is only applicable if the analysis of infiltration restrictions is performed by a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering . The SWQMP Preparer and Geotechnical Engineer must work collaboratively to identify any infiltration restrictions identified in Table D.1-1 below. Upon completion of this section, the Geotechnical Engineer must char acterize each DMA as Restricted or Unrestricted for infiltration and provide adequate support/discussion in the geotechnical report. A DMA is considered restricted when one or more restrictions exist which cannot be reasonably resolved through site design changes.

Table D.1-1: Considerations for Geotechnical Analysis of Infiltration Restrictions Restriction Element
Is Element
Applicable?
(Yes/No)
Mandatory
Considerations
BMP is within 100’ of Contaminated Soils
BMP is within 100’ of Industrial Activities Lacking Source Control BMP is within 100’ of Well/Groundwater Basin
BMP is within 50’ of Septic Tanks/Leach Fields
BMP is within 10’ of Structures/Tanks/Walls
BMP is within 10’ of Sewer Utilities
BMP is within 10’ of Groundwater Table
BMP is within Hydric Soils
BMP is within Highly Liquefiable Soils and has Connectivity to Structures BMP is within 1.5 Times the Height of Adjacent Steep Slopes (≥25%) County Staff has Assigned “Restricted” Infiltration Category Optional
Considerations
BMP is within Predominantly Type D Soil
BMP is within 10’ of Property Line
BMP is within Fill Depths of ≥5’ (Existing or Proposed) BMP is within 10’ of Underground Utilities
BMP is within 250’ of Ephemeral Stream
Other (Provide detailed geotechnical support)
Result
Based on examination of the best available information, I have not identified any restrictions above.

Unrestricted
Based on examination of the best available information, I have identified one or more restrictions above.

Restricted
Table D.1 -1 is divided into Mandatory Considerations and Optional Considerations. Mandatory Appendix D: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods

www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater D-2 Effective January 1, 2019 Considerations include elements that may pose a significant risk to human health and safety and must always be evaluated. Optional Considerations include elements that are not necessarily associated with human health and safety, so analysis is not mandated through this guidance document. All elements presented in this table are subject to the discretion of the G eotechnical Engineer if adequate supporting information is provided.

Applicants must evaluate infiltration restrictions through use of the best available data. A list of resources available for evaluation is provided in Section B.2 D.2 Determination of Design Infiltration Rates
This section is only applicable if t he determination of design infiltration rates is performed by a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering . The guidance in this section identifies methods for identifying observed infiltration rates, corrected infiltration rates, safety factors, and design infiltration rates for use in structural BMP design. Upon completion of this section, the Geotechnical Engineer must recommend a design infiltration rate for each DMA and provide adequate support/discussion in the geotechnical report.

Table D.2-1: Elements for Determination of Design Infiltration Rates Item Value Unit
Initial Infiltration Rate
Identify per Section D.2.1 in/hr
Corrected Infiltration Rate
Identify per Section D.2.2 in/hr
Safety Factor
Identify per Section D.2.3 unitless
Design Infiltration Rate
Corrected Infiltration Rate ÷ Safety Factor in/hr

Appendix D: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater D- 12 Effective January 1, 2019 Table D.2-3: Determination of Safety Factor
Consideration Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
Suitability
Assessment
(A)
Infiltration Testing Method 0.25
Refer to
Table D.2-4
Soil Texture Class 0.25
Soil Variability 0.25
Depth to Groundwater/Obstruction 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = Σp
Design
(B)
Pretreatment 0.50
Refer to
Table D.2-4 Resiliency 0.25
Compaction 0.25
Design Safety Factor, SB = Σp
Safety Factor, S = SA x SB
(Must be always greater than or equal to 2)
T
he geotechnical engineer should reference Table D.2-4 below in order to determine appropriate factor values for use in the table above. The values in the table below are subjective in nature and the geotechnical engineer may use professional discretion in how the points are assigned.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Western Riverside Area, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/14/2022