Cities Index.
Appendix A5.1 Initial Study Appendices

Riverside City Council
July 5, 2022

Document
Appendix A5.1 Initial Study Appendices
Meeting
July 5, 2022
Body
Riverside City Council
Pages
39
Original file
384.5 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on riversideca.gov. That file is the official record.

Table 16, Cumulative Traffic Noise
Roadway Segment
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway
Centerline
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?1
Existing
Cumulative
without
Project
Cumulative
with
Project
Difference in
dBA
Between
Cumulative
With Project
and Existing
Difference in
dBA Between
Cumulative With
Project and
Cumulative
Without Project
Magnolia Avenue
between SR 91 Westbound Ramps and Filmore
Street 66.2 66.2 66.4 1.2 0.2 No
between Filmore Street and Golden Avenue 66.2 66.2 66.3 1.2 0.2 No between Golden Avenue and La Sierra Avenue 66.4 66.4 66.6 1.5 0.2 No between La Sierra Avenue and Skofstad Street -
Shopping Center Driveway 66.7 66.7 66.9 1.0 0.2 No
between Skofstad Street - Shopping Center
Driveway and Shopping Center Driveway - Park
Sierra Drive

65.9 65.9 66.2 1.0 0.3 No
between Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra
Drive and Kaiser Driveway 3 66.0 66.0 66.2 0.8 0.2 No
between Kaiser Driveway 3 and Polk Street 66.2 66.2 66.3 0.7 0.1 No between Polk Street and Banbury Drive 66.0 66.0 66.2 1.0 0.2 No between Banbury Drive and Tyler Street 66.4 66.4 66.6 1.1 0.2 No between Tyler Street and Hole Avenue – Hughes
Alley 66.1 66.1 66.1 1.2 0.1 No
between Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley and Lowes
Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) 67.7 67.7 67.7 1.5 0.1 No between Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street
(South Branch) and Harrison Street (North Branch) 67.0 67.0 67.1 1.4 0.1 No La Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Montlake Drive –
Diana Avenue 67.5 67.5 67.6 1.0 0.0 No
between Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue and SR
91 Westbound Ramps 69.0 69.0 69.1 0.8 0.1 No
Park Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 1 55.4 55.4 56.0 1.3 0.6 No between Kaiser Driveway 1 and Shopping Center
Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 54.3 54.3 54.6 1.6 0.3 No
between Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser
Driveway 2 and Diana Avenue 56.1 56.1 56.3 1.0 0.2 No
Polk Street
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 5 58.2 58.2 59.1 1.6 0.9 No between Kaiser Driveway 5 and Kaiser Driveway 6 56.1 56.1 56.3 0.9 0.2 No between Kaiser Driveway 6 and Diana Avenue 58.1 58.1 58.2 0.8 0.1 No Notes:

1. A cumulative impact would occur if the “Combined Effects” and “Incremental Effects” criterion are exceeded, and the modeled noise level exceeds the normally acceptable noise standard shown in Table 8.

Source: Noise modeling is based on traffic data within the Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion prepared by LSA Associates (dated June 2021).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Long-Term (Stationary) Noise Impacts
Although related cumulative projects have been identified within the project study area, the noise generated by stationary equipment on-site cannot be quantified due to the speculative nature of each development. However, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate. Additionally, as noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from stationary sources would be limited to each of the respective sites and their vicinities. As Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project Noise and Groundborne Vibration Memorandum

Page 29 ends

noted above, the proposed project would not result in significant stationary noise impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in stationary long-term equipment that would significantly affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Thus, the proposed project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Vibration Impacts
As discussed above, project construction activities would not generate groundborne vibration off-site above the significance criteria (i.e. 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold for construction as established by the FTA), and project operation activities would not generate perceptible groundborne vibration. Although construction activities associated with the proposed project and off-site cumulative projects may overlap, off-site projects within the City would also be subject to the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold. Further, the cumulative development projects would be required to implement any required mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA provisions. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative vibration impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project Noise and Groundborne Vibration Memorandum

Page 30 ends

REFERENCES
Documents

1. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

2. City of Riverside, Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan, November 10, 2009.

3. City of Riverside, Riverside General Plan 2025, Noise Element, November 2007.

4. City of Riverside, Riverside Municipal Code,
https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside/codes/code_of_ordinances, supplemented through Ordinance No. 7408 adopted January 9, 2018.

5. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.

6. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2016.

7. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7- 4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, September 2018.

8. Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), March 10, 1991.

9. LSA Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion, June 2021.

10. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, Map RI-1, Compatibility Map, March 2005.

11. State Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2017.

12. U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02 .cfm, accessed March 3, 2021.

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, October 1979 (revised July 1981).

Websites / Programs

1. Google Earth, 2021.

Appendix A:

Noise Data
Site Number: 1
Recorded By: Eddie Torres
Job Number: 178170
Date: 2/23/21
Time: 9:45 am
Location: White Oak Drive/Polk Street
Source of Peak Noise: Landscape equipment
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 3011133 04/08/2019
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 3086765 04/08/2019
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 25380 04/08/2019
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 04/08/2019
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 10 minutes Sky:

Note: dBA Offset = Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (inches)

0.0 73.7 55.9
Photo of Measurement Location
2250
Instrument: 2250
Application: BZ7225 Version 4.7.4
Start Time: 02/23/2021 09:44:20
End Time: 02/23/2021 09:54:20
Elapsed Time: 00:10:00
Bandwidth: 1/3-octave
Max Input Level: 142.17
Time Frequency
Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC
Broadband Peak: C
Spectrum: FS Z
Instrument Serial Number: 3011133
Microphone Serial Number: 3086765
Input: Top Socket
Windscreen Correction: UA-1650
Sound Field Correction: Free-field
Calibration Time: 01/14/2021 08:34:02
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity: 43.354082852602 mV/Pa
KAI001
Start End Elapsed Overload LAeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 58.0 76.2 50.7
Time 09:44:20 AM 09:54:20 AM 0:10:00
Date 02/23/2021 02/23/2021
Cursor: (A) Leq=58.0 dB LFmax=76.2 dB LFmin=50.7 dB
KAI001

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
130
dB 02/23/2021 09:44:20 AM - 09:54:20 AM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
KAI001
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 02/23/2021 09:44:20 AM - 09:54:20 AM dB
L1 = 70.1 dB
L5 = 62.7 dB
L10 = 59.7 dB
L50 = 53.4 dB
L90 = 51.9 dB
L95 = 51.6 dB
L99 = 51.2 dB
Level Cumulative
Cursor: 02/23/2021 09:49:19 AM - 09:49:20 AM LAIeq=54.1 dB LAFmax=53.8 dB LCpeak=78.3 dB LAFmin=52.2 dB KAI001
09:45:00 AM 09:47:00 AM 09:49:00 AM 09:51:00 AM 09:53:00 AM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
KAI001
Start Elapsed LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 54.1 53.8 52.2
Time 09:49:19 AM 0:00:01
Date 02/23/2021
Cursor: (A) Leq=53.0 dB
KAI001

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 02/23/2021 09:49:19 AM - 09:49:20 AM
Hz
LZeq
Cursor: 02/23/2021 09:44:20 AM - 10:44:20 AM LAIeq=59.2 dB LAFmax=76.2 dB LCpeak=100.3 dB LAFmin=50.7 dB KAI001 Periodic reports
09:50:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 10:10:00 AM 10:20:00 AM 10:30:00 AM 10:40:00 AM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
KAI001 Periodic reports
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 59.2 76.2 50.7
Time 09:44:20 AM 0:10:00
Date 02/23/2021
Cursor: (A) Leq=58.0 dB LFmax=76.2 dB LFmin=50.7 dB
KAI001 Periodic reports

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 02/23/2021 09:44:20 AM - 09:54:20 AM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
KAI001 Periodic reports
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 02/23/2021 09:44:20 AM - 09:54:20 AM dB
L1 = 70.1 dB
L5 = 62.7 dB
L10 = 59.7 dB
L50 = 53.4 dB
L90 = 51.9 dB
L95 = 51.6 dB
L99 = 51.2 dB
Level Cumulative
Site Number: 2
Recorded By: Eddie Torres
Job Number: 178170
Date: 2/23/21
Time: 10:08 am
Location: Berg Street/Mercer Avenue
Source of Peak Noise:

Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 3011133 04/08/2019
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 3086765 04/08/2019
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 25380 04/08/2019
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 04/08/2019
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 10 minutes Sky:

Note: dBA Offset = Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (inches)

1.4 76.8 56.3
Photo of Measurement Location
2250
Instrument: 2250
Application: BZ7225 Version 4.7.4
Start Time: 02/23/2021 10:06:46
End Time: 02/23/2021 10:16:46
Elapsed Time: 00:10:00
Bandwidth: 1/3-octave
Max Input Level: 142.17
Time Frequency
Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC
Broadband Peak: C
Spectrum: FS Z
Instrument Serial Number: 3011133
Microphone Serial Number: 3086765
Input: Top Socket
Windscreen Correction: UA-1650
Sound Field Correction: Free-field
Calibration Time: 01/14/2021 08:34:02
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity: 43.354082852602 mV/Pa
KAI002
Start End Elapsed Overload LAeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 51.5 70.8 39.4
Time 10:06:46 AM 10:16:46 AM 0:10:00
Date 02/23/2021 02/23/2021
Cursor: (A) Leq=51.5 dB LFmax=70.8 dB LFmin=39.4 dB
KAI002

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
130
dB 02/23/2021 10:06:46 AM - 10:16:46 AM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
KAI002
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 02/23/2021 10:06:46 AM - 10:16:46 AM dB
L1 = 64.7 dB
L5 = 57.0 dB
L10 = 51.7 dB
L50 = 43.8 dB
L90 = 41.3 dB
L95 = 40.9 dB
L99 = 40.2 dB
Level Cumulative
Cursor: 02/23/2021 10:11:45 AM - 10:11:46 AM LAIeq=51.6 dB LAFmax=46.4 dB LCpeak=73.3 dB LAFmin=43.4 dB KAI002
10:07:00 AM 10:09:00 AM 10:11:00 AM 10:13:00 AM 10:15:00 AM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
KAI002
Start Elapsed LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 51.6 46.4 43.4
Time 10:11:45 AM 0:00:01
Date 02/23/2021
Cursor: (A) Leq=45.0 dB
KAI002

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 02/23/2021 10:11:45 AM - 10:11:46 AM
Hz
LZeq
Cursor: 02/23/2021 10:06:46 AM - 11:06:46 AM LAIeq=54.3 dB LAFmax=70.8 dB LCpeak=89.2 dB LAFmin=39.4 dB KAI002 Periodic reports
10:10:00 AM 10:20:00 AM 10:30:00 AM 10:40:00 AM 10:50:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
Sound
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
KAI002 Periodic reports
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 54.3 70.8 39.4
Time 10:06:46 AM 0:10:00
Date 02/23/2021
Cursor: (A) Leq=51.5 dB LFmax=70.8 dB LFmin=39.4 dB
KAI002 Periodic reports

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 02/23/2021 10:06:46 AM - 10:16:46 AM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.0% Cumulative: 0.0%
KAI002 Periodic reports
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 02/23/2021 10:06:46 AM - 10:16:46 AM dB
L1 = 64.7 dB
L5 = 57.0 dB
L10 = 51.7 dB
L50 = 43.8 dB
L90 = 41.3 dB
L95 = 40.9 dB
L99 = 40.2 dB
Level Cumulative

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 178170
Project Name: Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project Scenario: Existing
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Traffic Impact Analysis
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour Calc Roadway, Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL Dist Magnolia Avenue
between SR 91 Westbound Ramps and Filmore Street 4 52 27,066 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.2 - 103 222 477 100 between Filmore Street and Golden Avenue 4 52 26,681 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.1 - 102 220 473 100 between Golden Avenue and La Sierra Avenue 4 52 26,540 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.1 - 102 219 471 100 between La Sierra Avenue and Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway 4 52 31,902 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.9 - 115 247 533 100 between Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway and Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive 4 52 27,105 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.2 - 103 222 478 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive and Kaiser Driveway 3 4 52 28,384 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.4 - 106 229 493 100 between Kaiser Driveway 3 and Polk Street 4 52 29,566 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.6 - 109 235 506 100 between Polk Street and Banbury Drive 4 52 27,510 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.3 - 104 224 483 100 between Banbury Drive and Tyler Street 6 20 30,337 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.5 - 109 234 505 100 between Tyler Street and Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley 6 20 26,607 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.0 - 100 215 463 100 between Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley and Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) 6 20 35,709 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.3 - 121 261 563 100 between Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) and Harrison Street (North Branch) 5 20 32,140 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.6 - 110 237 511 100 La Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue 4 20 30,973 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.5 59 127 273 587 100 between Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue and SR 91 Westbound Ramps 6 22 42,752 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 68.3 77 165 356 767 100 Park Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 1 2 12 6,763 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 54.7 - - 44 95 100 between Kaiser Driveway 1 and Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 2 12 4,612 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 53.0 - - - 74 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 and Diana Avenue 2 12 7,777 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 55.3 - - 49 105 100 Polk Street
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 5 3 12 5,327 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 57.5 - - 68 147 100 between Kaiser Driveway 5 and Kaiser Driveway 6 2 12 3,337 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 55.4 - - 50 107 100 between Kaiser Driveway 6 and Diana Avenue 2 0 5,301 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 57.4 - - 67 145 100 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 1

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 178170
Project Name: Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project Scenario: Existing+Project
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Traffic Impact Analysis
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour Calc Roadway, Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL Dist Magnolia Avenue
between SR 91 Westbound Ramps and Filmore Street 4 52 28,308 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.4 - 106 228 492 100 between Filmore Street and Golden Avenue 4 52 27,923 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.3 - 105 226 487 100 between Golden Avenue and La Sierra Avenue 4 52 27,874 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.3 - 105 226 487 100 between La Sierra Avenue and Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway 4 52 34,018 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 120 258 556 100 between Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway and Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive 4 52 29,221 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.5 - 108 233 502 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive and Kaiser Driveway 3 4 52 29,603 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.6 - 109 235 507 100 between Kaiser Driveway 3 and Polk Street 4 52 30,210 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.7 - 111 238 514 100 between Polk Street and Banbury Drive 4 52 29,074 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.5 - 108 232 501 100 between Banbury Drive and Tyler Street 6 20 31,901 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.8 - 112 242 522 100 between Tyler Street and Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley 6 20 27,343 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.1 - 101 219 471 100 between Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley and Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) 6 20 36,353 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.3 - 123 264 569 100 between Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) and Harrison Street (North Branch) 5 20 32,784 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.7 - 112 240 518 100 La Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue 4 20 31,203 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 59 127 274 590 100 between Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue and SR 91 Westbound Ramps 6 22 43,626 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 68.4 78 167 361 777 100 Park Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 1 2 12 8,074 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 55.5 - - 50 107 100 between Kaiser Driveway 1 and Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 2 12 5,072 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 53.4 - - - 79 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 and Diana Avenue 2 12 8,237 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 55.5 - - 51 109 100 Polk Street
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 5 3 12 6,753 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.6 - - 80 173 100 between Kaiser Driveway 5 and Kaiser Driveway 6 2 12 3,521 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 55.7 - - 51 111 100 between Kaiser Driveway 6 and Diana Avenue 2 0 5,485 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 57.6 - - 69 148 100 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 2

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 178170
Project Name: Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project Scenario: Cumulative (2040)
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Traffic Impact Analysis
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour Calc Roadway, Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL Dist Magnolia Avenue
between SR 91 Westbound Ramps and Filmore Street 4 52 34,243 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 120 259 559 100 between Filmore Street and Golden Avenue 4 52 33,858 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 119 257 554 100 between Golden Avenue and La Sierra Avenue 4 52 36,039 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 - 124 268 578 100 between La Sierra Avenue and Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway 4 52 38,255 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.7 - 130 279 601 100 between Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway and Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive 4 52 32,078 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 65.9 - 115 248 535 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive and Kaiser Driveway 3 4 52 32,978 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.0 - 117 253 545 100 between Kaiser Driveway 3 and Polk Street 4 52 34,160 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 120 259 558 100 between Polk Street and Banbury Drive 4 52 32,777 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.0 - 117 252 542 100 between Banbury Drive and Tyler Street 6 20 37,151 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 - 124 268 578 100 between Tyler Street and Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley 6 20 34,075 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.1 - 118 253 545 100 between Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley and Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) 6 20 49,273 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.7 70 150 324 697 100 between Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) and Harrison Street (North Branch) 5 20 44,221 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.0 63 136 294 632 100 La Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue 4 20 39,011 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.5 69 148 318 685 100 between Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue and SR 91 Westbound Ramps 6 22 50,493 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 69.0 86 185 398 857 100 Park Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 1 2 12 7,953 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 55.4 - - 49 106 100 between Kaiser Driveway 1 and Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 2 12 6,239 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 54.3 - - 42 90 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 and Diana Avenue 2 12 9,404 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.1 - - 55 119 100 Polk Street
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 5 3 12 6,265 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.2 - - 76 164 100 between Kaiser Driveway 5 and Kaiser Driveway 6 2 12 3,924 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.1 - - 55 119 100 between Kaiser Driveway 6 and Diana Avenue 2 0 6,234 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.1 - 35 75 161 100 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 3

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Project Number: 178170
Project Name: Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project Scenario: Cumulative (2040)+Project
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumes: Traffic Impact Analysis
Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: X
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.50% 12.90% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80%
Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Analysis Condition Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNEL at Distance to Contour Calc Roadway, Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL Dist Magnolia Avenue
between SR 91 Westbound Ramps and Filmore Street 4 52 35,485 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.4 - 123 265 572 100 between Filmore Street and Golden Avenue 4 52 35,100 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.3 - 122 264 568 100 between Golden Avenue and La Sierra Avenue 4 52 37,373 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 - 128 275 592 100 between La Sierra Avenue and Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway 4 52 40,371 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.9 - 134 289 623 100 between Skofstad Street - Shopping Center Driveway and Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive 4 52 34,194 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 120 259 558 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Park Sierra Drive and Kaiser Driveway 3 4 52 34,197 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 120 259 558 100 between Kaiser Driveway 3 and Polk Street 4 52 34,804 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.3 - 122 262 565 100 between Polk Street and Banbury Drive 4 52 34,341 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.2 - 121 260 560 100 between Banbury Drive and Tyler Street 6 20 38,715 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.6 - 128 276 594 100 between Tyler Street and Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley 6 20 34,811 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 66.1 - 119 257 553 100 between Hole Avenue – Hughes Alley and Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) 6 20 49,917 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.7 70 152 327 704 100 between Lowes Plaza Driveway – Harrison Street (South Branch) and Harrison Street (North Branch) 5 20 44,865 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.1 64 138 296 639 100 La Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue 4 20 39,241 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 69 148 319 688 100 between Montlake Drive – Diana Avenue and SR 91 Westbound Ramps 6 22 51,367 45 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 69.1 87 187 402 866 100 Park Sierra Avenue
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 1 2 12 9,264 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.1 - - 55 118 100 between Kaiser Driveway 1 and Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 2 12 6,699 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 54.7 - - 44 95 100 between Shopping Center Driveway - Kaiser Driveway 2 and Diana Avenue 2 12 9,864 25 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.3 - - 57 123 100 Polk Street
between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 5 3 12 7,691 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 59.1 - - 87 188 100 between Kaiser Driveway 5 and Kaiser Driveway 6 2 12 4,108 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 56.3 - - 57 123 100 between Kaiser Driveway 6 and Diana Avenue 2 0 6,418 40 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 58.2 - 35 76 165 100 "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Michael Baker International Page 4
This page was left intentionally blank.

INITIAL STUDY APPENDIX H
Preliminary Technical
Drainage Study

PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL DRAINAGE
STUDY

KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE

MEDICAL CENTER
City of Riverside, California
April 6, 2021
Prepared for:

Kaiser Permanente.
10800 Magnolia Ave
Riverside, CA 92505
833.574-2273 ph.

Report Prepared By:

Engineer of Work/ Contact Person:

Scott Davis, P.E.

JN 174808
CITY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING # P19-0880
CITY OF RIVERSIDE PUBLIC WORKS # GP2021-01927
9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. San
Diego, CA. 92124
858.614.5000 telephone
858.614.5001 fax
Revision History
2/24/2021 Initial City Submittal
4/6/2021 Second Submittal

Table of Contents
Main Report
Introduction
Hydrologic/Hydraulic Methodology
Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis
Conclusions
References
List of Figures
 Vicinity Map
Appendix A:
 Rainfall Data and Soil Map
 Proposed Condition 10 & 100-year storm Rational Method Calculations  Proposed Condition Hydrology Exhibit
 Existing Condition Hydrology Exhibit
 Existing & Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph Analysis (100-yr 1-hr Storm)

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center 3 I. INTRODUCTION
This drainage study for Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center redevelopment. It specifically accomplishes the following:  Determine the peak onsite 10 & 100-year runoff according to the precise grading plan.  Define design for storm drain systems to convey the offsite and onsite flows.

1. Area Description
The project site is in the City of Riverside in the County of Riverside, California. It is located on Magnolia Ave between Park Sierra Dr and Polk Street and just north of 91 Freeway. The project site APN is 138-470-010, with current legal descriptions per Map MB 1/70. Figure 1 shows the location of this project.

2. Project Description
The proposed project will develop 15.5 acres of the existing hospital site with one (1) multi-story parking structure, multi-story patient bed tower, new D&T building, rotunda, driveways, walkways, and landscape areas. All on-site facilities will be privately maintained.

3. Surrounding Projects and Drainage Considerations
The project site is currently a Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and office along with a pharmacy. It has been a medical facility for as long back as two decades. It has moderate vegetation and it has relatively flat terrain draining from northeast to southwest to the adjacent property to the northwest. There is expected to be no offsite flow oncoming to the property as the perimeter of the worked area contains berms and measures to keep offsite flow away. There is currently storm drain network located in the site. The report was completed with a conceptual design of the project and will be updated to reflect revisions made to the grading plan or the site plan.

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center 4 II. HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC METHODOLOGY
The methodology presented in this study is in compliance with the RCFC&WCD 1978 Hydrology Manual (Reference 5), hereinafter referred to as the Manual).

Model Descriptions - CivilDesign hydrology program was used to generate the peak 100- year rational method onsite flows and to size all pipes and inlets. The redevelopment of the site reduced the impervious footprint of the site when compared to the current conditions. As such no onsite peak flow attenuation is needed for the 100-yr storm events.

Soil Type - The manual utilizes the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil classification system, which classifies soils into four (4) hydrological groups (HSG): A through D, with D being the least pervious. The soil Plates C-1.15 of the Manual showing location of project is included in Appendix A. According to this figure, this property is located within a mixture of HSG “A”, HSG “B”.

Development Type- For the proposed developed conditions the runoff was calculated considering a commercial development.

Intensity- The 10-minute / 60-minute intensity values (inches/hour) for the 10-year and 100- year storm events, obtained from Plate D-4.1 (6 of 6) of the Manual, are 1.88/2.68 and 0.70/1.00, respectively and included in the Appendix.

Drainage Areas and Flow Patterns - The drainage areas and flow patterns for existing and proposed conditions were determined using the existing topography (Cad) and the Tentative Tract Map, respectively. The areas were measured using the computer capabilities of AutoCAD.

III. HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Appendix A shows the proposed onsite drainage patterns for this project. The majority of the flows will be conveyed through a storm drain system which travel through various basins to treat the runoff. Velocities in the pipes will vary from 6 fps to 9 fps and are subject to change due to the conceptual nature of the storm drain system that is subject to change. The basin outlet pipes will discharge the treated runoff into the existing storm drain systems present in Park Sierra Street and Magnolia Ave.

As mentioned earlier, the overall impervious cover for the site got reduced due to the project improvements. As such the peak flow is lower than predevelopment peak flow, thus attenuation is PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center 5 not applied. Although unit hydrograph analysis was not needed to be performed because of the reduced impervious footprint, however 100-yr 1-hour unit hydrograph analysis is provided in the appendix and a summary table is shown below to prove that proposed condition flow rates will be same or less than the existing condition. Therefore, no storage facilities are required for the project for the peak flow mitigations.

Drainage
ID
Drainage Area Existing
Impervious
Proposed
Impervious
Existing
100-Yr 1-Hr
Flow rate
Proposed
100-Yr 1-Hr
Flow rate
A 3.70 ac 0.90 0.90 11.04 cfs 11.04 cfs
B 2.77 ac 0.90 0.90 8.63 cfs 8.61 cfs
C 2.95 ac 0.90 0.85 9.28 cfs 9.24 cfs
D 1.68 ac 0.90 0.85 4.92 cfs 4.89 cfs
E 4.03 ac 0.90 0.85 11.44 cfs 11.38 cfs
The water quality basins are equipped with outlet riser structures that will be sized to convey the proposed 100-yr rational flow rates calculated for their respective drainage management areas.

All Hydraulic analysis for inlets, pipes will be provided in the final drainage report.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

1. Methodology used in this report is in compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

2. There are no anticipated negative downstream or upstream impacts.

3. The rational method flow rates for the five-drainage sub basins are listed in the table below.

Drainage ID Drainage Area 10-Yr Flow 100-Yr Flow
A 3.70 ac 6.69 cfs 9.81 cfs
B 2.77 ac 5.18 cfs 7.56 cfs
C 2.95 ac 4.95 cfs 7.28 cfs
D 1.68 ac 3.32 cfs 4.83 cfs
E 4.03 ac 6.17 cfs 9.04 cfs

4. Bioretention basins are sized per WQMP report. All pipelines otherwise are sized to 100-year 1-hour storm event.

5. Pipe sizes were designed with CivilDesign to accommodate the peak 100-year 1-hour storm.

See Appendix A for the calculations.

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center 6 VI. REFERENCES

1. Riverside Flood Control District and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Hydrology Manual, 1978.

2. CivilDesign Engineering Software, Rational Method Model, 1989-2014, Version 9.0.

3. Riverside Flood Control District and Water Conservation District, Riverside Design Handbook or Low Impact Development, Best Management Practices, September 2011.

FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP
NTS
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center 7 Appendix A
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center 8 Rainfall Data and Soil Map

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center 9 10-yr and 100-yr Rational Method Calculations
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/05/21 File:PROP10YR.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE HYDROLOGY

RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS - PROPOSED CONDITION
10-YR DESIGN STORM, DRAINAGE SUBAREAS A, B, C, D, E
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6388
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Riverside ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 1.880(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.700(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.680(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.000(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 10.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 0.700(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 169.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 722.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 722.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 0.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00296 s(percent)= 0.30
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.483 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.200(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.871
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 2.241(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.170(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 718.120(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 230.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.241(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.241(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 8.91(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 10.50(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.68(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.58(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 1.07 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.55 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.870
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 8.55 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.044(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.363(CFS) for 1.330(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.605(CFS) Total area = 2.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 89.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 4.605(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 4.605(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 11.68(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 12.45(In.)
Critical Depth = 10.44(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.49(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.33 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.88 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.869
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 8.88 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.002(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.087(CFS) for 1.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 6.692(CFS) Total area = 3.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 290.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 722.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 719.800(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.200(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00759 s(percent)= 0.76
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.693 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.166(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.871
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 2.395(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.270(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 712.100(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 711.400(Ft.)
Pipe length = 65.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.395(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.395(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.03(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.82(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.95(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.01(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.22 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.91 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.870
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 7.91 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.134(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.929(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.324(CFS) Total area = 1.770(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.870
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 7.91 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.134(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.857(CFS) for 1.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 5.181(CFS) Total area = 2.770(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 30.000 to Point/Station 31.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 286.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 723.600(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 0.900(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00315 s(percent)= 0.31
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 9.122 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.973(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.869
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.697(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.990(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 31.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 720.800(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 720.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 71.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.697(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.697(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.63(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.55(In.)
Critical Depth = 6.65(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.22(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.37 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.49 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 32.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.868
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 9.49 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.930(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.888(CFS) for 0.530(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.585(CFS) Total area = 1.520(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 32.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.868
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 9.49 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.930(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.397(CFS) for 1.430(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.982(CFS) Total area = 2.950(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 40.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 333.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 720.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 3.900(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01171 s(percent)= 1.17
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.454 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.204(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.871
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 2.362(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.230(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 43.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 1.230(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 2.362(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.45 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.204(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 41.000 to Point/Station 42.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 182.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 722.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.400(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01319 s(percent)= 1.32
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 5.716 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.551(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.874
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.003(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.450(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 42.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.600(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.600(Ft.)
Pipe length = 210.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.003(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.003(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.54(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 8.02(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.51(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 2.91(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 1.20 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 6.92 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 43.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 0.450(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 1.003(CFS)
Time of concentration = 6.92 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.297(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 2.362 7.45 2.204
2 1.003 6.92 2.297
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 2.362 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

1.003 * 0.960 = 0.963
Qp = 3.324
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

2.362 1.003
Area of streams before confluence:

1.230 0.450
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 3.324(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.454 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 1.680(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 50.000 to Point/Station 51.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 458.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 721.900(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00459 s(percent)= 0.46
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.214 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.854(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.868
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 0.836(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.520(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 51.000 to Point/Station 52.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.400(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 66.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 0.836(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 0.836(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 5.29(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 8.86(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.01(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.10(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.35 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.57 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 52.000 to Point/Station 52.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.867
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.57 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.819(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.978(CFS) for 0.620(Ac.)
Total runoff = 1.814(CFS) Total area = 1.140(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 52.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 190.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.814(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.814(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.41(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.67(In.)
Critical Depth = 6.88(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.56(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.89 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.46 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 57.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.866
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.46 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.740(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.040(CFS) for 0.690(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.854(CFS) Total area = 1.830(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 57.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 1.830(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 2.854(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.46 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.740(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 53.000 to Point/Station 54.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 390.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 723.400(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 1.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00282 s(percent)= 0.28
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.556 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.820(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.867
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.010(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.640(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 54.000 to Point/Station 55.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 719.900(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 719.200(Ft.)
Pipe length = 129.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.010(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.010(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.25(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 8.29(In.)
Critical Depth = 5.53(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.08(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.70 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.25 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 55.000 to Point/Station 55.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.866
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.25 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.757(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.411(CFS) for 0.270(Ac.)
Total runoff = 1.421(CFS) Total area = 0.910(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 55.000 to Point/Station 56.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 719.200(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 719.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 54.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.421(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.421(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.09(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.80(In.)
Critical Depth = 6.06(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 2.95(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.31 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.56 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 56.000 to Point/Station 56.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.866
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.56 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.732(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.935(CFS) for 1.290(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.356(CFS) Total area = 2.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 56.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 716.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 53.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 3.356(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 3.356(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.16(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.63(In.)
Critical Depth = 8.87(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.27(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.21 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.77 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 57.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 2.200(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 3.356(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.77 min.

Rainfall intensity = 1.715(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 2.854 11.46 1.740
2 3.356 11.77 1.715
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 3.356 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

2.854 * 0.986 = 2.813
Qp = 6.169
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

2.854 3.356
Area of streams before confluence:

1.830 2.200
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 6.169(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.765 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 4.030(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 15.13 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged RI index number = 56.0
Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2014 Version 9.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 04/05/21 File:PROP100YR.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE HYDROLOGY

RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS - PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YR DESIGN STORM, DRAINAGE SUBAREAS A, B, C, D, E
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6388
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual
Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 3 Standard intensity-duration curves data (Plate D-4.1)
For the [ Riverside ] area used.
10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 1.880(In/Hr)
10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.700(In/Hr)
100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.680(In/Hr)
100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.000(In/Hr)
Storm event year = 100.0
Calculated rainfall intensity data:
1 hour intensity = 1.000(In/Hr)
Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 169.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 722.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 722.000(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 0.500(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00296 s(percent)= 0.30
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.483 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.142(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.889
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 3.267(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.170(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 718.120(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 230.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 3.267(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 3.267(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.47(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.47(In.)
Critical Depth = 8.73(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.00(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.96 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.44 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.888
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 8.44 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.941(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.474(CFS) for 1.330(Ac.)
Total runoff = 6.741(CFS) Total area = 2.500(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 89.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 6.741(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 6.741(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 12.82(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 16.30(In.)
Critical Depth = 12.05(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.01(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.30 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 8.74 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.888
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 8.74 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.886(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.075(CFS) for 1.200(Ac.)
Total runoff = 9.816(CFS) Total area = 3.700(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 290.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 722.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 719.800(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.200(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00759 s(percent)= 0.76
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.693 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.095(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.889
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 3.493(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.270(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 712.100(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 711.400(Ft.)
Pipe length = 65.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 3.493(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 3.493(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.28(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 10.05(In.)
Critical Depth = 9.58(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 5.35(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.20 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 7.89 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.888
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 7.89 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.051(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.355(CFS) for 0.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.848(CFS) Total area = 1.770(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.888
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 7.89 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.051(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.711(CFS) for 1.000(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.559(CFS) Total area = 2.770(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 30.000 to Point/Station 31.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 286.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 723.600(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 0.900(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00315 s(percent)= 0.31
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 9.122 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.818(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.888
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 2.476(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.990(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 31.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 720.800(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 720.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 71.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.476(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.476(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 8.29(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.92(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.56(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.56(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.33 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 9.45 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 32.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.887
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 9.45 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.763(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.300(CFS) for 0.530(Ac.)
Total runoff = 3.776(CFS) Total area = 1.520(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 32.000 to Point/Station 32.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.887
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 9.45 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.763(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.506(CFS) for 1.430(Ac.)
Total runoff = 7.282(CFS) Total area = 2.950(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 40.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 333.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 720.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 3.900(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01171 s(percent)= 1.17
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 7.454 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.149(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.889
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 3.442(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 1.230(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 43.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 1.230(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 3.442(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.45 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.149(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 41.000 to Point/Station 42.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 182.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 722.100(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.400(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01319 s(percent)= 1.32
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 5.716 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.644(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.890
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.460(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.450(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 42.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.600(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.600(Ft.)
Pipe length = 210.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.460(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.460(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.66(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.93(In.)
Critical Depth = 6.14(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.26(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 1.07 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 6.79 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 43.000 to Point/Station 43.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 0.450(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 1.460(CFS)
Time of concentration = 6.79 min.

Rainfall intensity = 3.315(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 3.442 7.45 3.149
2 1.460 6.79 3.315
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 3.442 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

1.460 * 0.950 = 1.386
Qp = 4.829
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

3.442 1.460
Area of streams before confluence:

1.230 0.450
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 4.829(CFS)
Time of concentration = 7.454 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 1.680(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 50.000 to Point/Station 51.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 458.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 721.900(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 2.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00459 s(percent)= 0.46
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.214 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.648(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.887
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.221(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.520(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 51.000 to Point/Station 52.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.400(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 66.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.221(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 9.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.221(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.98(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 7.50(In.)
Critical Depth = 6.10(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.32(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.33 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 10.55 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 52.000 to Point/Station 52.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.887
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 10.55 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.602(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.430(CFS) for 0.620(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.652(CFS) Total area = 1.140(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 52.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 717.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 190.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.652(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 15.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.652(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 8.07(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 14.96(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.84(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.94(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.80 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.35 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 57.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.886
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.35 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.499(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1.528(CFS) for 0.690(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.180(CFS) Total area = 1.830(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 57.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 1.830(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 4.180(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.35 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.499(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 53.000 to Point/Station 54.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ Initial area flow distance = 390.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 724.500(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 723.400(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 1.100(Ft.)
Slope = 0.00282 s(percent)= 0.28
TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 10.556 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.601(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.887
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 1.476(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.640(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 0.100
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 54.000 to Point/Station 55.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 719.900(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 719.200(Ft.)
Pipe length = 129.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 1.476(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 1.476(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.43(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 11.97(In.)
Critical Depth = 6.18(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.44(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.63 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.18 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 55.000 to Point/Station 55.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.886
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.18 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.520(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.603(CFS) for 0.270(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.079(CFS) Total area = 0.910(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 55.000 to Point/Station 56.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 719.200(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 719.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 54.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 2.079(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 12.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 2.079(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.42(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 9.86(In.)
Critical Depth = 7.39(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 3.14(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.29 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.47 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 56.000 to Point/Station 56.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL subarea type
Runoff Coefficient = 0.886
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 74.80
Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 11.47 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.485(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 2.841(CFS) for 1.290(Ac.)
Total runoff = 4.919(CFS) Total area = 2.200(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 56.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) **** ______________________________________________________________________ Upstream point/station elevation = 716.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 716.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 53.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 4.919(CFS)
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 4.919(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 10.29(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 17.81(In.)
Critical Depth = 10.24(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 4.72(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.19 min.

Time of concentration (TC) = 11.65 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 57.000 to Point/Station 57.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
______________________________________________________________________ The following data inside Main Stream is listed:

In Main Stream number: 2
Stream flow area = 2.200(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 4.919(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.65 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.463(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:

Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 4.180 11.35 2.499
2 4.919 11.65 2.463
Largest stream flow has longer time of concentration
Qp = 4.919 + sum of
Qb Ia/Ib

4.180 * 0.986 = 4.120
Qp = 9.039
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:

Flow rates before confluence point:

4.180 4.919
Area of streams before confluence:

1.830 2.200
Results of confluence:

Total flow rate = 9.039(CFS)
Time of concentration = 11.654 min.

Effective stream area after confluence = 4.030(Ac.)
End of computations, total study area = 15.13 (Ac.)
The following figures may
be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area.

Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100
Area averaged RI index number = 56.0
PB
PB
PB
V
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
FH
FH
FH
V
V
V
s
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
V
V
V
V
FHs V
s
FH
s
s FH
s s
FH
s
V
s s
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
s
100
727.86
102
715.44
103
724.68
104
704.97
s
s
s
s
s
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
s
V
FH
FH
s
s
s s s
FH
FH
s
s
s s
ss
s
s
s
s
FH
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
sFH
s
s s
V
V
s
s
s
s
s
V
V
s
s
s
s
s
V V
s
s
ss
s s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s s
ss
ss
s
s s
s
s
s s
s
s
s
s
V
V
V V
V
V s
s
s
s
s
FHs
FH
s
s
s
s
FH V
FH
V
s
s
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
Ground Obscured
715
715
715
715
720
720
720 720 720
720
720
720
720 720
720 720720 720
720
720
720
720720
725
725
725
725 720
720
720
720
720
720
725 725
720
725
720
720
725
720
720
725
725
730
730
725 725
720
715
705
710
705
710
720
715
725
705
700 705
725
725
725
725
725
725 730
725
725 725
725
725
725
725
725
725
720 725
720
720
720
720 720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720 720
720
725
725
725 725
725
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Elevated Parking Structure
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Elevated Parking Structure
Area Under Construction
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
(FF 724.9)
(FF 722.5)
(FF 722.5) 720 EX STAFF PARKING STRUCTURE
MAGNOLIA AVE. PARK SIERRA AVE. POLK STREET EX HOSPITAL EX MOB 1 EX MOB 2 EX MOB 3 EX MRI 0.52 E11.23 D1 1.43 C3 1.0 B3 1.33 A2 0.62 E2 0.64 E5 0.27 E6 0.69 E3 1.29 E7 0.41 E4 0.45 D2 1.17 A1 1.20 A3 1.27 B1 0.50 B2 0.99 C1 0.53 C2 Copyright © 2019 CO Architects. This 30"x42" sheet printed: 5055 Wilshire Boulevard, 9th Floor SCALE: DATE OF ISSUE:MARCH 06, 2020 Los Angeles, California 90036 323.525.0500 phone, 323.525.0955 fax RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL EXPANSION 10800 MAGNOLIA AVE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92505 CO PROJECT NO.: 18030.000 K E Y P L A N AGENCY STAMP PROFESSIONAL STAMP N OSHPD PROJECT #XXXXXXX-XX-XX OSHPD FACILITY #XXXXX REVISIONS 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM VICINITY MAP LEGEND EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY MAP 1.47 C1 NOTE:

PB
PB
PB
V
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
FH
FH
FH
V
V
V
s
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
V
V
V
V
FHs V
s
FH
s
s FH
s s
FH
s
V
s s
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
s
100
727.86
102
715.44
103
724.68
104
704.97
s
s
s
s
s
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
s
V
FH
FH
s
s
s s s
FH
FH
s
s
s s
ss
s
s
s
s
FH
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
sFH
s
s s
V
V
s
s
s
s
s
V
V
s
s
s
s
s
V V
s
s
ss
s s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s s
ss
ss
s
s s
s
s
s s
s
s
s
s
V
V
V V
V
V s
s
s
s
s
FHs
FH
s
s
s
s
FH V
FH
V
s
s
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
Ground Obscured
715
715
715
715
720
720
720 720 720
720
720
720
720 720
720 720720 720
720
720
720
720720
725
725
725
725 720
720
720
720
720
720
725 725
720
725
720
720
725
720
720
725
725
730
730
725 725
720
715
705
710
705
710
720
715
725
705
700 705
725
725
725
725
725
725 730
725
725 725
725
725
725
725
725
725
720 725
720
720
720
720 720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720 720
720
725
725
725 725
725
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Elevated Parking Structure
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Elevated Parking Structure
Area Under Construction
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
Ground Obscured
(FF 724.9)
(FF 722.5)
(FF 722.5) 720 EX STAFF PARKING STRUCTURE
MAGNOLIA AVE. PARK SIERRA AVE. POLK STREET PROP TOWER EX HOSPITAL EX MOB 1 EX MOB 2 EX MOB 3 PROP TOWER EX MRI PROP
D&T PROP PARKING STRUCTURE 0.52 E11.23 D1 1.43 C3 1.0 B3 1.33 A2 0.62 E2 0.64 E5 0.27 E6 0.69 E3 1.29 E7 0.41 E4 0.45 D2 1.17 A1 1.20 A3 1.27 B1 0.50 B2 0.99 C1 0.53 C2 Copyright © 2019 CO Architects. This 30"x42" sheet printed:
5055 Wilshire Boulevard, 9th Floor SCALE: DATE OF ISSUE:MARCH 06, 2020 Los Angeles, California 90036 323.525.0500 phone, 323.525.0955 fax RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL EXPANSION 10800 MAGNOLIA AVE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92505 CO PROJECT NO.: 18030.000 K E Y P L A N AGENCY STAMP PROFESSIONAL STAMP N OSHPD PROJECT #XXXXXXX-XX-XX OSHPD FACILITY #XXXXX REVISIONS 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM VICINITY MAP LEGEND PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY MAP 1.47 C1 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center

10 100-yr 1-hr Unit Hydrograph Calculations
U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHEXA1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - EXISTING CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA A
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 3.70(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 3.70(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 471.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 271.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.089 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.051 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 6.00(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 67.2611 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.021 Hr.

Lag time = 1.25 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.31 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.50 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

3.70 0.50 1.85
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

3.70 1.00 3.70
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

3.700 56.00 0.900
Total Area Entered = 3.70(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.900 0.058 1.000 0.058
Sum (F) = 0.058
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.058
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.029
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.180
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 398.765 65.000 2.424
2 0.167 797.530 32.238 1.202
3 0.250 1196.295 2.762 0.103
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 3.729
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.058 ( 0.071) 0.338
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.058 ( 0.091) 0.446
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.058 ( 0.095) 0.470
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.058 ( 0.104) 0.518
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.058 ( 0.112) 0.566
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.058 ( 0.134) 0.686
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.058 ( 0.147) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.058 ( 0.190) 0.998
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.058 ( 0.300) 1.610
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.058 ( 0.678) 3.710
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.058 ( 0.156) 0.806
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.058 ( 0.082) 0.398
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.3
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.94(In)
times area 3.7(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.3(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.06(In)
Total soil loss = 0.018(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 12651.3 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 779.2 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 11.036(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0056 0.82 VQ | | | |
0+10 0.0159 1.49 | Q | | | |
0+15 0.0277 1.71 | Q | | | |
0+20 0.0405 1.87 | Q V | | | |
0+25 0.0546 2.04 | Q V | | | |
0+30 0.0711 2.40 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0899 2.72 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.1133 3.40 | Q | V | | |
0+45 0.1490 5.18 | Q V | |
0+50 0.2250 11.04 | | | Q V |
0+55 0.2703 6.58 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.2863 2.32 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.2902 0.56 |Q | | | V|
1+10 0.2904 0.04 Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHEXB1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - EXISTING CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA B
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 2.77(Ac.) = 0.004 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 2.77(Ac.) = 0.004 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 289.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 168.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.055 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.032 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 1.50(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 27.4048 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.017 Hr.

Lag time = 1.03 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.26 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.41 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.77 0.50 1.39
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.77 1.00 2.77
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

2.770 56.00 0.900
Total Area Entered = 2.77(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.900 0.058 1.000 0.058
Sum (F) = 0.058
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.058
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.029
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.180
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 485.452 70.184 1.959
2 0.167 970.905 29.816 0.832
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 2.792
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.058 ( 0.071) 0.338
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.058 ( 0.091) 0.446
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.058 ( 0.095) 0.470
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.058 ( 0.104) 0.518
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.058 ( 0.112) 0.566
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.058 ( 0.134) 0.686
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.058 ( 0.147) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.058 ( 0.190) 0.998
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.058 ( 0.300) 1.610
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.058 ( 0.678) 3.710
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.058 ( 0.156) 0.806
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.058 ( 0.082) 0.398
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.3
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.94(In)
times area 2.8(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.2(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.06(In)
Total soil loss = 0.013(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 9471.5 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 583.4 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 8.613(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0046 0.66 V Q | | | |
0+10 0.0125 1.16 | V Q | | | |
0+15 0.0214 1.29 | V Q | | | |
0+20 0.0311 1.41 | Q | | | |
0+25 0.0417 1.54 | QV | | | |
0+30 0.0542 1.82 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0684 2.06 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.0862 2.59 | Q V | | |
0+45 0.1137 3.99 | | Q V | |
0+50 0.1730 8.61 | | | |V Q |
0+55 0.2052 4.67 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.2152 1.45 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.2174 0.33 |Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHEXC1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - EXISTING CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA C
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 2.95(Ac.) = 0.005 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 2.95(Ac.) = 0.005 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 286.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 142.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.054 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.027 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 1.50(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 27.6923 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.016 Hr.

Lag time = 0.96 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.24 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.38 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.95 0.50 1.48
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.95 1.00 2.95
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

2.950 56.00 0.900
Total Area Entered = 2.95(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.900 0.058 1.000 0.058
Sum (F) = 0.058
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.058
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.029
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.180
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 520.568 71.915 2.138
2 0.167 1041.136 28.085 0.835
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 2.973
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.058 ( 0.071) 0.338
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.058 ( 0.091) 0.446
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.058 ( 0.095) 0.470
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.058 ( 0.104) 0.518
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.058 ( 0.112) 0.566
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.058 ( 0.134) 0.686
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.058 ( 0.147) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.058 ( 0.190) 0.998
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.058 ( 0.300) 1.610
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.058 ( 0.678) 3.710
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.058 ( 0.156) 0.806
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.058 ( 0.082) 0.398
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.3
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.94(In)
times area 3.0(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.2(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.06(In)
Total soil loss = 0.014(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 10086.9 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 621.3 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 9.281(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0050 0.72 V Q | | | |
0+10 0.0135 1.24 | V Q | | | |
0+15 0.0230 1.38 | V Q | | | |
0+20 0.0333 1.50 | VQ | | | |
0+25 0.0446 1.64 | QV | | | |
0+30 0.0580 1.94 | Q V | | |
0+35 0.0731 2.19 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.0922 2.77 | |Q V | | |
0+45 0.1216 4.28 | | Q |V | |
0+50 0.1856 9.28 | | | | V Q |
0+55 0.2188 4.82 | | Q| | V |
1+ 0 0.2293 1.52 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.2316 0.33 |Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHEXD1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - EXISTING CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA D
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 1.68(Ac.) = 0.003 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 1.68(Ac.) = 0.003 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 332.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 287.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.063 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.054 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 1.50(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 23.8554 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.023 Hr.

Lag time = 1.37 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.34 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.55 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

1.68 0.50 0.84
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

1.68 1.00 1.68
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

1.680 56.00 0.900
Total Area Entered = 1.68(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.900 0.058 1.000 0.058
Sum (F) = 0.058
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.058
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.029
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.180
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 365.959 62.586 1.060
2 0.167 731.917 33.743 0.571
3 0.250 1097.876 3.671 0.062
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 1.693
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.058 ( 0.071) 0.338
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.058 ( 0.091) 0.446
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.058 ( 0.095) 0.470
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.058 ( 0.104) 0.518
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.058 ( 0.112) 0.566
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.058 ( 0.134) 0.686
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.058 ( 0.147) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.058 ( 0.190) 0.998
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.058 ( 0.300) 1.610
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.058 ( 0.678) 3.710
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.058 ( 0.156) 0.806
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.058 ( 0.082) 0.398
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.3
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.94(In)
times area 1.7(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.1(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.06(In)
Total soil loss = 0.008(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 5744.5 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 353.8 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 4.916(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0025 0.36 VQ | | | |
0+10 0.0071 0.67 | Q | | | |
0+15 0.0124 0.77 | Q | | | |
0+20 0.0182 0.85 | Q V | | | |
0+25 0.0246 0.93 | Q V | | | |
0+30 0.0320 1.08 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0405 1.23 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.0511 1.53 | Q | V | | |
0+45 0.0671 2.32 | Q| V | |
0+50 0.1009 4.92 | | Q| V |
0+55 0.1221 3.08 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.1298 1.11 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.1317 0.28 |Q | | | V|
1+10 0.1319 0.02 Q | | | V|
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHEXE1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - EXISTING CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA E
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 4.03(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 4.03(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 657.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 235.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.124 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.045 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 4.00(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 32.1461 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.026 Hr.

Lag time = 1.55 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.39 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.62 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

4.03 0.50 2.02
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

4.03 1.00 4.03
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

4.030 56.00 0.900
Total Area Entered = 4.03(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.900 0.058 1.000 0.058
Sum (F) = 0.058
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.058
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.029
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.180
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 322.398 58.868 2.391
2 0.167 644.795 35.930 1.459
3 0.250 967.193 5.202 0.211
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 4.061
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.058 ( 0.071) 0.338
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.058 ( 0.091) 0.446
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.058 ( 0.095) 0.470
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.058 ( 0.104) 0.518
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.058 ( 0.112) 0.566
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.058 ( 0.134) 0.686
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.058 ( 0.147) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.058 ( 0.190) 0.998
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.058 ( 0.300) 1.610
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.058 ( 0.678) 3.710
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.058 ( 0.156) 0.806
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.058 ( 0.082) 0.398
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.3
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.94(In)
times area 4.0(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.3(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.06(In)
Total soil loss = 0.019(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 13779.6 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 848.7 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 11.436(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0056 0.81 VQ | | | |
0+10 0.0163 1.56 | VQ | | | |
0+15 0.0290 1.85 | Q | | | |
0+20 0.0429 2.02 | QV | | | |
0+25 0.0582 2.21 | Q V | | | |
0+30 0.0759 2.58 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0961 2.93 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.1212 3.64 | Q | V | | |
0+45 0.1588 5.47 | Q V | |
0+50 0.2376 11.44 | | | Q V |
0+55 0.2905 7.68 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.3106 2.91 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.3158 0.75 |Q | | | V|
1+10 0.3163 0.08 Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHPROP1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA A
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 3.70(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 3.70(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 471.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 271.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.089 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.051 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 6.00(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 67.2611 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.021 Hr.

Lag time = 1.25 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.31 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.50 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

3.70 0.50 1.85
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

3.70 1.00 3.70
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

3.700 56.00 0.900
Total Area Entered = 3.70(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.900 0.058 1.000 0.058
Sum (F) = 0.058
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.058
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.029
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.180
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 398.765 65.000 2.424
2 0.167 797.530 32.238 1.202
3 0.250 1196.295 2.762 0.103
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 3.729
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.058 ( 0.071) 0.338
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.058 ( 0.091) 0.446
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.058 ( 0.095) 0.470
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.058 ( 0.104) 0.518
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.058 ( 0.112) 0.566
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.058 ( 0.134) 0.686
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.058 ( 0.147) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.058 ( 0.190) 0.998
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.058 ( 0.300) 1.610
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.058 ( 0.678) 3.710
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.058 ( 0.156) 0.806
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.058 ( 0.082) 0.398
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.3
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.94(In)
times area 3.7(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.3(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.06(In)
Total soil loss = 0.018(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 12651.3 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 779.2 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 11.036(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0056 0.82 VQ | | | |
0+10 0.0159 1.49 | Q | | | |
0+15 0.0277 1.71 | Q | | | |
0+20 0.0405 1.87 | Q V | | | |
0+25 0.0546 2.04 | Q V | | | |
0+30 0.0711 2.40 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0899 2.72 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.1133 3.40 | Q | V | | |
0+45 0.1490 5.18 | Q V | |
0+50 0.2250 11.04 | | | Q V |
0+55 0.2703 6.58 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.2863 2.32 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.2902 0.56 |Q | | | V|
1+10 0.2904 0.04 Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHPROPB1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA B
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 2.77(Ac.) = 0.004 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 2.77(Ac.) = 0.004 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 289.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 168.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.055 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.032 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 1.50(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 27.4048 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.017 Hr.

Lag time = 1.03 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.26 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.41 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.77 0.50 1.39
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.77 1.00 2.77
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

2.770 56.00 0.900
Total Area Entered = 2.77(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.900 0.058 1.000 0.058
Sum (F) = 0.058
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.058
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.029
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.180
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 485.452 70.184 1.959
2 0.167 970.905 29.816 0.832
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 2.792
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.058 ( 0.071) 0.338
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.058 ( 0.091) 0.446
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.058 ( 0.095) 0.470
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.058 ( 0.104) 0.518
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.058 ( 0.112) 0.566
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.058 ( 0.134) 0.686
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.058 ( 0.147) 0.758
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.058 ( 0.190) 0.998
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.058 ( 0.300) 1.610
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.058 ( 0.678) 3.710
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.058 ( 0.156) 0.806
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.058 ( 0.082) 0.398
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.3
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.94(In)
times area 2.8(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.2(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.06(In)
Total soil loss = 0.013(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 9471.5 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 583.4 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 8.613(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0046 0.66 V Q | | | |
0+10 0.0125 1.16 | V Q | | | |
0+15 0.0214 1.29 | V Q | | | |
0+20 0.0311 1.41 | Q | | | |
0+25 0.0417 1.54 | QV | | | |
0+30 0.0542 1.82 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0684 2.06 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.0862 2.59 | Q V | | |
0+45 0.1137 3.99 | | Q V | |
0+50 0.1730 8.61 | | | |V Q |
0+55 0.2052 4.67 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.2152 1.45 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.2174 0.33 |Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHPROPC1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA C
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 2.95(Ac.) = 0.005 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 2.95(Ac.) = 0.005 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 286.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 142.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.054 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.027 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 1.50(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 27.6923 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.016 Hr.

Lag time = 0.96 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.24 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.38 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.95 0.50 1.48
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

2.95 1.00 2.95
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

2.950 56.00 0.850
Total Area Entered = 2.95(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.850 0.072 1.000 0.072
Sum (F) = 0.072
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.072
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.036
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.220
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 520.568 71.915 2.138
2 0.167 1041.136 28.085 0.835
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 2.973
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.072 ( 0.087) 0.324
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.072 ( 0.111) 0.432
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.072 ( 0.116) 0.456
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.072 ( 0.127) 0.504
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.072 ( 0.137) 0.552
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.072 ( 0.164) 0.672
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.072 ( 0.180) 0.744
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.072 ( 0.232) 0.984
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.072 ( 0.367) 1.596
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.072 ( 0.829) 3.696
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.072 ( 0.190) 0.792
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.072 ( 0.100) 0.384
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.1
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.93(In)
times area 3.0(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.2(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.07(In)
Total soil loss = 0.018(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 9939.8 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 768.4 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 9.240(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0048 0.69 V Q | | | |
0+10 0.0130 1.20 | V Q | | | |
0+15 0.0222 1.34 | V Q | | | |
0+20 0.0323 1.46 | Q | | | |
0+25 0.0433 1.60 | QV | | | |
0+30 0.0564 1.90 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0712 2.15 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.0900 2.73 | Q V | | |
0+45 0.1192 4.24 | | Q V | |
0+50 0.1828 9.24 | | | | V Q |
0+55 0.2158 4.78 | | Q| | V |
1+ 0 0.2260 1.48 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.2282 0.32 |Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHPROPD1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA D
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 1.68(Ac.) = 0.003 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 1.68(Ac.) = 0.003 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 332.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 287.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.063 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.054 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 1.50(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 23.8554 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.023 Hr.

Lag time = 1.37 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.34 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.55 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

1.68 0.50 0.84
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

1.68 1.00 1.68
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

1.680 56.00 0.850
Total Area Entered = 1.68(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.850 0.072 1.000 0.072
Sum (F) = 0.072
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.072
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.036
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.220
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 365.959 62.586 1.060
2 0.167 731.917 33.743 0.571
3 0.250 1097.876 3.671 0.062
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 1.693
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.072 ( 0.087) 0.324
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.072 ( 0.111) 0.432
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.072 ( 0.116) 0.456
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.072 ( 0.127) 0.504
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.072 ( 0.137) 0.552
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.072 ( 0.164) 0.672
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.072 ( 0.180) 0.744
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.072 ( 0.232) 0.984
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.072 ( 0.367) 1.596
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.072 ( 0.829) 3.696
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.072 ( 0.190) 0.792
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.072 ( 0.100) 0.384
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.1
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.93(In)
times area 1.7(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.1(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.07(In)
Total soil loss = 0.010(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 5660.7 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 437.6 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 4.892(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0024 0.34 VQ | | | |
0+10 0.0068 0.64 | Q | | | |
0+15 0.0120 0.75 | Q | | | |
0+20 0.0176 0.82 | Q V | | | |
0+25 0.0238 0.90 | Q V | | | |
0+30 0.0311 1.06 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0395 1.21 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.0499 1.51 | Q | V | | |
0+45 0.0657 2.30 | Q| V | |
0+50 0.0994 4.89 | | Q| V |
0+55 0.1204 3.05 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.1279 1.09 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.1298 0.27 |Q | | | V|
1+10 0.1300 0.02 Q | | | V
----------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 2014, Version 9.0 Study date 04/05/21 File: UHPROPE1001100.out
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
Program License Serial Number 6388
--------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used
English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used
English Units used in output format
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KAISER RIVERSIDE PROJECT

UNIT HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS - PROPOSED CONDITION
100-YR 1-HOUR STORM, DMA AREA E
BY PRASAD KASTURI ON 4-5-20201
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 4.03(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Drainage Area for Depth-Area Areal Adjustment = 4.03(Ac.) = 0.006 Sq. Mi.

Length along longest watercourse = 657.00(Ft.)
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 235.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.124 Mi.

Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.045 Mi.

Difference in elevation = 4.00(Ft.)
Slope along watercourse = 32.1461 Ft./Mi.

Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015
Lag time = 0.026 Hr.

Lag time = 1.55 Min.
25% of lag time = 0.39 Min.
40% of lag time = 0.62 Min.

Unit time = 5.00 Min.

Duration of storm = 1 Hour(s)
User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS)
2 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

4.03 0.50 2.02
100 YEAR Area rainfall data:

Area(Ac.)[1] Rainfall(In)[2] Weighting[1*2]

4.03 1.00 4.03
STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 0.500(In)
Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 1.000(In)
Point rain (area averaged) = 1.000(In)
Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 %
Adjusted average point rain = 1.000(In)
Sub-Area Data:

Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious %

4.030 56.00 0.850
Total Area Entered = 4.03(Ac.)
RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
AMC2 AMC-3 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr)

56.0 74.8 0.305 0.850 0.072 1.000 0.072
Sum (F) = 0.072
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.072
Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr)) = 0.036
(for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.220
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Slope of intensity-duration curve for a 1 hour storm =0.5500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
VALLEY S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.083 322.398 58.868 2.391
2 0.167 644.795 35.930 1.459
3 0.250 967.193 5.202 0.211
Sum = 100.000 Sum= 4.061
----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following loss rate calculations reflect use of the minimum calculated loss rate subtracted from the Storm Rain to produce the maximum Effective Rain value Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max | Low (In/Hr)
1 0.08 3.30 0.396 0.072 ( 0.087) 0.324
2 0.17 4.20 0.504 0.072 ( 0.111) 0.432
3 0.25 4.40 0.528 0.072 ( 0.116) 0.456
4 0.33 4.80 0.576 0.072 ( 0.127) 0.504
5 0.42 5.20 0.624 0.072 ( 0.137) 0.552
6 0.50 6.20 0.744 0.072 ( 0.164) 0.672
7 0.58 6.80 0.816 0.072 ( 0.180) 0.744
8 0.67 8.80 1.056 0.072 ( 0.232) 0.984
9 0.75 13.90 1.668 0.072 ( 0.367) 1.596
10 0.83 31.40 3.768 0.072 ( 0.829) 3.696
11 0.92 7.20 0.864 0.072 ( 0.190) 0.792
12 1.00 3.80 0.456 0.072 ( 0.100) 0.384
(Loss Rate Not Used)
Sum = 100.0 Sum = 11.1
Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.93(In)
times area 4.0(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.3(Ac.Ft)
Total soil loss = 0.07(In)
Total soil loss = 0.024(Ac.Ft)
Total rainfall = 1.00(In)
Flood volume = 13578.6 Cubic Feet
Total soil loss = 1049.8 Cubic Feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 11.380(CFS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 - H O U R S T O R M
R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals ((CFS))
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0+ 5 0.0053 0.78 VQ | | | |
0+10 0.0157 1.51 | VQ | | | |
0+15 0.0281 1.79 | Q | | | |
0+20 0.0416 1.96 | Q V | | | |
0+25 0.0564 2.15 | Q V | | | |
0+30 0.0738 2.52 | Q V| | | |
0+35 0.0936 2.88 | Q | V | | |
0+40 0.1183 3.58 | Q | V | | |
0+45 0.1556 5.41 | Q V| | |
0+50 0.2339 11.38 | | | Q V |
0+55 0.2865 7.63 | | Q | | V |
1+ 0 0.3061 2.86 | Q | | | V|
1+ 5 0.3112 0.73 |Q | | | V|
1+10 0.3117 0.08 Q | | | V
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INITIALSTUDY APPENDIX I
Preliminary Project Specific Water
Quality Management Plan
- 1 -
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
A Template for Projects located within the Santa Ana Watershed Region of Riverside County Project Title: Kaiser Permanente Riverside
Public Works No: GP2021-01927
Design Review/Case No: P19-0880
Original Date Prepared: 2/24/2020
Revision Date(s): 3/19/2021, 4/19/2021
Prepared for Compliance with
Regional Board Order No. R8-2010-0033
Contact Information:

Prepared for:

CO Architects
5055 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA. 90036
Phone: (714) 884-1308
Attn: Tom Chessum
Prepared by:

Scott Davis, PE 72281
Michael Baker International
9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd,
San Diego CA 92124
Phone: 858-614-5000
Preliminary
Final

- 3 -
Table of Contents
Section A: Project and Site Information........................................................................................................ 5 A.1 Maps and Site Plans ............................................................................................................................ 5 A.2 Receiving Waters ................................................................................................................................ 6 A.3 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: .................................................................... 6 Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) ..................................................................................... 7 Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) ......................................................................... 8 Section D: Implement LID BMPs ................................................................................................................. 10 D.1 Infiltration Applicability .................................................................................................................... 10 D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment ............................................................................................................ 11 D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment .................................................................................... 12 D.4 Feasibility Assessment Summaries ................................................................................................... 13 D.5 LID BMP Sizing .................................................................................................................................. 14 Section E: Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program) .......................................................................... 17 Section F: Hydromodification ..................................................................................................................... 18 F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis .......................................................................... 18 F.2 HCOC Mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 19 Section G: Source Control BMPs ................................................................................................................. 20 Section H: Construction Plan Checklist ....................................................................................................... 21 Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding ........................................................................................ 22

- 4 -
List of Tables
Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters ................................................................................................ 6 Table A.2 Other Applicable Permits .............................................................................................................. 6 Table C.1 DMA Classifications ....................................................................................................................... 8 Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas ......................................................................................................... 8 Table C.3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas ....................................................................................................... 8 Table C.4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas ........................................................................ 9 Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs ................................................................................................. 9 Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 10 Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix ............................................................................................. 13 Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs ................................................................................................... 14 Table F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary .............................................................................. 18 Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures ............................................................. 20 Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference ............................................................................................. 21 List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans ................................................................................................................ 23 Appendix 2: Construction Plans .................................................................................................................. 24 Appendix 3: Soils Information ..................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions ........................................................................................................ 26 Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility ........................................................................................................................ 27 Appendix 6: BMP Design Details ................................................................................................................. 28 Appendix 7: Hydromodification .................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix 8: Source Control ........................................................................................................................ 30 Appendix 9: O&M ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix 10: Educational Materials ....................................................................................................... - 32 - - 5 -
Section A: Project and Site Information
The Kaiser Permanente Hospital is located at 10800 Magnolia Ave, Riverside CA 92505. The existing hospital is adding more buildings and redesigning the parking. The total disturbed area is about 15.5 acres. Total impervious cover will be reduced compared to the existing condition. The project location is also in hydromodification exemption area of the County.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Type of Project: Commercial
Ward Area: Ward 7
Community Name: La Sierra
Development Name: Kaiser Permanente

PROJECT LOCATION
Latitude & Longitude (DMS): 33°54'18.26"N 117°28'10.10"W Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed: Santa Ana; Santa Ana River, Reach 3 APN(s): 138-470-010
Map Book and Page No.: MB 1/70, MB 116/92&93

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed or Potential Land Use(s) Hospital and Parking
Structure
Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s) 8062
Area of Impervious Project Footprint (SF) 509,881
Total Area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits (SF)/or Replacement 509,881 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

EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Total area of existing Impervious Surfaces within the project limits (SF) 493,279 Is the project located within any MSHCP Criteria Cell? Y N If so, identify the Cell number: Insert text here
describing how each
included Site Design
BMP will be
implemented.

Are there any natural hydrologic features on the project site? Y N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? Y N
If no Geotech. Report, list the NRCS soils type(s) present on the site (A, B, C and/or D) What is the Water Quality Design Storm Depth for the project? 0.60 inches A.1 Maps and Site Plans
Appendix 1 includes a map of the local vicinity and existing site. In addition, WQMP Site Plan, located in Appendix 1, includes the following:
- 6 -
x Drainage Management Areas
x Proposed Structural BMPs
x Drainage Path
x Drainage Infrastructure, Inlets, Overflows
x Source Control BMPs
x Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
x Impervious Surfaces
x Standard Labeling

A.2 Receiving Waters
In order of upstream to downstream, the receiving waters that the project site is tributary to are as follows. A map of the receiving waters is included in Appendix 1.

Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters
Receiving Waters Hydrologic
Unit
EPA Approved
303(d) List
Impairments
Designated
Beneficial Uses
Proximity to RARE
Beneficial Use
La Sierra Channel 801.25 N/A REC2, WARM, WILD 10 Miles
Arlington Channel 801.25 N/A REC2, WARM, WILD 10 MIles
Temescal Creek Reach 1a 801.25 N/A REC2, WARM, WILD 10 Miles Prado Basin Management
Zone 802.21 PH REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE N/A
A.3 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:

Table A.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 (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Cert. Y N US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA 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)
City of Riverside Conditional Use Permit
City of Riverside Design Review
City of Riverside Building Permit
City of Riverside Grading Permit
City of Riverside Construction Permit
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N

- 7 -
Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles)
Site Optimization
Does the project identify and preserve existing drainage patterns? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. The Surface runoff will flow mimicking the same existing drainage pattern and will utilize proposed, storm drain, catch basins and area drains to capture the flow and get treated in bioretention basins for water quality treatment.

Does the project identify and protect existing vegetation? If so, how? If not, why? No. The site is fully developed in existing condition. Approximately 10% of the proposed project site will be landscaped.

Does the project identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? If so, how? If not, why? No. the soils report shows low infiltrating capacity on-site.

Does the project identify and minimize impervious area? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. The street widths are designed to minimum city requirements thus minimizing the street impervious area.

Does the project identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas? If so, how? If not, why? Yes, roof runoff from proposed building will drain onto landscape prior to entering storm drain system (catch basins/area drain inlets/pipes).

- 8 -
Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas
(DMAs)
Table C.1 DMA Classifications
DMA Name or ID Surface Type(s) Area (Sq. Ft.) DMA Type
DMA-1 Roof 76,131 D
Concrete or Asphalt 55,346
Landscape 29,721
DMA-2 Roof 0 D
Concrete or Asphalt 89,365
Landscape 31,162
DMA-3 Roof 35,376 D
Concrete or Asphalt 52.291
Landscape 40,836
DMA-4 Roof 5,079 D
Concrete or Asphalt 50,706
Landscape 17,567
DMA-5 Roof 13,888 D
Concrete or Asphalt 115,197
Landscape 64,369
Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas
DMA Name or ID Area (Sq. Ft.) Stabilization Type Irrigation Type (if any) 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]
[ܥ] ∙ [ܤ] + [ܤ] = [ܦ]
[ܣ]
- 9 -
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]
Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs
DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID
DMA-1 BMP-1 Bioretention with outlet risers and underdrains DMA-2 BMP-2 Bioretention with outlet risers and underdrains DMA-3 BMP-3 Bioretention with outlet risers and underdrains DMA-4 BMP-4 Bioretention with outlet risers and underdrains DMA-5 BMP-5 Bioretention with outlet risers and underdrains

- 10 -
Section D: Implement LID BMPs
D.1 Infiltration Applicability
Is there an approved downstream ‘Highest and Best Use’ for stormwater runoff (ref: Chapter 2.4.4 of the WQMP Guidance Document)? Y N
Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report is required by the City of Riverside to confirm present and past site characteristics that may affect the use of Infiltration BMPs, see Appendix 3.

Is this project classified as a small project consistent with the requirements of Chapter 2 of the WQMP Guidance Document? Y N
Infiltration Feasibility
Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility
Does the project site… YES NO
…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 of a water supply well? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…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:
…have measured in-situ infiltration rates of less than 1.6 inches / hour? X If Yes, list affected DMAs: Project site is generally located on an area with small infiltration capability ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 inches/hr. All DMA’s will be affected.
…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:
…geotechnical report identify other site-specific factors that would preclude effective and safe infiltration? X Describe here: slight collapse potential

- 11 -
D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment
The following conditions apply:
厔 Reclaimed water will be used for the non-potable water demands for the project. ܆ Downstream water rights may be impacted by Harvest and Use as approved by the Regional Board (verified with the City of Riverside).
厔 The Design Capture Volume will be addressed using Infiltration Only BMPs. (Harvest and Use BMPs are still encouraged, but are not required as the Design Capture Volume will be infiltrated or evapotranspired).
厖 None of the above.

Harvest and Use BMPs need to be assessed for the site.

Irrigation Use Feasibility
Step 1: Total Area of Irrigated Landscape: 4.22 ac
Type of Landscaping (Conservation Design or Active Turf): Conservation Design Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: 11.33 ac
Step 3: The project EIATIA factor: 0.79
Step 4: Minimum required irrigated area: 8.95
Step 5:

Minimum required irrigated area (Step 4) Available Irrigated Landscape (Step 1)

8.95 4.22
- 12 -
Toilet Use Feasibility
Step 1: Projected Number of Daily Toilet Users: 200
Project Type: Residential
Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: 11.33
Step 3: The project TUTIA factor: 132
Step 4: Minimum number of toilet users: 1496
Step 5:

Minimum required Toilet Users (Step 4) Projected number of toilet users (Step 1) 1496 200
Other Non-Potable Use Feasibility
n/a
Step 1: Average Daily Demand: n/a
Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: n/a
Step 3: The project factor: n/a
Step 4: Minimum required use: n/a
Step 5:

Minimum required non-potable use (Step 4) Projected average daily use (Step 1) n/a n/a
D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment
Other LID Bioretention and Biotreatment BMPs as described in Chapter 2.4.7 of the WQMP Guidance Document are feasible on nearly all development sites with sufficient advance planning.

For the project, the following applies:
厖 LID Bioretention/Biotreatment BMPs will be used for some or all DMAs of the project as noted below in Section D.4
܆ A site-specific analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of all LID BMPs has been performed and is included in Appendix 5.
厔 None of the above.

- 13 -
D.4 Feasibility Assessment Summaries
Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix
DMA
Name/ID
LID BMP Hierarchy No LID
(Alternative

1. Infiltration 2. Harvest and use 3. Bioretention 4. Biotreatment Compliance) DMA 1
DMA 2
DMA 3
DMA 4
DMA 5

- 14 -
D.5 LID BMP Sizing
Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
Bioretention #1
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
DMA 1 76,131 Roof 1.00 0.89 67908.9
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 1 55,346 Concrete or
Asphalt

1.00 0.89 49368.6
DMA 1 29,721 Landscape 0.10 0.11 3282.9

161,198 120560.4 0.6 6,028 6,202
[B], [C] are obtained from Section 2.3.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is obtained from LID BMP design procedure sheet, placed in Appendix 6 Table D.4 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
Bioretention #2
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
DMA 2 0 Roof 1.00 0 0
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 2 89365 Concrete or
Asphalt

1.00 0.89 79713.6
DMA 2 31162 Landscape 0.10 0.11 3442.1

120,527 83155.7 0.6 4,156 4,428
[B], [C] are obtained from Section 2.3.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is obtained from LID BMP design procedure sheet, placed in Appendix 6

- 15 -
Table D.5 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
Bioretention #3
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
DMA 3 35376 Roof 1.00 0.89 31555.4
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 3 52291 Concrete or
Asphalt

1.00 0.89 46643.6
DMA 3 40836 Landscape 0.10 0.11 4510.7

128,503 82,709.7 0.6 4,136 5,196
[B], [C] are obtained from Section 2.3.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is obtained from LID BMP design procedure sheet, placed in Appendix 6 Table D.6 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
Bioretention #4
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
DMA 4 5079 Roof 1.00 0.89 4530.5
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 4 50706 Concrete or
Asphalt

1.00 0.89 45229.8
DMA 4 17567 Landscape 0.10 0.11 1940.4

73,352 51,700.7 0.6 2,585 4,238
[B], [C] are obtained from Section 2.3.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is obtained from LID BMP design procedure sheet, placed in Appendix 6 - 16 -
Table D.7 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
Bioretention #5
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
DMA 5 13888 Roof 1.00 0.89 12388.1
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
DMA 5 115197 Concrete or
Asphalt

1.00 0.89 102755.7
DMA 5 64369 Landscape 0.10 0.11 7110.1

193,454 122253.9 0.6 6,113 6,748
[B], [C] are obtained from Section 2.3.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is obtained from LID BMP design procedure sheet, placed in Appendix 6

- 17 -
Section E: Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program)
LID BMPs are expected to be feasible on virtually all projects. Where LID BMPs have been demonstrated to be infeasible as documented in Section D, other Treatment Control BMPs must be used (subject to confirmation of LID waiver approval by the Regional Board). For the project, the following applies:
厖 LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all Drainage Management Areas. No alternative compliance measures are required for this project and thus this Section is not required to be completed.
- Or -
܆ The following Drainage Management Areas are unable to be addressed using LID BMPs. A sitespecific analysis demonstrating technical infeasibility of LID BMPs has been approved by the Regional Board and included in Appendix 5. Additionally, no downstream regional and/or subregional LID BMPs exist or are available for use by the project. The alternative compliance measures on the following pages are being implemented to ensure that any pollutant loads expected to be discharged by not incorporating LID BMPs, are fully mitigated.

- 18 -
Section F: Hydromodification
F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis
The project does not create a Hydrologic Condition of Concern, meeting the criteria for HCOC Exemption as shown below:

HCOC EXEMPTION 1: The Priority Development Project disturbs less than one acre. The City of Riverside has the discretion to require a Project-Specific WQMP to address HCOCs on projects less than one acre on a case by case basis. The disturbed area calculation should include all disturbances associated with larger common plans of development.

Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
HCOC EXEMPTION 2: The volume and time of concentration1 of storm water runoff for the postdevelopment condition is not significantly different from the pre-development condition for a 2-year return frequency storm (a difference of 5% or less is considered insignificant) using one of the following methods to calculate:
x Riverside County Hydrology Manual
x Technical Release 55 (TR-55): Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS 1986), or derivatives thereof, such as the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method x Other methods acceptable to the City of Riverside
Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
Results included in Table F.1 below and hydrologic analysis included in Appendix 7.

Table F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary
2 year – 24 hour
Pre-condition Post-condition % Difference
Time of
Concentration

INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE
Flow (CFS) INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE
Volume (Cubic Feet) INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE 1 Time of concentration is defined as the time after the beginning of the rainfall when all portions of the drainage basin are contributing to flow at the outlet.

- 19 -
HCOC EXEMPTION 3: All downstream conveyance channels to an adequate sump (Prado Dam, Santa Ana River) that will receive runoff from the project are engineered and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity; no sensitive stream habitat areas will be adversely affected; or are not identified on the Co-Permittees Hydromodification Sensitivity Maps.

Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
The project drains to existing Magnolia Ave storm drain/La Sierra Channel and eventually connect to downstream Temescal Channel to discharges into Prado Dam of Santa Ana River.

F.2 HCOC Mitigation
As an alternative to the HCOC Exemption Criteria above, HCOC criteria is considered mitigated if the project meets one of the following conditions, as indicated:
a. Additional LID BMPS are implemented onsite or offsite to mitigate potential erosion or habitat impacts as a result of HCOCs. This can be conducted by an evaluation of site-specific conditions utilizing accepted professional methodologies published by entities such as the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCRWP), or other Co-Permittee approved methodologies for site-specific HCOC analysis. b. The project is developed consistent with an approved Watershed Action Plan that addresses HCOC in Receiving Waters.
c. Mimicking the pre-development hydrograph with the post-development hydrograph, for a 2-year return frequency storm. Generally, the hydrologic conditions of concern are not significant, if the post-development hydrograph is no more than 10% greater than pre-development hydrograph.

In cases where excess volume cannot be infiltrated or captured and reused, discharge from the site must be limited to a flow rate no greater than 110% of the pre-development 2-year peak flow. d. None of the above.

- 20 -
Section G: Source Control BMPs
The following table identifies the potential sources of runoff pollutants for this project and specifies how they are addressed through permanent controls and operational BMPs:

Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures Potential Sources of Runoff
pollutants
Permanent Structural Source
Control BMPs
Operational Source Control BMPs
On-site storm drain inlets Mark all inlets with the words “Only Rain Down the Storm Drain” or
similar. Catch Basin Markers may be
available from the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water District
Conservation District, call
951.955.1200 to verify.

Maintain and periodically repaint or
replace inlet markings.

Provide stormwater pollution
prevention information to new site
owners, lessees, or operators.

See applicable operational BMPs in
Fact Sheet SC-44, “Drainage System
Maintenance,” in the CASQA
Stormwater Quality Handbook at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Include the following in less
agreements: “Tenants shall not
allow anyone to discharge anything
to storm drains or to store or
deposit materials so as to create a
potential discharge to storm drains”
Landscape/ Outdoor Pesticide The final landscape plans will accomplish all of the following:

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.

Consider using pest-resistant plants,
especially adjacent to hardscape.

Maintain landscaping using
minimum or no pesticides.

See applicable operational BMPs in
“What you should know for
Landscaping and Gardening” at
http://rcflood.org/stormwater
Provide IPM information to new
owners, leasees and operators.

Refuse Area (Recreational area) Signs will be posted on or near dumpsters with words “Do not
dump hazardous materials here”
or similar.

Weekly inspection and litter pick up
will be implemented. Adequate
number of receptacles will be
provided and regularly inspected for
repair or replacement of leaky
receptacles. Signs will be posted
prohibiting or preventing of
dumping of liquid or hazardous
materials.
- 21 -
See fact Sheet SC-34. “waste
Handling and Disposal” in the
CASQA Stormwater Quality
Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks
Roofing, gutters and trim Avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other
unprotected metals that may leach
runoff
Repair and clean gutters, repair
leaks
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking
lots.

Periodic sweeping of sidewalks 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 H: Construction Plan Checklist
Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference
BMP No.
or ID
BMP Identifier and Description Plan Sheet
Number(s)
Latitude / Longitude
DMA 1 Bioretention Basin #1 Grading Sheet 6 33°54'13.66"N 117°28'7.70"W DMA 2 Bioretention Basin #2 Grading Sheet 6 33°54'13.94"N 117°28'13.80"W DMA 3 Bioretention Basin #3 Grading Sheet 6 33°54'18.14"N 117°28'14.26"W DMA 4 Bioretention Basin #4 Grading Sheet 6 33°54'20.84"N 117°28'16.46"W DMA 5 Bioretention Basin #5 Grading Sheet 5 33°54'23.13"N 117°28'13.51"W

- 22 -
Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding
As required by the City of Riverside, the following Operation, Maintenance and Funding details are provided as summarized:

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

2. Acceptance of responsibility for maintenance from the time the BMPs are constructed until responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred.

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

5. A separate list and location of self-retaining areas or areas addressed by LID Principles that do not require specialized O&M or inspections but will require typical landscape maintenance as noted in Chapter 5, pages 85-86, in the WQMP Guidance.

See Appendix 9 for a detailed Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan that sets forth a maintenance schedule for each of the Stormwater BMPs built on site, and an agreement assigning responsibility for maintenance and providing for inspections and certification.

Maintenance Mechanism: The Developer will be responsible for the implementation, operation and maintenance of this WQMP until formation of HOA and proper turnover to Owner.

Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Home Owners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA)?
Y N
Kaiser Permanente will be responsible for the implementation, O&M of the BMPs.

Operation and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Mechanism is included in Appendix 9. Educational materials for those personnel that will be maintaining the proposed BMPs within this Project-Specific WQMP are included in Appendix 10.
- 23 -
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans
Location Map, WQMP Site Plan and Receiving Waters Map

VICINITY MAP
NTS

PROJECT SITE
Project Site
V V
V
V
FH
X
X
X
X
EEEEE
E
E
EEE
E
EEE
EEE
1 EX MOB 2
OB 3
PROP

PARKING

STRUCTURE
- 24 -
Appendix 2: Construction Plans
Grading and Drainage Plans
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
(FF 724.9)

ST ST ST ST ST
ST ST

ST ST ST ST ST
ST ST

CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW E E E E E E E E E E E E

EX HOSPITAL EX MOB 1 EX MOB 2

STRUCTURE
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
(FF 724.9)

ST ST ST ST ST
ST ST

ST ST ST ST ST
ST ST

CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW E E E E E E E E E E E E

EX HOSPITAL EX MOB 1 EX MOB 2

STRUCTURE
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C3 01
RRA AVE.
- 25 -
Appendix 3: Soils Information
Geotechnical Study and Other Infiltration Testing Data
FIGURE 14

PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION MAP

SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE
February 2020
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

PROPOSED HOSPITAL TOWER

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 160 320
LEGEND

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

PERCOLATION TEST
D&T = DIAGNOSTIC & TREATMENT CENTER
P-1
TD=5'
P-1
TD=6'
P-2
TD=6'
P-4
TD=6'
P-3
TD=6'
P-5
TD=6'
Project : Project No. : Date : 2/12/2020
P-1 Tested by :
72 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 9:00 AM 9:25 AM 25 12.0 30.0 18.0 Y
2 9:25 AM 9:40 AM 15 13.2 27.6 14.4 Y
't Ho Hf 'H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 9:40 AM 9:50 AM 10 58.20 50.40 7.80 1.36
2 9:50 AM 10:00 AM 10 60.00 54.00 6.00 1.00
3 10:00 AM 10:10 AM 10 60.00 55.20 4.80 0.79
4 10:10 AM 10:20 AM 10 60.00 55.20 4.80 0.79
5 10:20 AM 10:30 AM 10 60.00 55.20 4.80 0.79
6 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 10 61.20 56.40 4.80 0.77
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.3 inch /hr Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
DR
10:40 AM 10 DRA
30 AM 10 DRA
AM 10RA10F10 60.0 AF58.20 AFTnitial Water
Height
ches)
Wat
AFT
Ho Hf
ess th
e-soak
tervals) with FT A R D
Project : Project No. : Date : 2/12/2020
P-2 Tested by :
78 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 10:55 AM 11:20 AM 25 12.0 30.0 18.0 Y
2 11:20 AM 11:45 AM 25 13.2 31.8 18.6 Y
't Ho Hf 'H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 11:50 AM 12:00 PM 10 60.00 48.00 12.00 2.10
2 12:02 PM 12:12 PM 10 70.80 54.00 16.80 2.56
3 12:12 PM 12:22 PM 10 67.20 51.60 15.60 2.49
4 12:22 PM 12:32 PM 10 67.20 54.00 13.20 2.07
5 12:32 PM 12:42 PM 10 66.00 54.00 12.00 1.90
6 12:42 PM 12:52 PM 10 68.40 54.00 14.40 2.23
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.7 inch /hr Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = DR
12:52 PM 10 DRA
42 PM 10 DRA
M 10RA10F10 70.8 AF60.00 AFTnitial Water
Height
ches)
Wat
AFT
Ho Hf
ess th
e-soak
tervals) with FT A R D
Project : Project No. : Date : 2/13/2020
P-3 Tested by :
72 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 7:00 AM 7:25 AM 25 15.6 50.4 34.8 Y
2 7:25 AM 7:50 AM 25 14.4 48.0 33.6 Y
't Ho Hf 'H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 7:52 AM 8:02 AM 10 63.00 34.80 28.20 5.44
2 8:02 AM 8:12 AM 10 63.60 44.40 19.20 3.37
3 8:12 AM 8:22 AM 10 64.80 45.60 19.20 3.29
4 8:22 AM 8:32 AM 10 62.40 46.80 15.60 2.71
5 8:32 AM 8:42 AM 10 63.60 50.40 13.20 2.20
6 8:42 AM 8:52 AM 10 63.60 51.00 12.60 2.08
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.7 inch /hr Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
DR
8:52 AM 10 DRA
42 AM 10 DRA
AM 10RA10F10 63.6 AF63.00 AFTnitial Water
Height
ches)
Wat
AFT
Ho Hf
ess th
e-soak
tervals) with FT A R D
Project : Project No. : Date : 2/13/2020
P-4 Tested by :
72 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 8:50 AM 9:15 AM 25 12.0 33.6 21.6 Y
2 9:15 AM 9:40 AM 25 13.2 35.4 22.2 Y
't Ho Hf 'H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 9:41 AM 9:51 AM 10 68.40 50.40 18.00 2.88
2 9:51 AM 10:01 AM 10 67.20 50.40 16.80 2.71
3 10:01 AM 10:11 AM 10 64.80 49.20 15.60 2.59
4 10:11 AM 10:21 AM 10 63.60 50.40 13.20 2.20
5 10:21 AM 10:31 AM 10 66.00 52.20 13.80 2.22
6 10:31 AM 10:41 AM 10 64.80 51.00 13.80 2.26
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.8 inch /hr Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = DR
10:41 AM 10 DRA
31 AM 10 DRA
AM 10RA10F10 67.2 AF68.40 AFTnitial Water
Height
ches)
Wat
AFT
Ho Hf
ess th
e-soak
tervals) with FT A R D
Project : Project No. : Date : 2/13/2020
P-5 Tested by :
72 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 11:38 AM 12:03 PM 25 14.4 45.0 30.6 Y
2 12:03 PM 12:28 PM 25 10.8 38.4 27.6 Y
't Ho Hf 'H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 12:29 PM 12:39 PM 10 64.80 38.40 26.40 4.84
2 12:39 PM 12:49 PM 10 64.20 41.40 22.80 4.08
3 12:49 PM 12:59 PM 10 63.00 36.60 26.40 5.01
4 12:59 PM 1:09 PM 10 66.00 54.00 12.00 1.90
5 1:09 PM 1:19 PM 10 65.40 53.40 12.00 1.92
6 1:19 PM 1:29 PM 10 63.00 53.40 9.60 1.56
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.5 inch /hr Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
DR
1:29 PM 10 DRA
19 PM 10 DRA
M 10RA10F10 64.2 AF64.80 AFTnitial Water
Height
ches)
Wat
AFT
Ho Hf
ess th
e-soak
tervals) with FT A R D
- 26 -
Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or Other Information on Past Site Use N/A
- 27 -
Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility
LID Technical Infeasibility Analysis
Not Applicable
- 28 -
Appendix 6: BMP Design Details
BMP Sizing, Design Details and other Supporting Documentation Date
D85= 0.60 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
DMA
1/Roof 76131 Roofs 1 0.89 67908.9
DMA 1/AC 55346 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 49368.6
DMA 1/
Landscape 29721 Ornamental Landscaping 0.1 0.11 3282.9
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
161198 120560.4 0.60 6028 6202
Notes:

Total
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP BMP Identification
BMP NAME / ID DMA 1 / BF-1
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Design Rainfall Depth
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Designed by Prasad Kasturi Case No
Company Project Number/Name
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend: Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Michael Baker International 2/13/2020
Date
D85= 0.60 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
DMA 2/AC 89365 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 79713.6
DMA 2/
Landscape 31162 Ornamental Landscaping 0.1 0.11 3442.1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 120527 83155.7 0.60 4157.8 4428
Notes:

Total
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP BMP Identification
BMP NAME / ID DMA 2/ BF-2
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Design Rainfall Depth
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Designed by Prasad Kasturi Case No
Company Project Number/Name
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend: Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Michael Baker International 2/13/2020
Date
D85= 0.60 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
DMA
3/Roof 35376 Roofs 1 0.89 31555.4
DMA 3/AC 52291 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 46643.6
DMA 3/
Landscape 40836 Ornamental Landscaping 0.1 0.11 4510.7
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
128503 82709.7 0.60 4135.5 5196
Notes:

Total
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP BMP Identification
BMP NAME / ID DMA 3 / BF-3
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Design Rainfall Depth
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Designed by Prasad Kasturi Case No
Company Project Number/Name
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend: Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Michael Baker International 2/13/2020
Date
D85= 0.60 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
DMA
4/Roof 5079 Roofs 1 0.89 4530.5
DMA 4/AC 50706 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 45229.8
DMA 4/
Landscape 17567 Ornamental Landscaping 0.1 0.11 1940.4
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
73352 51700.7 0.60 2585 4238
Notes:

Total
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP BMP Identification
BMP NAME / ID DMA 4 / BF-4
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Design Rainfall Depth
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Designed by Prasad Kasturi Case No
Company Project Number/Name
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend: Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Michael Baker International 2/13/2020
Date
D85= 0.60 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
DMA
5/Roof 13888 Roofs 1 0.89 12388.1
DMA 5/AC 115197 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 102755.7
DMA 5/
Landscape 64369 Ornamental Landscaping 0.1 0.11 7110.1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
193454 122253.9 0.60 6112.7 6748
Notes:

Total
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP BMP Identification
BMP NAME / ID DMA 5 / BF-5
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Design Rainfall Depth
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Designed by Prasad Kasturi Case No
Company Project Number/Name
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend: Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Michael Baker International 2/13/2020
%03,'
%)
&RPSDQ\1DPH
'DWH

'HVLJQHGE\
&RXQW\&LW\&DVH1R

(QWHUWKHDUHDWULEXWDU\WRWKLVIHDWXUH $7  DFUHV
(QWHU9%03GHWHUPLQHGIURP6HFWLRQRIWKLV+DQGERRN 9%03  IW 'HSWKRI6RLO)LOWHU0HGLD/D\HU G6  IW
7RS:LGWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\H[FOXGLQJFXUE Z7  IW 7RWDO(IIHFWLYH'HSWKG(
G(  IW
G( >

[G6

[@ G(  IW
$0  IW

$  IW
0LQLPXP5HTXLUHG/HQJWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\/ /  IW ] 

'LDPHWHURI8QGHUGUDLQ  LQFKHV
/RQJLWXGLQDO6ORSHRI6LWH
PD[LPXP
 
&KHFN'DP6SDFLQJ  IHHW
'HVFULEH9HJHWDWLRQ

1RWHV

3UDVDG.DVWXUL
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ3URFHGXUH /HJHQG
5HTXLUHG(QWULHV
&DOFXODWHG&HOOV
0LFKDHO%DNHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO
3URSRVHG6XUIDFH$UHD
'HVLJQ9ROXPH
7\SHRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\6XUIDFH$UHD
G( 

[G6

[
Z7

0LQLPXP6XUIDFH$UHD$P
$0
IW
 
9%03
IW

G(
IW

6KUXEV
9ROXPH3URYLGHG 
$


G(
 FXIW
!9EPS FXIW

%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\3URSHUWLHV
6LGH6ORSHVLQ%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\
6LGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SDUDOOHOWRSDUNLQJVSDFHVRUDGMDFHQWWRZDONZD\V

1RVLGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SHUSHQGLFXODUWRSDUNLQJVSDFHRU3ODQWHU%R[HV

ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽƵŶƚLJĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĞƐŝŐŶ,ĂŶĚŬ :hE
ϮϬϭϬ
%03,'
%)
&RPSDQ\1DPH
'DWH


'HVLJQHGE\
&RXQW\&LW\&DVH1R

(QWHUWKHDUHDWULEXWDU\WRWKLVIHDWXUH $7  DFUHV
(QWHU9%03GHWHUPLQHGIURP6HFWLRQRIWKLV+DQGERRN 9%03  IW 'HSWKRI6RLO)LOWHU0HGLD/D\HU G6  IW
7RS:LGWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\H[FOXGLQJFXUE Z7  IW 7RWDO(IIHFWLYH'HSWKG(
G(  IW
G( >

[G6

[@ G(  IW
$0  IW

$ 
 IW
0LQLPXP5HTXLUHG/HQJWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\/ /  IW ] 

'LDPHWHURI8QGHUGUDLQ  LQFKHV
/RQJLWXGLQDO6ORSHRI6LWH
PD[LPXP
 
&KHFN'DP6SDFLQJ  IHHW
'HVFULEH9HJHWDWLRQ

1RWHV

3UDVDG.DVWXUL
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ3URFHGXUH /HJHQG
5HTXLUHG(QWULHV
&DOFXODWHG&HOOV
0LFKDHO%DNHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO
3URSRVHG6XUIDFH$UHD
'HVLJQ9ROXPH
7\SHRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\6XUIDFH$UHD
G( 

[G6

[
Z7

0LQLPXP6XUIDFH$UHD$P
$0
IW
 
9%03
IW

G(
IW

6KUXEV
9ROXPH3URYLGHG 

$


G(
 FXIW
!9EPS FXIW

%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\3URSHUWLHV
6LGH6ORSHVLQ%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\
6LGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SDUDOOHOWRSDUNLQJVSDFHVRUDGMDFHQWWRZDONZD\V

1RVLGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SHUSHQGLFXODUWRSDUNLQJVSDFHRU3ODQWHU%R[HV

ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽƵŶƚLJĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĞƐŝŐŶ,ĂŶĚŬ :hE
ϮϬϭϬ
%03,'
%)
&RPSDQ\1DPH
'DWH

'HVLJQHGE\
&RXQW\&LW\&DVH1R

(QWHUWKHDUHDWULEXWDU\WRWKLVIHDWXUH $7 
 DFUHV
(QWHU9%03GHWHUPLQHGIURP6HFWLRQRIWKLV+DQGERRN 9%03  IW 'HSWKRI6RLO)LOWHU0HGLD/D\HU G6  IW
7RS:LGWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\H[FOXGLQJFXUE Z7  IW 7RWDO(IIHFWLYH'HSWKG(
G(  IW
G( >

[G6

[@ G(  IW
$0  IW

$ 
 IW
0LQLPXP5HTXLUHG/HQJWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\/ /  IW ] 

'LDPHWHURI8QGHUGUDLQ  LQFKHV
/RQJLWXGLQDO6ORSHRI6LWH
PD[LPXP
 
&KHFN'DP6SDFLQJ  IHHW
'HVFULEH9HJHWDWLRQ

1RWHV
 9ROXPH3URYLGHG 

$


G(
 
FXIW
!9EPS FXIW

%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ3URFHGXUH /HJHQG

0LFKDHO%DNHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO
3UDVDG.DVWXUL
'HVLJQ9ROXPH
&DOFXODWHG&HOOV
6KUXEV
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\6XUIDFH$UHD
6LGH6ORSHVLQ%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\
5HTXLUHG(QWULHV
0LQLPXP6XUIDFH$UHD$P
G( 

[G6

[
Z7

7\SHRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ
9%03
IW
$0
IW

 
3URSRVHG6XUIDFH$UHD
G(
IW

%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\3URSHUWLHV
6LGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SDUDOOHOWRSDUNLQJVSDFHVRUDGMDFHQWWRZDONZD\V

1RVLGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SHUSHQGLFXODUWRSDUNLQJVSDFHRU3ODQWHU%R[HV

ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽƵŶƚLJĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĞƐŝŐŶ,ĂŶĚŬ :hE
ϮϬϭϬ
%03,'
%)
&RPSDQ\1DPH
'DWH

'HVLJQHGE\
&RXQW\&LW\&DVH1R

(QWHUWKHDUHDWULEXWDU\WRWKLVIHDWXUH $7  DFUHV
(QWHU9%03GHWHUPLQHGIURP6HFWLRQRIWKLV+DQGERRN 9%03  IW 'HSWKRI6RLO)LOWHU0HGLD/D\HU G6  IW
7RS:LGWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\H[FOXGLQJFXUE Z7  IW 7RWDO(IIHFWLYH'HSWKG(
G(  IW
G( >

[G6

[@ G(  IW
$0 
 IW

$  IW
0LQLPXP5HTXLUHG/HQJWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\/ /   IW
] 

'LDPHWHURI8QGHUGUDLQ  LQFKHV
/RQJLWXGLQDO6ORSHRI6LWH
PD[LPXP
 
&KHFN'DP6SDFLQJ  IHHW
'HVFULEH9HJHWDWLRQ

1RWHV

6KUXEV
9ROXPH3URYLGHG 
$



G(
 FXIW
!9EPS FXIW

%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\3URSHUWLHV
6LGH6ORSHVLQ%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\
3URSRVHG6XUIDFH$UHD
'HVLJQ9ROXPH
7\SHRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\6XUIDFH$UHD
G( 

[G6

[
Z7

0LQLPXP6XUIDFH$UHD$P
$0
IW
 
9%03
IW

G(
IW

3UDVDG.DVWXUL
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ3URFHGXUH /HJHQG
5HTXLUHG(QWULHV
&DOFXODWHG&HOOV
0LFKDHO%DNHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO
6LGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SDUDOOHOWRSDUNLQJVSDFHVRUDGMDFHQWWRZDONZD\V

1RVLGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SHUSHQGLFXODUWRSDUNLQJVSDFHRU3ODQWHU%R[HV

ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽƵŶƚLJĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĞƐŝŐŶ,ĂŶĚŬ :hE
ϮϬϭϬ
%03,'
%)
&RPSDQ\1DPH
'DWH

'HVLJQHGE\
&RXQW\&LW\&DVH1R

(QWHUWKHDUHDWULEXWDU\WRWKLVIHDWXUH $7  DFUHV
(QWHU9%03GHWHUPLQHGIURP6HFWLRQRIWKLV+DQGERRN 9%03  IW 'HSWKRI6RLO)LOWHU0HGLD/D\HU G6  IW
7RS:LGWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\H[FOXGLQJFXUE Z7  IW 7RWDO(IIHFWLYH'HSWKG(
G( 
IW
G( >

[G6

[@ G(  IW
$0  IW

$ 
IW
0LQLPXP5HTXLUHG/HQJWKRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\/ /  IW ] 

'LDPHWHURI8QGHUGUDLQ  LQFKHV
/RQJLWXGLQDO6ORSHRI6LWH
PD[LPXP
 
&KHFN'DP6SDFLQJ  IHHW
'HVFULEH9HJHWDWLRQ

1RWHV

3UDVDG.DVWXUL
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ3URFHGXUH /HJHQG
5HTXLUHG(QWULHV
&DOFXODWHG&HOOV
0LFKDHO%DNHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO
3URSRVHG6XUIDFH$UHD
'HVLJQ9ROXPH
7\SHRI%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\'HVLJQ
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\6XUIDFH$UHD
G( 

[G6

[
Z7

0LQLPXP6XUIDFH$UHD$P
$0
IW
 
9%03
IW

G(
IW

6KUXEV
9ROXPH3URYLGHG 

$



G(
 FXIW
!9EPS FXIW

%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\3URSHUWLHV
6LGH6ORSHVLQ%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\
6LGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SDUDOOHOWRSDUNLQJVSDFHVRUDGMDFHQWWRZDONZD\V

1RVLGHVORSHVUHTXLUHG
SHUSHQGLFXODUWRSDUNLQJVSDFHRU3ODQWHU%R[HV

ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽƵŶƚLJĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĞƐŝŐŶ,ĂŶĚŬ :hE
ϮϬϭϬ
BIORETENTION BASIN 2
BIORETENTION BASIN 4
BIORETENTION BASIN 5
Kaiser Riverside

0.60 - 29 -
Appendix 7: Hydromodification
Supporting Detail Relating to Hydrologic Conditions of Concern N/A
PERRIS
LAKE
PERRIS
- 30 -
Appendix 8: Source Control
Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist

- 31 -
Appendix 9: O&M
Operation and Maintenance Plan and Documentation of Finance, Maintenance and Recording Mechanisms Will be provided in Final WQMP Report
- 32 -
Appendix 10: Educational Materials
BMP Fact Sheets, Maintenance Guidelines and Other End-User BMP Information 5 LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN UHY 3DJH
5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN  UHY 3DJH
)LJXUH
6WDQGDUG /D\RXWIRUD%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\
%,25(7(17,21)$&,/,7<%03 )$&7 6+((7
5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN  UHY 3DJH

 )RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQFRPSRVWYLVLW WKH86 &RPSRVWLQJ&RXQFLOZHEVLWHDW KWWS
FRPSRVWLQJFRXQFLORUJ
%,25(7(17,21)$&,/,7<%03 )$&76+((7
5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN  UHY 3DJH
%,25(7(17,21)$&,/,7<%03 )$&7 6+((7
5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN  UHY 3DJH
)LJXUH
%LRUHWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\/D\RXWZLWKRXW6LGH6ORSHV
%,25(7(17,21)$&,/,7<%03 )$&7 6+((7
5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN  UHY 3DJH
%,25(7(17,21)$&,/,7<%03 )$&7 6+((7
5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN  UHY 3DJH
5 LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN UHY 3DJH
5 LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN UHY 3DJH

5 LYHUVLGH&RXQW\/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW%03'HVLJQ+DQGERRN UHY 3DJH

stormwater runoff?
is stormwater runoff a problem?
The effects of pollution
Stormwater runoff occurs when precipitation
from rain or snowmelt flows over the ground.

Impervious surfaces like driveways, sidewalks,
and streets prevent stormwater from
naturally soaking into the ground.

Polluted stormwater runoff can have
many adverse effects on plants, fish,
animals, and people.

Sediment can cloud the water
and make it difficult or
impossible for aquatic plants to
grow. Sediment also can
.

destroy aquatic habitats
Excess nutrients can cause
algae blooms. When algae die,
they sink to the bottom and decompose
in a process that removes oxygen from
the water. Fish and other aquatic
organisms can’t exist in water with low
dissolved oxygen levels.

Bacteria and other pathogens can wash
into swimming areas and create health
hazards, often making beach closures
necessary.

Debris—plastic bags, six-pack rings, bottles, and
cigarette butts—washed into waterbodies can choke, suffo disable aquatic life like ducks, fish, turtles, and birds. 


r After the Sto
For more information contact:

WHEN IT RAINS

IT DRAINS
Pet waste
Pet waste can be
a major source of
bacteria and
excess nutrients
in local waters.
 When walking
your pet,
remember to pick up the
waste and dispose of it
properly. Flushing pet
waste is the best disposal
method. Leaving pet waste
on the ground increases
public health risks by
allowing harmful bacteria
and nutrients to wash into
the storm drain and
eventually into local
waterbodies.

Septic
systems
Leaking and
poorly
maintained
septic
systems release nutrients and
pathogens (bacteria and
viruses) that can be picked up
by stormwater and discharged
into nearby waterbodies.

Pathogens can cause public
health problems and
environmental concerns.
rs
ns
ash
h
ns and contribute
organic matter to streams.
em onto the ground or into storm drains.

recycles its wastewater, or wash your car on
your yard so the water infiltrates into the
ground.

Repair leaks and dispose of used auto fluids
and batteries at designated drop-off or
recycling locations.
ater your lawn. Consider
er hose instead of a
es and fertilizers
hen use is necessary, use
cals in the recommended
e organic mulch or safer
methods whenever
mulch yard waste. Don’t
e street or sweep it into
or streams.
of dirt or mulch being
scaping projects.


Inspect your system every
3 years and pump your
tank as necessary (every 3
to 5 years).

Don't dispose of
household hazardous
waste in sinks or toilets.

Dirt, oil, and debris that collect in
parking lots and paved areas can be
washed into the storm sewer system
and eventually enter local
waterbodies.



Sweep up litter and debris from
sidewalks, driveways and parking lots,
especially around storm drains.

Cover grease storage and dumpsters
and keep them clean to avoid leaks.

Report any chemical spill to the local
hazardous waste cleanup team.

They’ll know the best way to keep
spills from harming the environment.

Erosion controls that aren’t maintained can cause
excessive amounts of sediment and debris to be
carried into the stormwater system. Construction
vehicles can leak fuel, oil, and other harmful fluids
that can be picked up by stormwater and
deposited into local waterbodies.



Divert stormwater away from disturbed or
exposed areas of the construction site.

Install silt fences, vehicle mud removal areas,
vegetative cover, and other sediment and
erosion controls and properly maintain them,
especially after rainstorms.

Prevent soil erosion by minimizing disturbed
areas during construction projects, and seed
and mulch bare areas as soon as possible.

Lack of vegetation on streambanks can lead to erosion. Overgrazed pastures can also contribute excessive amounts of sediment to local waterbodies. Excess fertilizers and pesticides can poison aquatic animals and lead to destructive algae blooms. Livestock in streams can contaminate waterways with bacteria, making them unsafe for human contact. 




Keep livestock away from streambanks and provide
them a water source away from waterbodies.

Store and apply manure away from waterbodies and in
accordance with a nutrient management plan.

Vegetate riparian areas along waterways.

Rotate animal grazing to prevent soil erosion in fields.

Apply fertilizers and pesticides according to label
Permeable Pavement
Rain Barrels
Rain Gardens and
Grassy Swales
Vegetated Filter Strips
—Tradition
asphalt don’t allow water to soak
Instead these surfaces rely on sto
divert unwanted water. Permeable
systems allow rain and snowmelt
decreasing stormwater runoff.
—You can
collect rainwater from
rooftops in mosquitoproof containers. The
water can be used later on
lawn or garden areas.
—Specially
designed areas planted
with native plants can provide nat
rainwa
and so
ground
roofto
areas
into th
than in
—Filter s
native grass or plants created alon
streams. They trap the pollutants
picks up as it flows across drivewa
mercial
Constr
ure Automotive
Facilities

- 1 -
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
A Template for Projects located within the Santa Ana Watershed Region of Riverside County Project Title: Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center – Magnolia Lot Public Works No: GP-2021-17260
Design Review/Case No: DP-2021-01307
Original Date Prepared: 10/1/2021
Revision Date(s): 12/7/2021
1/11/2022
Prepared for Compliance with
Regional Board Order No. R8-2010-0033
Contact Information:

Prepared for:

CO Architects
5055 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA. 90036
Phone: (714) 884-1308
Attn: Tom Chessum
Prepared by:

Scott Davis P.E.

Michael Baker International
9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd,
San Diego CA 92124
Phone: 858-614-5043
Preliminary
Final
1/11/2022
Preparer’s Signature Date Scott Davis Project Manager Preparer’s Printed Name Preparer’s Title/Position Preparer’s Licensure: P.E - 3 -
Table of Contents
Section A: Project and Site Information........................................................................................................ 5 A.1 Maps and Site Plans ............................................................................................................................ 5 A.2 Receiving Waters ................................................................................................................................ 6 A.3 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: .................................................................... 6 Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) ..................................................................................... 7 Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) ......................................................................... 8 Section D: Implement LID BMPs ................................................................................................................... 9 D.1 Infiltration Applicability ...................................................................................................................... 9 D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment ............................................................................................................ 10 D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment .................................................................................... 11 D.4 Feasibility Assessment Summaries ................................................................................................... 12 D.5 LID BMP Sizing .................................................................................................................................. 13 Section E: Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program) .......................................................................... 13 Section F: Hydromodification ..................................................................................................................... 14 F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis .......................................................................... 14 F.2 HCOC Mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 15 Section G: Source Control BMPs ................................................................................................................. 16 Section H: Construction Plan Checklist ....................................................................................................... 17 Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding ........................................................................................ 18

- 4 -
List of Tables
Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters ................................................................................................ 6 Table A.2 Other Applicable Permits .............................................................................................................. 6 Table C.1 DMA Classifications ....................................................................................................................... 8 Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas ......................................................................................................... 8 Table C.3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas ....................................................................................................... 8 Table C.4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas ........................................................................ 8 Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs ................................................................................................. 8 Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility .................................................................................................................... 9 Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix ............................................................................................. 12 Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs ................................................................................................... 13 Table F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary .............................................................................. 14 Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures ............................................................. 16 Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference ............................................................................................. 17 List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans ................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix 2: Construction Plans .................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix 3: Soils Information ..................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions ........................................................................................................ 22 Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility ........................................................................................................................ 23 Appendix 6: BMP Design Details ................................................................................................................. 24 Appendix 7: Hydromodification .................................................................................................................. 25 Appendix 8: Source Control ........................................................................................................................ 26 Appendix 9: O&M ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix 10: Educational Materials ....................................................................................................... - 28 - - 5 -
Section A: Project and Site Information
The Magnolia Avenue offsite parking lot is located at 10801 Magnolia Ave, Riverside CA 92505. The existing undeveloped lot is adding a parking lot, landscaping, and a bioretention basin. The total disturbed area is about 1.36 acres. Total impervious cover will be increased compared to the existing condition. The project location is also in hydromodification exemption area of the County.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Type of Project: Parking Lot
Ward Area: Ward 6
Community Name: La Sierra
Development Name: Kaiser Permanente Riverside – Magnolia Lot

PROJECT LOCATION
Latitude & Longitude (DMS): 33°54'22.93"N 117°28'18.49"W Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed: Santa Ana; Santa Ana River, Reach 3 APN(s): 142-293-028
Map Book and Page No.: MB 11/42-50

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed or Potential Land Use(s) Parking Lot
Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s) 7521
Area of Impervious Project Footprint (SF) 42,560
Total Area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits (SF)/or Replacement 42,560 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

EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Total area of existing Impervious Surfaces within the project limits (SF) 0 Is the project located within any MSHCP Criteria Cell? Y N If so, identify the Cell number: N/A
Are there any natural hydrologic features on the project site? Y N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? Y N
If no Geotech. Report, list the NRCS soils type(s) present on the site (A, B, C and/or D) Type B What is the Water Quality Design Storm Depth for the project? 0.60 inches A.1 Maps and Site Plans
Appendix 1 includes a map of the local vicinity and existing site. In addition, WQMP Site Plan, located in Appendix 1, includes the following:
• Drainage Management Areas
• Proposed Structural BMPs
• Drainage Path
• Drainage Infrastructure, Inlets, Overflows
• Source Control BMPs
• Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
• Impervious Surfaces
• Standard Labeling

- 6 -
A.2 Receiving Waters
In order of upstream to downstream, the receiving waters that the project site is tributary to are as follows. A map of the receiving waters is included in Appendix 1.

Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters
Receiving Waters Hydrologic
Unit
EPA Approved
303(d) List
Impairments
Designated
Beneficial Uses
Proximity to RARE
Beneficial Use
La Sierra Channel 801.25 N/A REC2, WARM, WILD 10 Miles
Arlington Channel 801.25 N/A REC2, WARM, WILD 10 MIles
Temescal Creek Reach 1a 801.25 N/A REC2, WARM, WILD 10 Miles Prado Basin Management
Zone 802.21 PH REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE N/A
A.3 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:

Table A.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 (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Cert. Y N US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA 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)
City of Riverside Conditional Use Permit
City of Riverside Design Review
City of Riverside Building Permit
City of Riverside Grading Permit
City of Riverside Construction Permit
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N

- 7 -
Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles)
Site Optimization
Does the project identify and preserve existing drainage patterns? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. Existing conditions drainage patterns will be preserved and maintained in the proposed condition. The project site is graded to convey sheet flow across the parking lot to the Southwest, as in the existing condition. The proposed project will not divert drainage areas to new outfalls.

Does the project identify and protect existing vegetation? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. The project will preserve existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. Given that the project will develop the existing undeveloped lot into a parking facility, very little vegetation will be preserved.

Does the project identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? If so, how? If not, why? No. The soils report shows low infiltrating capacity, 0.3 inches per hour, on-site.

Does the project identify and minimize impervious area? If so, how? If not, why? Yes. The project will minimize the incorporation of impervious areas to the maximum extent possible.

However, the proposed parking lot will introduce a significant amount of new impervious areas, compared to the existing condition.

Does the project identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas? If so, how? If not, why? No. Runoff will be directed to a biofiltration basin for water quality treatment and flow control.

- 8 -
Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas
(DMAs)
Table C.1 DMA Classifications
DMA Name or ID Surface Type(s) Area (Sq. Ft.) DMA Type
DMA-1 Concrete or Asphalt 42,560 Type D
Landscape 13,941
Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas
DMA Name or ID Area (Sq. Ft.) Stabilization Type Irrigation Type (if any) DMA-2 2726 <5% Slope Landscape
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]

N/A N/A
 =  +
 ∙ 
 
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]

N/A N/A
Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs
DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID
DMA-1 BR-1 Bioretention with outlet risers and underdrains - 9 -
Section D: Implement LID BMPs
D.1 Infiltration Applicability
Is there an approved downstream ‘Highest and Best Use’ for stormwater runoff (ref: Chapter 2.4.4 of the WQMP Guidance Document)? Y N
Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report is required by the City of Riverside to confirm present and past site characteristics that may affect the use of Infiltration BMPs, see Appendix 3.

Is this project classified as a small project consistent with the requirements of Chapter 2 of the WQMP Guidance Document? Y N
Infiltration Feasibility
Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility
Does the project site… YES NO
…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 of a water supply well? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…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:
…have measured in-situ infiltration rates of less than 1.6 inches / hour? X If Yes, list affected DMAs: Project site is generally located on an area with small infiltration capability, 0.3 inches/hr. All DMA’s will be affected.
…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:
…geotechnical report identify other site-specific factors that would preclude effective and safe infiltration? X Describe here: slight collapse potential

- 10 -
D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment
The following conditions apply:
☐ Reclaimed water will be used for the non-potable water demands for the project. ☐ Downstream water rights may be impacted by Harvest and Use as approved by the Regional Board (verified with the City of Riverside).
☐ The Design Capture Volume will be addressed using Infiltration Only BMPs. (Harvest and Use BMPs are still encouraged, but are not required as the Design Capture Volume will be infiltrated or evapotranspired).
☒ None of the above.

Harvest and Use BMPs need to be assessed for the site.

Irrigation Use Feasibility
Step 1: Total Area of Irrigated Landscape: 0.38 ac
Type of Landscaping (Conservation Design or Active Turf): Conservation Design Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: 0.98 ac
Step 3: The project EIATIA factor: 0.79
Step 4: Minimum required irrigated area: 0.77 ac
Step 5:

Minimum required irrigated area (Step 4) Available Irrigated Landscape (Step 1)

0.77 ac 0.38 ac
- 11 -
Toilet Use Feasibility
Not applicable to project given the nature of the proposed improvements Step 1: Projected Number of Daily Toilet Users: n/a
Project Type: Commercial/Parking Lot
Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: n/a
Step 3: The project TUTIA factor: n/a
Step 4: Minimum number of toilet users: n/a
Step 5:

Minimum required Toilet Users (Step 4) Projected number of toilet users (Step 1) n/a n/a
Other Non-Potable Use Feasibility
Not applicable to project given the nature of the proposed improvements Step 1: Average Daily Demand: n/a
Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: n/a
Step 3: The project factor: n/a
Step 4: Minimum required use: n/a
Step 5:

Minimum required non-potable use (Step 4) Projected average daily use (Step 1) n/a n/a
D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment
Other LID Bioretention and Biotreatment BMPs as described in Chapter 2.4.7 of the WQMP Guidance Document are feasible on nearly all development sites with sufficient advance planning.

For the project, the following applies:
☒ LID Bioretention/Biotreatment BMPs will be used for some or all DMAs of the project as noted below in Section D.4
☐ A site-specific analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of all LID BMPs has been performed and is included in Appendix 5.
☐ None of the above.

- 12 -
D.4 Feasibility Assessment Summaries
Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix
DMA
Name/ID
LID BMP Hierarchy No LID
(Alternative

1. Infiltration 2. Harvest and use 3. Bioretention 4. Biotreatment Compliance) DMA 1

- 13 -
D.5 LID BMP Sizing
Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID 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
Bioretention #1
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
DMA 1 42,560 Asphalt
Concrete

1.00 0.89 37,963.5
DMA 1 13,941 Landscaped
Areas

0.1 0.11 1,539.9
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Design
Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
56,501
39,503.4 0.6 1,975 3,798
[B], [C] are obtained from Section 2.3.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is obtained from LID BMP design procedure sheet, placed in Appendix 6 Section E: Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program)
LID BMPs are expected to be feasible on virtually all projects. Where LID BMPs have been demonstrated to be infeasible as documented in Section D, other Treatment Control BMPs must be used (subject to confirmation of LID waiver approval by the Regional Board). For the project, the following applies:
☒ LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all Drainage Management Areas. No alternative compliance measures are required for this project and thus this Section is not required to be completed.
- Or -
☐ The following Drainage Management Areas are unable to be addressed using LID BMPs. A sitespecific analysis demonstrating technical infeasibility of LID BMPs has been approved by the Regional Board and included in Appendix 5. Additionally, no downstream regional and/or subregional LID BMPs exist or are available for use by the project. The alternative compliance measures on the following pages are being implemented to ensure that any pollutant loads expected to be discharged by not incorporating LID BMPs, are fully mitigated.

- 14 -
Section F: Hydromodification
F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis
The project does not create a Hydrologic Condition of Concern, meeting the criteria for HCOC Exemption as shown below:

HCOC EXEMPTION 1: The Priority Development Project disturbs less than one acre. The City of Riverside has the discretion to require a Project-Specific WQMP to address HCOCs on projects less than one acre on a case by case basis. The disturbed area calculation should include all disturbances associated with larger common plans of development.

Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
HCOC EXEMPTION 2: The volume and time of concentration1 of storm water runoff for the postdevelopment condition is not significantly different from the pre-development condition for a 2-year return frequency storm (a difference of 5% or less is considered insignificant) using one of the following methods to calculate:
• Riverside County Hydrology Manual
• Technical Release 55 (TR-55): Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS 1986), or derivatives thereof, such as the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method • Other methods acceptable to the City of Riverside
Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
Results included in Table F.1 below and hydrologic analysis included in Appendix 7.

Table F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary
2 year – 24 hour
Pre-condition Post-condition % Difference
Time of
Concentration
n/a n/a n/a
Flow (CFS) n/a n/a n/a
Volume (Cubic Feet) n/a n/a n/a
1 Time of concentration is defined as the time after the beginning of the rainfall when all portions of the drainage basin are contributing to flow at the outlet.

- 15 -
HCOC EXEMPTION 3: All downstream conveyance channels to an adequate sump (Prado Dam, Santa Ana River) that will receive runoff from the project are engineered and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity; no sensitive stream habitat areas will be adversely affected; or are not identified on the Co-Permittees Hydromodification Sensitivity Maps.

Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N
The project drains to existing Magnolia Ave storm drain/La Sierra Channel and eventually connect to downstream Temescal Channel to discharges into Prado Dam of Santa Ana River.

F.2 HCOC Mitigation
As an alternative to the HCOC Exemption Criteria above, HCOC criteria is considered mitigated if the project meets one of the following conditions, as indicated:
a. Additional LID BMPS are implemented onsite or offsite to mitigate potential erosion or habitat impacts as a result of HCOCs. This can be conducted by an evaluation of site-specific conditions utilizing accepted professional methodologies published by entities such as the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCRWP), or other Co-Permittee approved methodologies for site-specific HCOC analysis. b. The project is developed consistent with an approved Watershed Action Plan that addresses HCOC in Receiving Waters.
c. Mimicking the pre-development hydrograph with the post-development hydrograph, for a 2-year return frequency storm. Generally, the hydrologic conditions of concern are not significant, if the post-development hydrograph is no more than 10% greater than pre-development hydrograph.

In cases where excess volume cannot be infiltrated or captured and reused, discharge from the site must be limited to a flow rate no greater than 110% of the pre-development 2-year peak flow. d. None of the above.

- 16 -
Section G: Source Control BMPs
The following table identifies the potential sources of runoff pollutants for this project and specifies how they are addressed through permanent controls and operational BMPs:

Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures Potential Sources of Runoff
pollutants
Permanent Structural Source
Control BMPs
Operational Source Control BMPs
On-site storm drain inlets Mark all inlets with the words “Only Rain Down the Storm Drain” or
similar. Catch Basin Markers may be
available from the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water District
Conservation District, call
951.955.1200 to verify.

Maintain and periodically repaint or
replace inlet markings.

Provide stormwater pollution
prevention information to new site
owners, lessees, or operators.

See applicable operational BMPs in
Fact Sheet SC-44, “Drainage System
Maintenance,” in the CASQA
Stormwater Quality Handbook at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Include the following in less
agreements: “Tenants shall not
allow anyone to discharge anything
to storm drains or to store or
deposit materials so as to create a
potential discharge to storm drains”
Landscape/ Outdoor Pesticide The final landscape plans will accomplish all of the following:

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.

Consider using pest-resistant plants,
especially adjacent to hardscape.

Maintain landscaping using
minimum or no pesticides.

See applicable operational BMPs in
“What you should know for
Landscaping and Gardening” at
http://rcflood.org/stormwater
Provide IPM information to new
owners, leasees and operators.

Plazas, sidewalks, and parking
lots.

Periodic sweeping of sidewalks 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.
- 17 -
Section H: Construction Plan Checklist
Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference
BMP No.
or ID
BMP Identifier and Description Plan Sheet
Number(s)
Latitude / Longitude
DMA 1 Bioretention Basin #1 C5 33°54'22.93"N 117°28'18.49"W

- 18 -
Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding
As required by the City of Riverside, the following Operation, Maintenance and Funding details are provided as summarized:

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

2. Acceptance of responsibility for maintenance from the time the BMPs are constructed until responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred.

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

5. A separate list and location of self-retaining areas or areas addressed by LID Principles that do not require specialized O&M or inspections but will require typical landscape maintenance as noted in Chapter 5, pages 85-86, in the WQMP Guidance.

See Appendix 9 for a detailed Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan that sets forth a maintenance schedule for each of the Stormwater BMPs built on site, and an agreement assigning responsibility for maintenance and providing for inspections and certification.

Maintenance Mechanism: The Developer will be responsible for the implementation, operation and maintenance of this WQMP until proper turnover to Owner.

Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Home Owners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA)?
Y N
Kaiser Permanente will be responsible for the implementation, O&M of the BMPs.

Operation and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Mechanism is included in Appendix 9. Educational materials for those personnel that will be maintaining the proposed BMPs within this Project-Specific WQMP are included in Appendix 10.
- 19 -
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans
Location Map, WQMP Site Plan and Receiving Waters Map
KAISER PERMNANTE RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER – MAGNOLIA LOT

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 720.0
720.0
720.0
715.0

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
VAN
ADA
ADA ADA ADA ADA MAGNOLIA AVENUE KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER - MAGNOLIA STREET PARKING LOT WQMP SITE PLAN 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM LEGEND SITE LOCATION 





! #"#$"#%&$
'#
()
#
#*#+#+#,#-/.& #101$2"#3 45#%67#18
'#%&(#"9:;;
(#$2"#($ #1
<
<
=<
2"
<
"#(#$(#$#"#3>$ #17#
$1%? #"#9("#($ #%&8@
!-A.& #%
8
B%6 #

#(#"#$C!>
#"#7#=#<
7:"D7#%6$C!=#$7#-
EF01"
!2G# #$#*#+#+#,#HI01$2"#345#%67#
HI01

3;"(#
J(#$
7)C!2#KLMN41O.&P&P
Temescal Creek, Reach 1
Santa Ana River, Reach 3
Anza Park Drain Lake Evans Arlington Channel La Sierra Channel Mockingbird Reservoir Lake Matthews Sycamore Creek Lake Evans to Santa Ana River, Reach 3 Tequesquite Arroyo (Sycamore Creek) to Santa Ana River, Reach 3 Anza Park Drain to Santa Ana River, Reach 3
Santa Ana River, Reach 3
Mockingbird Reservoir to Temescal Creek, Reach 1 to Santa Ana River, Reach 3 - via Arlington Channel
Temescal Creek, Reach 1 to Santa Ana River, Reach 3 - via Arlington Channel
Temescal Creek, Reach 1 to Santa Ana River, Reach 3 - via La Sierra Channel to Arlington Channel Outside City Limits San Jacinto Watershed RECEIVING WATERS MAP LEGEND © 2009. All Rights Reserved. City of Riverside, California. Project Site - 20 -
Appendix 2: Construction Plans
Grading and Drainage Plans
CITY OF RIVERSIDE Site Development Plan Number: OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333 Sheet: JANUARY 04, 2022 ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX LOCATION: 10821 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505 ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 142-293-028 10821 MAGNOLIA AVE 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM NOTES C1.00 ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER EXISTING UTILITY NOTE STORM WATER NOTE SITE ADDRESS UTILITY COMPANIES TOPOGRAPHY SOURCE BENCHMARK FEMA ZONE OWNER/ DEVELOPER GRADING NOTES “ ”“ ” “ ” UTILITY NOTES UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF COORDINATES & BEARINGS EARTH WORK LAND USE DISTURBED AREA CITY OF RIVERSIDE Site Development Plan Number: OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333 Sheet: JANUARY 04, 2022 ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX LOCATION: 10821 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505 ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 142-293-028 10821 MAGNOLIA AVE 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM CROSS SECTIONS C4.00 C1.00 NOTES 303 716.42
304 717.59 305 716.74 s s s s s s s s s s V V V V V V V V V FH s X X X X X X X X X X X 720.0 720.0 720.0 715.0 .0 E E E SD SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS CITY OF RIVERSIDE Site Development Plan Number: OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333 Sheet: JANUARY 04, 2022 ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX LOCATION: 10821 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505 ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 142-293-028 10821 MAGNOLIA AVE 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM EXISTING CONDITIONS C2.00 LEGEND 303 716.42
305 716.74 s s s s s s s s V V V V V V V V FH s X X X X X X X X X X X 72 720.0 720.0 715.0 E E E SD SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS A C4.00 VAN ADA ADA ADA ADA ADA IRR SS SS SS SS SS W W B C4.00 CITY OF RIVERSIDE Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333 Sheet: JANUARY 04, 2022 ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX LOCATION: 10821 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505 ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 142-293-028 10821 MAGNOLIA AVE 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM CROSS SECTIONS C4.003 SITE PLAN LEGEND PARKING STALL COUNT CITY OF RIVERSIDE Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333 Sheet: JANUARY 04, 2022 ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX LOCATION: 10821 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505 ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 142-293-028 10821 MAGNOLIA AVE 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA 92124 Phone: (858) 614-5000 · MBAKERINTL.COM CROSS SECTIONS C4.00 SECTION A PROP DOUBLE WIDE CONSTRUCTION TRAILER PROP DOUBLE WIDE CONSTRUCTION TRAILER SECTION B R/W - 21 -
Appendix 3: Soils Information
Geotechnical Study and Other Infiltration Testing Data
Hydrologic Soil Group—Western Riverside Area, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/29/2021

Page 1 of 4 ends

3751820 3751840 3751860 3751880 3751900 3751920 3751940 3751960 3751980 3751820 3751840 3751860 3751880 3751900 3751920 3751940 3751960 3751980 456310 456330 456350 456370 456390 456410 456430
456310 456330 456350 456370 456390 456410 456430
33° 54' 26'' N
117° 28' 21'' W
33° 54' 26'' N
117° 28' 16'' W
33° 54' 20'' N
117° 28' 21'' W
33° 54' 20'' N
117° 28' 16'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240
Feet
0 10 20 40 60
Meters
Map Scale: 1:856 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.

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

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

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

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

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

Soil Survey Area: Western Riverside Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 13, May 27, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 17, 2018—Jun 28, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Western Riverside Area, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/29/2021

Page 2 of 4 ends

Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI BhA Buchenau loam, slightly
saline-alkali, 0 to 2
percent slopes
B 1.6 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.6 100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Hydrologic Soil Group—Western Riverside Area, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/29/2021

Page 3 of 4 ends

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—Western Riverside Area, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/29/2021

Page 4 of 4 ends

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Offsite Parking (Magnolia) – K02680001 (Pep Boys)
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Prepared for:

Kaiser Permanente
Riverside/Moreno Valley Service Area
182 Granite Street
Corona, California 92879
August 25, 2021
Project No.: 210641.3
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
August 25, 2021
Project No. 210641.3
Wendy Scott
Senior Project Manager
Riverside/Moreno Valley Service Area
182 Granite Street
Corona, California 92879
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Offsite Parking (Magnolia) – K02680001 (Pep Boys)
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Dear Ms. Scott:

In accordance with your request and authorization, we are presenting the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed offsite parking lot at Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center. The purpose of this investigation has been to provide recommendations for the preparation of the subgrade soil the proposed parking lot at the above-referenced location.

Please note that the recommendations presented within the report are based on assumptions stated herein. Should conditions encountered during development differ from those assumed in our analyses, or should the proposed development change, our recommendations may need to be modified accordingly.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
TWINING, INC.

Douglas Crayton Adrian Moreno, PE 87057
Staff Engineer Project Engineer
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1

2.1. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 1

3. SCOPE OF WORK 1

3.1. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 1

3.2. FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................... 1

3.3. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................... 1

3.4. ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND REPORT PREPARATION .............................. 2

4. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2

4.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY .......................................................................................... 2

4.2. SUBSURFACE EARTH MATERIALS .................................................................... 2

4.3. GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................... 2

5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 3

5.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 3

5.2. EXPANSIVE SOILS ................................................................................................ 3

5.3. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK ............................................................ 3

5.3.1. Site Preparation ........................................................................................... 3

5.3.2. Temporary Excavations ............................................................................ 3

5.3.3. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation ...................................... 4

5.3.4. Materials for Fill ........................................................................................... 5

5.3.5. Compacted Fill ............................................................................................. 5

5.3.6. Excavation Bottom Stability ..................................................................... 5

5.3.7. Backfill for Utility Trench ........................................................................... 5

5.3.8. Rippability ...................................................................................................... 6

5.3.9. Construction Dewatering .......................................................................... 6

5.4. POLE FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................... 7

5.4.1. Non-Constrained Ground ......................................................................... 7

5.4.2. Constrained Ground ................................................................................... 7

5.5. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 8

5.5.1. Flexible Pavement Design ........................................................................ 8

5.5.2. Rigid Pavement Design ............................................................................. 8

5.6. INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 9

6. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 10

6.1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................... 10

6.2. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ......................................................................... 10

7. LIMITATIONS 10
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

iii
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Plan and Boring Location Map
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map

Appendices
Appendix A – Field Exploration
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – Percolation Testing

2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 1 ends

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation performed for the proposed offsite parking lot at the Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center in Riverside, California (Figure 1).

The purpose of this investigation has been to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1. Site Description
The proposed offsite parking lot is located on the north side of Magnolia Avenue across from the Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center in Riverside, California. The property is currently a vacant lot that is located between Harbor Freight Tools on the north side and Pep Boys Tire Shop on the south side.

The approximate site coordinates for the building are latitude 33.9063°N and longitude 117.4717°W and the lot is between approximately 715-716 feet above mean sea level (MSL).

The lot is currently undeveloped, although there are exposed risers from a storm drain that run southwest-northeast across the property.

3. SCOPE OF WORK
To prepare this report, we have performed the following tasks:

3.1. Literature Review
We reviewed available background data including geologic maps, topographic maps, and aerial photographs relevant to the subject site in preparation of this report.

3.2. Field Exploration
The field exploration consisted of four exploratory borings conducted at the site on August 5, 2021. The subsurface exploration was performed using a 5-inch-diameter hand auger. The borings were advanced to depths of approximately 5 feet below ground surface. Upon completion of the borings, two of the borings were converted to percolation test holes for percolation testing.

The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, Site Plan and Boring Location Map. Detailed exploration information of the soil borings is presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

3.3. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of the foundation soils. Laboratory tests included tests for Atterberg Limits, #200 Wash, Resistance Value (R-value), and Expansion Index. The detailed laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 2 ends

3.4. Engineering Analyses and Report Preparation
We compiled and analyzed the data collected from our site observation, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing, and prepared this report to present our conclusions and recommendations, including:
 Site geology, and subsurface conditions;
 Groundwater conditions;
 Site preparation and earthwork;
 Design of pole foundations;
 Temporary excavations;
 Trench backfill; and
 Recommendations for pavement design.

4. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1. Regional Geology
According to the “Geologic Map of the Riverside West/south ½ of Fontana Quadrangles,“ (Dibblee and Minch, 2004), the project site is underlain by alluvium consisting of “alluvial fan deposits of sand, minor gravel, tan to light reddish brown” (map symbol: Qoa). Portions of the map are reproduced as Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map.

4.2. Subsurface Earth Materials
Earth materials encountered during our subsurface exploration consisted of sandy lean clay to lean clay with sand and silty sand at all locations. The borings were all terminated at 5 feet beneath the ground surface. The materials encountered were generally dry to slightly moist.

Approximately the upper foot in all locations consisted of fill that should be considered undocumented since no records of its placement is available. The fill was underlain by alluvium to the depth of exploration at all locations.

Detailed information about soil borings is presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

4.3. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered at either site during our exploration to a maximum of 5 feet below ground surface. Based on our review of data from the California Department of Water Resources Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map Application, a groundwater well located approximately 1,500 feet southeast of the project site has recorded groundwater at a depth greater than 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs) as of November 2019. The groundwater level can be assumed to be greater than 50 feet below ground surface for the design of the project.

Groundwater conditions may vary across the site due to stratigraphic and hydrologic conditions and may change over time as a consequence of seasonal and meteorological fluctuations, or of activities by humans at this and nearby sites.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 3 ends

5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. General Considerations
Based on the results of our field exploration and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design plans and are implemented during construction.

Our geotechnical engineering analyses performed for this report were based on the earth materials encountered during the subsurface exploration for the site. If the design substantially changes, then our geotechnical engineering recommendations would be subject to revision based on our evaluation of the changes. The following sections present our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the engineering design for this project.

5.2. Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs supported on-grade, or pavements supported over these materials. Depending on the extent and location below finished subgrade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed construction.

Based on our laboratory tests, the near surface soils consist of soils which have a “very low” expansion potential. Mitigation measures for expansive soils are not required.

5.3. Site Preparation and Earthwork
In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Twining should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations or guidelines presented herein.

5.3.1. Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of utility lines, asphalt, concrete, vegetation, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside edges of the proposed excavation and fill areas. We recommend that unsuitable materials such as organic matter or oversized material be removed and disposed of offsite. The debris and unsuitable material generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of at a legal dump site away from the project area.

5.3.2. Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations for the project are expected. We anticipate that unsurcharged excavations with vertical side slopes less than 4 feet high will generally be stable; however, if excavation extends to the sandy soil layers, sloughing of cohesionless sandy materials encountered at the site should be expected.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 4 ends

Where space is available, temporary, un-surcharged excavation sides over 4 feet in height should be sloped no steeper than an inclination of 1.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical). Where sloped excavations are created, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that vehicles and storage loads are away from the top edge of the excavated slopes with a distance at least equal to the height of the slopes. A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Twining should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended to be graded along the tops of the slopes in order to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces.

Excavations should not undermine the existing adjacent footings. Where space for sloped excavations is not available, slot-cut or temporary shoring may be utilized. For temporary excavations that are less than 6 feet in height adjacent to existing buildings where the excavation extends deeper than the bottom of the existing footing, slot cuts may be utilized.

The slots should be no wider than 8 feet or one half of the width of the footing, whichever is smaller. The slots should be excavated in an A-B-C sequence so that there is soil support between any two excavated slots. The excavated slots should not be left open overnight and should be backfilled on the same day it was excavated before the next set of slots are excavated.

Personnel from Twining should observe the excavations so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the encountered soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including CalOSHA requirements, should be met. Stability of temporary excavations is the responsibility of the contractor.

5.3.3. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation
Over-excavation should extend at least 1 feet below the bottom of the proposed pavement or to the bottom of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper.

Excavation for pavement and other improvements (e.g., concrete walkways and flatwork) should extend laterally at least 2 feet beyond the limits of the improvements.

The exposed excavation bottom should be evaluated and approved by a representative of Twining. It should then be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and moisture conditioned to achieve generally consistent moisture contents approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content. The scarified bottom should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with the latest version of ASTM Test Method D1557 and then evaluated and approved by Twining.

The extent and depths of all removal should be evaluated by Twining’s representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Should excavations expose soft soils or soils considered as unsuitable for use as fill by a Twining representative, additional removals may be recommended. For example, deeper removal may be required in areas where soft, saturated, or organic materials are encountered.

Fill and backfill materials should be compacted fill in accordance with Sections 5.3.4 and

5.3.5 of this report.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 5 ends

5.3.4. Materials for Fill
In general, on-site soils should be considered as suitable for use as fill. All fill soils should be free of organics, debris, rocks or lumps over three inches in largest dimension, other deleterious material, and not more than 40 percent larger than ¾ inch. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or may be disposed of offsite.

Any imported fill material should consist of granular soil having a “very low” expansion potential (i.e., expansion index of 20 or less). Import material should also have low corrosion potential (that is, chloride content less than 500 parts per million [ppm], soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent, and pH of 5.5 or higher).

All fill soils should be evaluated and approved by a Twining representative prior to importing or filling.

5.3.5. Compacted Fill
Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness, depending on the equipment used. Prior to compaction, each lift should be moisture conditioned, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods. The moisture content should be approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content. Fill materials should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent within the upper one foot below new vehicle trafficked pavement sections, and 90 percent in all other areas, unless indicated otherwise. The relative compaction should be determined by ASTM D1557. Successive lifts should be treated in the same manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.

5.3.6. Excavation Bottom Stability
In general, we anticipate that bottoms of the excavations will be stable and should provide suitable support for the proposed improvements. Conditions of the excavation bottom should be evaluated by Twining during the scarification and re-compaction efforts. If unstable bottom conditions are encountered, remedial measures would be required to stabilize the bottom. Soft bottom conditions can be identified by surface yielding under rubber-tired equipment loading and the inability to achieve proper compaction.

Unstable bottom conditions may be mitigated by over-excavation of the bottom to suitable depths, and/or replacement with a minimum 1-foot-thick aggregate base underlain by geogrid (Tensar TX7 or equivalent).

Recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on evaluation in the field by the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.

5.3.7. Backfill for Utility Trench
Utility trench excavations to receive backfill shall be free of trash, debris or other unsatisfactory materials at the time of backfill placement.

At locations where the trench bottom is yielding or otherwise unstable, pipe support may be improved by placing 12 inches of ¾-inch crushed rock as defined in Section 200-1.2 of the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC). 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 6 ends

Remedial earthwork at the trench bottom should be performed where oversize materials (rocks or clods greater than 3 inches) are present. Removal of oversize materials to a depth of 6 inches below the bottom of the pipeline and replacement with fill compacted to at least 90% relative compaction is recommended. Alternatively, ¾-inch crushed rock may be used.

The trench should be backfilled with bedding material extending to at least one foot over the top of pipe. Bedding material should consist of clean sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater. Alternative materials meeting the SSPWC bedding material specifications are also acceptable. Samples of materials proposed for use as bedding should be provided to the engineer for inspection and testing before the material is imported for use on the project. The onsite materials can only be used following the requirement of “Greenbook” bedding specification when the SE is not less than 30. The pipe bedding material should be placed over the full width of the trench. After placement of the pipe, the bedding should be brought up uniformly on both sides of the pipe to reduce the potential for unbalanced loads. No void or uncompacted areas should be left beneath the pipe haunches.

Above pipe bedding, trench backfill may be onsite soils and should not contain rocks or lumps over 3 inches in largest dimension. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or may be disposed of offsite. The moisture content should be approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content.

Backfill may be placed and compacted by mechanical means and should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as per ASTM Standard D1557. Where pavement is planned, the top 12 inches of subgrade soils and the overlying aggregate base should be compacted to 95 percent.

Jetting or flooding of pipe bedding and backfill material is not recommended.

5.3.8. Rippability
The earth materials underlying the site should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earthwork equipment in good working condition. Some gravels, cobbles and man-made debris should be anticipated.

5.3.9. Construction Dewatering
As discussed earlier, groundwater was not encountered in the borings to the maximum exploration depth of 5 feet bgs. Construction of the project is anticipated to occur above the groundwater. The possibility to encounter groundwater is low during earthwork and slab-on-grade preparation for the proposed structures, and the need for dewatering is not anticipated for construction of foundations and utility trenches.

If needed, considerations for construction dewatering should include anticipated drawdown, volume of pumping, potential for settlement of nearby structures, and groundwater discharge. Disposal of groundwater should be performed in accordance with guidelines of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 7 ends

5.4. Pole Foundations
Pole foundations for flagpoles, fences, and signposts may be designed using an allowable unit skin friction of 300 psf and an allowable end bearing resistance of 1,500 psf. A factor of safety of 2 is incorporated into the allowable skin friction, and a factor of 3 is incorporated into the allowable end bearing.

Lateral resistance for conditions with and without lateral constraint provided at the ground surface conditions are provided below based on 2019 CBC.

5.4.1. Non-Constrained Ground
The embedment of pole foundations where no lateral constraint is provided at or above the ground surface should be calculated using Equation 18-1 of 2019 CBC (shown below) or a minimum 3 feet below the ground surface, whichever is deeper. d ൌ ୅
ଶ ሺ1 ൅ ට1 ൅ ସ.ଷ଺୦୅ ሻ (Equation 18-1 of 2019 CBC)
where:

A = 2.34P/(S1 * b)
b = Diameter of round post or footing or diagonal dimension of square post or footing, feet.
d = Depth of embedment in earth in feet but not over 12 feet for purpose of computing lateral pressure.
h = Distance in feet from ground surface to point of application of “P”.

P = Applied lateral force in pounds.

S1 = Allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure based on a depth of one-third the depth of embedment in pounds per square foot.

An allowable passive earth pressure of 300 pcf up to a maximum of 4,500 psf may be used for design provided the upper one foot of passive resistance is neglected in the structural design. Isolated pole foundations spaced at least 3 diameters of the maximum pole foundation may be designed using an allowable lateral resistance equal to 2 times of the allowable passive pressure.

5.4.2. Constrained Ground
The embedment of pole foundations where lateral constraint is provided at the ground surface, such as by a rigid floor or pavement, should be calculated using Equation 18-2 of 2019 CBC (shown below) or a minimum 3 feet below the ground surface, whichever is deeper.
d ൌ ටସ.ଶହ୔୦
ୗయୠ (Equation 18-2 of 2019 CBC)
where:
b = Diameter of round post or footing or diagonal dimension of square post or footing, feet.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 8 ends

d = Depth of embedment in earth in feet but not over 12 feet for purpose of computing lateral pressure.
h = Distance in feet from ground surface to point of application of “P”.

P = Applied lateral force in pounds.

S3 = Allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure based on a depth of one-third the depth of embedment in pounds per square foot.

An allowable passive earth pressure of 300 pcf up to a maximum of 4,500 psf may be used for design provided the upper one foot of passive resistance is neglected in the structural design. Isolated pole foundations spaced at least 3 diameters of the maximum pole foundation may be designed using an allowable lateral resistance equal to 2 times of the allowable passive pressure.

5.5. Pavement Recommendations
Pavement section should be constructed on top of properly prepared subgrade in accordance with Section 6.4 of this report and aggregate base (AB) section compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557.

We performed laboratory R-value testing for preliminary pavement section design. The test indicates a minimum R value of 14, and it was used in our pavement structural calculations.

Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 present our recommendations for preliminary design of flexible and rigid pavement sections, respectively.

5.5.1. Flexible Pavement Design
Our flexible pavement structural design is in accordance with Chapter 630 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, which is based on a relationship between the gravel equivalent (GE) of the pavement structural materials, the traffic index (TI), and the R-value of the underlying subgrade soil. For preliminary design of flexible pavement section, Table 1 provides recommended minimum thicknesses for hot mix asphalt (HMA) and aggregate base sections for assumed traffic indices.

Table 1 – Recommended Minimum HMA and Base Section Thicknesses Traffic Index 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
HMA Thickness (in) 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0
Aggregate Base Thickness (in) 4.0 6.0 7.5 9.5

5.5.2. Rigid Pavement Design
For preliminary design of rigid pavement section, Table 2 provides recommended minimum thicknesses for Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement sectiozn and Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) section for different traffic indices. The recommended values are based on a minimum 28-day concrete compressive strength of 3,500 psi. Positive drainage should be provided away from all pavement areas to prevent seepage of surface and/or subsurface water into the pavement base and/or subgrade. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 9 ends

Table 2 – Recommended Minimum Rigid Pavement Thicknesses Traffic Index 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
PCC Thickness (in) 4.0 5.0 5.5 6.0
Aggregate Base Thickness (in) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

5.6. Infiltration Recommendations
Preliminary percolation testing was performed at two locations recommended by the project civil engineer. Prior to construction, testing should be performed at the actual location and depth of the planned system if it is different than the locations tested. The design of stormwater infiltration facility should be based on percolation test results with an appropriate factor of safety.

Our percolation test results may be used in preliminary design. Details of the percolation tests are presented in Appendix C. Infiltration rates with a factor of safety of 3 from our percolation tests are summarized in Table 3.

Any proposed infiltration facility should have a minimum setback from property lines and foundations recommended in Table 4. In addition, the bottom of the infiltration facility should be at least 10 feet above the seasonal high groundwater. We recommend that we review the proposed groundwater infiltration system prior to implementation or finalizing design.

Table 3 – Infiltration Rate with a Factor of Safety of 3 Test Location Depth of Test Borehole
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
P-1 5.0 0.3
P-2 5.0 0.3

2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 10 ends

Table 4 – Recommended Minimum Infiltration Facility Setback Setback from Distance
Property lines & public right of way 5 feet
Foundations the greater of 15 feet or a 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of foundation
Seasonal high groundwater 10 feet minimum depth from invert of infiltration device Face of slope the greater of 5 feet or one half of the slope height Water wells 100 feet

6. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Geotechnical review of plans and specifications is of paramount importance in engineering practice.

The poor performance of many structures has been attributed to inadequate geotechnical review of construction documents. Additionally, observation and testing of the subgrade will be important to the performance of the proposed development. The following sections present our recommendations relative to the review of construction documents and the monitoring of construction activities.

6.1. Plans and Specifications
The design plans and specifications should be reviewed by Twining prior to bidding and construction, as the geotechnical recommendations may need to be reevaluated in the light of the actual design configuration and loads. This review is necessary to evaluate whether the recommendations contained in this report and future reports have been properly incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Based on the work already performed, this office is best qualified to provide such review.

6.2. Construction Monitoring
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, cement treatment of subgrade soils, assessment of imported fill materials, fill placement, and other site grading operations should be observed and tested, as appropriate. The substrata exposed during the construction may differ from that encountered in the test excavations. Continuous observation by a representative of Twining during construction allows for evaluation of the soil conditions as they are encountered and allows the opportunity to recommend appropriate revisions where necessary.

The project engineer should be notified prior to exposure of subgrades. It is critically important that the engineer be provided with an opportunity to observe all exposed subgrades prior to burial or covering.

7. LIMITATIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on Twining, Inc.’s review of available background documents, on information obtained from field explorations, and on 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Page 11 ends

laboratory testing. It should be noted that this study did not evaluate the possible presence of hazardous materials on any portion of the site. In the event that any of our recommendations conflict with recommendations provided by other design professionals, we should be contacted to aid in resolving the discrepancy.

Due to the limited nature of our field explorations, conditions not observed and described in this report may be present on the site. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory testing can be performed upon request. It should be understood that conditions different from those anticipated in this report may be encountered during grading operations, for example, the extent of removal of unsuitable soil, and that additional effort may be required to mitigate them.

Site conditions, including groundwater elevation, can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites. Changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of 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 Twining, Inc. has no control.

Twining’s recommendations for this site are, to a high degree, dependent upon appropriate quality control of subgrade preparation, fill placement, and foundation construction. Accordingly, the recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for Twining to observe grading operations and foundation excavations for the proposed construction. If parties other than Twining are engaged to provide such services, such parties must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report and/or by providing alternative recommendations.

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

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by the client and its agents for specific application to the proposed project. Land use, site conditions, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time.

Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Twining may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the Client or anyone else will release Twining from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.

The evaluation of compaction by Twining should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify Twining and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review.

Twining performed its evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical professionals with experience in this area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

FIGURES
FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP
REFERENCE: USGS (2018)

SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE
August 2021
PROJECT NO.
210641.3
0 4000 8000
SITE

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT
OFFSITE PARKING - K02680001 MAGNOLIA

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER

PARKING LOT BETWEEN PEP BOYS AND HARBOR FREIGHT

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 REPORT DATE August 2021 PROJECT No. 210641.3 OFFSITE PARKING - K02680001 MAGNOLIA KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER PARKING LOT BETWEEN PEP BOYS AND HARBOR FREIGHT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA SITE PLAN AND BORING LOCATION MAP NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE REFERENCE: GOOGLE (2021) 0 100 200 LEGEND B-1 TD=5' P-1 TD=5' P-1 TD=5' P-2 TD=5' B-2 TD=5' B-1 TD=5' FIGURE 3

GEOLOGIC MAP
REFERENCE: DIBBLEE AND MINCH (2004)

SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE
August 2021
PROJECT NO.
210641.3
0 2000 4000
SITE
Qoa Alluvial fan deposits of sand, minor gravel, tan to light reddish brown Qts Sandstone and conglomerate
hdg Hornblende diorite-gabbro
Qtc Conglomerate
gdgb Granodiorite and gabbro, mixed
grr Granite
OFFSITE PARKING - K02680001 MAGNOLIA

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER

PARKING LOT BETWEEN PEP BOYS AND HARBOR FREIGHT

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Appendix A
Field Exploration
General
The field exploration consisted of two exploratory borings conducted at the site on August 5, 2021.

Four soil borings were advanced to an approximate depth of 5 feet below the existing grades. The boring operations were performed using a 5-inch-diameter hand auger.

The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, Site Plan and Boring Location Map.

Drilling and Sampling
The Boring Logs are presented as Figures A-2 through A-5. An explanation of these logs is presented as Figure A-1. The Boring Logs describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained, and show the field and laboratory tests performed. The log also shows the boring number and drilling date.

The borings were logged by an engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the borings.

Driven samples using a Modified California Ring Sampler were taken in select locations using a hand sampler. Upon completion of the borings, the boreholes were backfilled with soil from the cuttings.

PROJECT NO.
210641.3

REPORT DATE
August 2021
Offsite Parking - K02680001 Magnolia
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

EXPLANATION FOR LOG OF BORINGS
Sample
Symbol
Very Dense
<4 0 - 15 Very Soft <2
4 - 10
10 - 30 35 - 65
>50
Dense
SPT
(blows/ft)
Very Loose

FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Relative
Density
Loose
Medium Dense
Sample Type Description
15 - 35 Soft 2 - 4
Medium Stiff 4 - 8
30 - 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 - 15
85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 - 30
Hard >30
Relative
Density (%)
Consistency SPT
(blows/ft)
ATT
C
CORR
DS
EI
GS
K
MAX
O
RV
SE
SG
TX
UC
Atterberg Limits
Consolidation
Corrosivity Series
Direct Shear
Expansion Index
Grain Size Distribution
Permeability
Moisture/Density
(Modified Proctor)
Organic Content
Resistance Value
Sand Equivalent
Specific Gravity
Triaxial Compression
Unconfined Compression
NOTE: SPT blow counts based on 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches SPT
California Modified
Bulk
Thin-Walled Tube

1.4 in I.D., 2.0 in. O.D. driven sampler

2.4 in. I.D., 3.0 in. O.D. driven sampler
Retrieved from soil cuttings
Pitcher or Shelby Tube

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS LABORATORY TESTING

ABBREVIATIONS
FIGURE A-1
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES)
LETTER

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK

FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY
GRAPH

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF
FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS SMALLER
THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS

GRAVEL AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS

CLEAN GRAVELS

CLEAN SANDS SAND AND
SANDY
SOILS

SANDS WITH
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN
50 LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN
50 FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH

ORGANIC CONTENTS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH

PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
FILL: Lean CLAY with sand; light reddish brown; dry;
approximately 20% gravel
ALLUVIUM: Lean CLAY with sand; reddish brown; slightly
moist; trace gravel
-- little to no gravel
Total Depth = 5.0 feet
Backfilled on 8/5/2021
No groundwater encountered.

Backfilled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
#200,

ATT, RV
712
707
PROJECT NO.
210641.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 717 +(MSL)
Offsite Parking - K02680001 Magnolia
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10

LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
August 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 2

DRIVE WEIGHT N/A
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP N/A
DATE DRILLED 8/5/2021 BORING NO. B-1
FILL: Silty SAND: light reddish brown; dry; with coarse sand ALLUVIUM: Silty SAND; light redidsh brown; dry; with coarse sand and some fine gravel
Total Depth = 5.0 feet
Backfilled on 8/5/2021
No groundwater encountered.

Backfilled with cuttings at completion.

SM
SM
#200,

ATT, RV
711
706
PROJECT NO.
210641.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 716 +(MSL)
Offsite Parking - K02680001 Magnolia
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10

LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
August 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 3

DRIVE WEIGHT N/A
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP N/A
DATE DRILLED 8/5/2021 BORING NO. B-2
FILL: Sandy lean CLAY; light reddish brown; dry; approximately 30% gravel smaller than 3 inches
ALLUVIUM: Sandy lean CLAY; light reddish brown; dry
Total Depth = 5.0 feet
Backfilled on 8/5/2021
No groundwater encountered.

Backfilled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL

5.8 710
705
PROJECT NO.
210641.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 715 +(MSL)
Offsite Parking - K02680001 Magnolia
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10

LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
August 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 4

DRIVE WEIGHT N/A
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP N/A
DATE DRILLED 8/5/2021 BORING NO. P-1
FILL: Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; dry; with some gravel ALLUVIUM: Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; dry; with some gravel
-- slightly moist
Total Depth = 5.0 feet
Backfilled on 8/5/2021
No groundwater encountered.

Backfilled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
EI

6.3 710
705
PROJECT NO.
210641.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 715 +(MSL)
Offsite Parking - K02680001 Magnolia
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10

LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
August 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 5

DRIVE WEIGHT N/A
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP N/A
DATE DRILLED 8/5/2021 BORING NO. P-2
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Moisture Content
The moisture content of selected samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D2937. The results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A.

No. 200 Wash Sieve
The amount of fines passing the No. 200 sieve was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1140. The results are presented in Table B-1.

Table B-1
Number 200 Wash Results
Boring No. Depth (feet) Percent Passing #200
B-1 0-5 74.8
B-2 0-5 21.4
Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

The test results are summarized in Figure B-1.

Expansion Index
The expansion index of two soil samples was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829.

The specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were 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 expansion index tests are presented in Table B-2.

Table B-2
Expansion Index
Boring No. Depth
(feet)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential
P-2 0-5 5 Very low

2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Resistance Value (R-value)
R-value testing was performed on a select bulk sample of the near-surface soils encountered at the site. The test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2844. The result is summarized in Table B-3.

Table B-3
Resistance Value (R-value)
Boring No. Depth
(feet) R Value
B-1 0-5 14
B-2 0-5 60
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 20406080 100
ML
CL
MH
CH
Sample Location

LIQUID LIMIT
LL

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL PI U.S.C.S. Classification
17 NP
31 NP
14 NP
CL-ML
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
B-1 at 0-5 ft
B-2 at 0-5 ft
FIGURE B-1
Lean CLAY with sand
Silty SAND
PROJECT NO.
210641.3

REPORT DATE
August 2021
Offsite Parking - K02680001 Magnolia
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
lab:4AB96B3B-5B62-4DDD-988B-A63F007DC52C
Sample Details
Sample ID: W01-21-17564-S1 Date Sampled: 8/5/2021
Sampling Method: Source:

Material: Specification:

Location: B-1 0-5' (Bulk) Tested By: Brian Vollnogle
Date Tested: 8/11/2021
Test Results
ASTM D 2844
R Value at 300 psi Exudation: 14
R Value
Specimen Results
Moisture Content (%) 9.7 9.7 9.7
Dry Density (lb/ft³) 129.0 129.0 129.0
Exudation Pressure (psi) 796 796 796
R Value 38 38 38
Expansion Pressure (psi) 1.4 1.4 1.4
Moisture Content (%) 9.7 11.6 11.6
Dry Density (lb/ft³) 129.0 121.4 121.4
Exudation Pressure (psi) 796 241 241
R Value 38 12 12
Expansion Pressure (psi) 1.4 0.2 0.2
Moisture Content (%) 9.7 11.6 10.6
Dry Density (lb/ft³) 129.0 121.4 125.5
Exudation Pressure (psi) 796 241 569
R Value 38 12 26
Expansion Pressure (psi) 1.4 0.2 0.7
Riverside, CA,

www.twininginc.com
Report No: RV:W01-21-17564-S1 R Value Report
Customer:

Twining, Inc.- Long Beach Lab
3310 Airport Way, Long Beach, CA 90806
Ph: 562.426.3355
Fax: 562.426.6424
75 North Fair Oaks Avenue
Kaiser National Inspection Services
Project:
10821 Magnolia Avenue
Kaiser -Riverside Parking Pep Boys Ph2 - RMC Off-Site parking K0268 Project No.: 210641.3
Permit No.:

OSHPD:

DSA File #:

DSA AP #:

Distribution:

Jurisdiction:

Pasadena, CA, 91103
Form No: 18964, Report No: RV:W01-21-17564-S1 © 2000-2021 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 1 of 1 Remarks:

Results relate only to the items tested/inspected. All reports remain the property of Twining. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without our prior written approval. lab:4AB96B3B-5B62-4DDD-988B-A63F007DC52C
Sample Details
Sample ID: W01-21-17564-S2 Date Sampled: 8/5/2021
Sampling Method: Source:

Material: Specification:

Location: B-2 0-5' (Bulk) Tested By: Brian Vollnogle
Date Tested: 8/11/2021
Test Results
ASTM D 2844
R Value at 300 psi Exudation: 60
R Value
Specimen Results
Moisture Content (%) 5.3 5.3 5.3
Dry Density (lb/ft³) 132.9 132.9 132.9
Exudation Pressure (psi) 796 796 796
R Value 80 80 80
Expansion Pressure (psi) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Moisture Content (%) 5.3 9.0 9.0
Dry Density (lb/ft³) 132.9 130.9 130.9
Exudation Pressure (psi) 796 168 168
R Value 80 33 33
Expansion Pressure (psi) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Moisture Content (%) 5.3 9.0 7.1
Dry Density (lb/ft³) 132.9 130.9 132.2
Exudation Pressure (psi) 796 168 358
R Value 80 33 70
Expansion Pressure (psi) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Riverside, CA,

www.twininginc.com
Report No: RV:W01-21-17564-S2 R Value Report
Customer:

Twining, Inc.- Long Beach Lab
3310 Airport Way, Long Beach, CA 90806
Ph: 562.426.3355
Fax: 562.426.6424
75 North Fair Oaks Avenue
Kaiser National Inspection Services
Project:
10821 Magnolia Avenue
Kaiser -Riverside Parking Pep Boys Ph2 - RMC Off-Site parking K0268 Project No.: 210641.3
Permit No.:

OSHPD:

DSA File #:

DSA AP #:

Distribution:

Jurisdiction:

Pasadena, CA, 91103
Form No: 18964, Report No: RV:W01-21-17564-S2 © 2000-2021 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Page 1 of 1 Remarks:

Results relate only to the items tested/inspected. All reports remain the property of Twining. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without our prior written approval. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Appendix C
Percolation Testing

2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was performed on August 5, 2021 in two of the hand auger borings (P-1 and P-2) in accordance with the procedures of the Riverside County Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. After installing pipe and filter rock, the boreholes were filled with water to approximately one foot bgs and presoaked for two consecutive 25-minute sessions prior to testing. At the end of each presoak session, more than 6 inches of water level drop was observed in the borings.

After presoaking, the boreholes were filled with water again, and measurements were recorded. The last reading was used to determine the percolation rate at each test location.

Our calculated infiltration rates with a factor safety of 3 are presented in Table C-1 below. Detailed test data is attached at the end of this appendix.

Table C-1 – Infiltration Rates with a Factor of Safety of 3 Test Location Depth of Test Borehole
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
P-1 5.0 0.3
P-2 5.0 0.3
Project : Project No. : Date : 8/5/2021
P-1 Tested by :
60 Length Width
5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 10:04 AM 10:29 AM 25 45.6 52.2 6.6 Y
2 10:29 AM 10:54 AM 25 44.4 50.4 6.0 Y
t Ho Hf H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 11:26 AM 11:36 AM 10 31.20 25.80 5.40 1.36
2 11:36 AM 11:46 AM 10 30.60 27.12 3.48 0.87
3 11:46 AM 11:56 AM 10 30.96 27.60 3.36 0.83
4 11:56 AM 12:06 PM 10 30.96 27.60 3.36 0.83
5 12:06 PM 12:16 PM 10 30.84 27.48 3.36 0.83
6 12:16 PM 12:26 PM 10 30.96 27.60 3.36 0.83
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.3 inch /hr Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Pep Boys 210641.3
Project : Project No. : Date : 8/5/2021
P-2 Tested by :
60 Length Width
5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 9:01 AM 9:26 AM 25 49.2 56.8 7.6 Y
2 9:26 AM 9:51 AM 25 45.6 53.4 7.8 Y
t Ho Hf H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 10:10 AM 10:20 AM 10 9.60 6.36 3.24 2.63
2 10:20 AM 10:30 AM 10 9.60 8.28 1.32 0.97
3 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 10 9.36 7.80 1.56 1.19
4 10:40 AM 10:50 AM 10 9.00 7.44 1.56 1.24
5 10:50 AM 11:00 AM 10 9.60 8.40 1.20 0.88
6 11:00 AM 11:10 AM 10 10.20 9.00 1.20 0.83
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.3 inch /hr Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Pep Boys 210641.3
Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = - 22 -
Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or Other Information on Past Site Use N/A
- 23 -
Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility
LID Technical Infeasibility Analysis
Not Applicable
- 24 -
Appendix 6: BMP Design Details
BMP Sizing, Design Details and other Supporting Documentation Date
D85= 0.60 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
DMA 1/AC 42560 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 37963.5
DMA
1/Landsca
pe
13,941
Ornamental
Landscaping 0.1 0.11 1539.9
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 56501 39503.4 0.60 1975.2 3798
Notes:

Total
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP BMP Identification
BMP NAME / ID DMA 1 / BR-1
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Design Rainfall Depth
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Designed by Michael Baker International Case No DP-2021-01307 Company Project Number/Name Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center – Magnolia Lot Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend:

Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name Michael Baker International 1/11/2022
BMP ID
BR-1
Company Name: Date: 1/11/2022
Designed by: County/City Case No.: DP-2021-0 1307
Enter the area tributary to this feature AT= 1.297 acres Enter VBMP determined from Section 2.1 of this Handbook VBMP= 3,798 ft3 Depth of Soil Filter Media Layer dS
= 2.0 ft
Top Width of Bioretention Facility, excluding curb wT = 59.6 ft Total Effective Depth, dE
dE = 1.49 ft
dE = [(0.3) x dS + (0.4) x 1] + 0.5 dE = 1.50 ft
AM = 2,552 ft2
A= 4,328 ft2
Minimum Required Length of Bioretention Facility, L L = 42.8 ft z = 4 :1
Diameter of Underdrain 6 inches
Longitudinal Slope of Site (3% maximum) 0 %
6" Check Dam Spacing 0 feet
Describe Vegetation:

Notes:

Required Entries
Minimum Surface Area, Am
dE = (0.3) x dS + (0.4) x 1 - (0.7/wT) + 0.5
Type of Bioretention Facility Design
VBMP (ft3)
AM (ft2) =
Proposed Surface Area
dE (ft)
Bioretention Facility Properties
Bioretention Facility - Design Procedure Legend:

Michael Baker International
Michael Baker International
Design Volume
Calculated Cells
Shrubs
Bioretention Facility Surface Area
Side Slopes in Bioretention Facility
Side slopes required (parallel to parking spaces or adjacent to walkways) No side slopes required (perpendicular to parking space or Planter Boxes) Riverside County Best Management Practice Design Handbook JUNE 2010

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL AND WATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Isohyetal Map
for the 85th Percentile
24 hour Storm Event
July 2011
Rain Gage Locations
Kaiser Riverside -Magnolia Lot0.60
- 25 -
Appendix 7: Hydromodification
Supporting Detail Relating to Hydrologic Conditions of Concern N/A

PR ADO DAM

MYSTIC LAKE

PRADO DAM

REDLANDS

BEAUMONT

WILDOMAR

MURRIETA
CANYON
LAKE
CORONA
NORCO

CALIMESA

LAKE ELSINORE

BANNING

RIVERSIDE
PERRIS

JURUPA VALLEY
HEMET

EASTVALE

MENIFEE

SAN JACINTO
MORENO
VALLEY

DIAMOND VALLEY
LAKE
LAKE

SKINNER
LAKE

MATHEWS
CANYON
LAKE
LAKE

ELSINORE
LAKE
PERRIS
ZONE 1
ZONE 5
ZONE 3
ZONE 7
ZONE 4
ZONE 2
°
0 1 2 3 4
Miles
HCOC Applicability Map HCOC Applicability Map
Map Document: (M:\Mdata\10108202\RCFCWCD_Hydromodification_Large_5500.mxd.mxd - IRV) - 1/9/2012 Legend
Stream Type
Not Susceptible Stream Channels
Potentially Susceptible Stream Channels
Large River (Not Susceptible)
Santa Ana River
Adequate Sump
Watershed Areas
Not Applicable Area
Applicable Area
Applicable Area Watershed Boundaries
Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Boundary
Study Area
County Boundary
Hydromodification Susceptibility Documentation Report and Mapping Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Map 2
Magnolia Lot -
Site Location
- 26 -
Appendix 8: Source Control
Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
How to use this worksheet (also see instructions in Section G of the WQMP Template): 1. Review Column 1 and identify which of these potential sources of stormwater pollutants apply to your site. Check each box that applies.

2. Review Column 2 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable BMPs in your WQMP Exhibit.

3. Review Columns 3 and 4 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable permanent controls and operational BMPs in your WQMP. Use the format shown in Table G.1on page 23 of this WQMP Template. Describe your specific BMPs in an accompanying narrative, and explain any special conditions or situations that required omitting BMPs or substituting alternative BMPs for those shown here.

IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 A. On-site storm drain
inlets
 Locations of inlets.
 Mark all inlets with the words
“Only Rain Down the Storm Drain” or similar. Catch Basin Markers may be available from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, call 951.955.1200 to verify. 
Maintain and periodically repaint or replace inlet markings. Provide stormwater pollution prevention information to new site owners, lessees, or operators. See applicable operational BMPs in Fact Sheet SC-44, “Drainage System Maintenance,” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com Include the following in lease agreements: “Tenant shall not allow anyone to discharge anything to storm drains or to store or deposit materials so as to create a potential discharge to storm drains.”  B. Interior floor drains
and elevator shaft sump pumps
 State that interior floor drains and
elevator shaft sump pumps will be plumbed to sanitary sewer.  Inspect and maintain drains to prevent
blockages and overflow.
 C. Interior parking
garages
 State that parking garage floor
drains will be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
 Inspect and maintain drains to prevent
blockages and overflow.

X X X X
X
X
X

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 D1. Need for future
indoor & structural pest control
 Note building design features that
discourage entry of pests.
 Provide Integrated Pest Management
information to owners, lessees, and operators.
 D2. Landscape/
Outdoor Pesticide Use

Show locations of native trees or areas of shrubs and ground cover to be undisturbed and retained. Show self-retaining landscape areas, if any. Show stormwater treatment and hydrograph modification management BMPs. (See instructions in Chapter 3, Step 5 and guidance in Chapter 5.) 
State that final landscape plans will accomplish all of the following. 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 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. 
Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides. See applicable operational BMPs in “What you should know for…..Landscape and Gardening” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

Provide IPM information to new owners, lessees and operators.

X X
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 E. Pools, spas, ponds,
decorative fountains, and other water features.
 Show location of water feature and
a sanitary sewer cleanout in an accessible area within 10 feet. (Exception: Public pools must be plumbed according to County Department of Environmental Health Guidelines.) If the Co-Permittee requires pools
to be plumbed to the sanitary sewer, place a note on the plans and state in the narrative that this connection will be made according to local requirements.  See applicable operational BMPs in
“Guidelines for Maintaining Your Swimming Pool, Jacuzzi and Garden Fountain” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/  F. Food service

For restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service operations, show location (indoors or in a covered area outdoors) of a floor sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment. On the drawing, show a note that this drain will be connected to a grease interceptor before discharging to the sanitary sewer. 
Describe the location and features of the designated cleaning area. Describe the items to be cleaned in this facility and how it has been sized to insure that the largest items can be accommodated.  See the brochure, “The Food Service
Industry Best Management Practices for: Restaurants, Grocery Stores, Delicatessens and Bakeries” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Provide this brochure to new site owners, lessees, and operators.  G. Refuse areas


Show where site refuse and recycled materials will be handled and stored for pickup. See local municipal requirements for sizes and other details of refuse areas. If dumpsters or other receptacles are outdoors, show how the designated area will be covered, graded, and paved to prevent runon and show locations of berms to prevent runoff from the area. Any drains from dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas shall be connected to a grease removal device before discharge to sanitary sewer. 
State how site refuse will be handled and provide supporting detail to what is shown on plans. State that signs will be posted on or near dumpsters with the words “Do not dump hazardous materials here” or similar.  State how the following will be
implemented: 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

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 H. Industrial processes.
 Show process area.
 If industrial processes are to be
located on site, state: “All process activities to be performed indoors. No processes to drain to exterior or to storm drain system.”  See Fact Sheet SC-10, “NonStormwater Discharges” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com See the brochure “Industrial & Commercial Facilities Best Management Practices for: Industrial, Commercial Facilities” at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 I. Outdoor storage of
equipment or materials. (See rows J and K for source control measures for vehicle cleaning, repair, and maintenance.) 
Show any outdoor storage areas, including how materials will be covered. Show how areas will be graded and bermed to prevent runon or run-off from area. Storage of non-hazardous liquids shall be covered by a roof and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system, and be contained by berms, dikes, liners, or vaults. Storage of hazardous materials and wastes must be in compliance with the local hazardous materials ordinance and a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for the site.

Include a detailed description of
materials to be stored, storage areas, and structural features to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains. Where appropriate, reference documentation of compliance with the requirements of Hazardous Materials Programs for:
 Hazardous Waste Generation
 Hazardous Materials Release
Response and Inventory
 California Accidental Release
(CalARP)
 Aboveground Storage Tank
 Uniform Fire Code Article 80
Section 103(b) & (c) 1991
 Underground Storage Tank
www.cchealth.org/groups/hazmat
/
 See the Fact Sheets SC-31, “Outdoor
Liquid Container Storage” and SC-33, “Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials ” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 J. Vehicle and
Equipment Cleaning
 Show on drawings as appropriate:
(1) Commercial/industrial facilities having vehicle/equipment cleaning needs shall either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. (2) Multi-dwelling complexes shall have a paved, bermed, and covered car wash area (unless car washing is prohibited on-site and hoses are provided with an automatic shutoff to discourage such use). (3) Washing areas for cars, vehicles, and equipment shall be paved, designed to prevent run-on to or runoff from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. (4) Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the sanitary sewer, or a wastewater reclamation system shall be installed.  If a car wash area is not provided,
describe any measures taken to discourage on-site car washing and explain how these will be enforced. 
Describe operational measures to implement the following (if applicable): Washwater from vehicle and equipment washing operations shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. Refer to “Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Professional Mobile Service Providers” for many of the Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants categories below. Brochure can be found at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Car dealerships and similar may rinse cars with water only.

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 K. Vehicle/Equipment
Repair and Maintenance


Accommodate all vehicle equipment repair and maintenance indoors. Or designate an outdoor work area and design the area to prevent run-on and runoff of stormwater. Show secondary containment for exterior work areas where motor oil, brake fluid, gasoline, diesel fuel, radiator fluid, acid-containing batteries or other hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the secondary containment areas. Add a note on the plans that states either (1) there are no floor drains, or (2) floor drains are connected to wastewater pretreatment systems prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer and an industrial waste discharge permit will be obtained. 
State that no vehicle repair or maintenance will be done outdoors, or else describe the required features of the outdoor work area. State that there are no floor drains or if there are floor drains, note the agency from which an industrial waste discharge permit will be obtained and that the design meets that agency’s requirements. State that there are no tanks, containers or sinks to be used for parts cleaning or rinsing or, if there are, note the agency from which an industrial waste discharge permit will be obtained and that the design meets that agency’s requirements. 
In the Stormwater Control Plan, note that all of the following restrictions apply to use the site:

No person shall dispose of, nor permit the disposal, directly or indirectly of vehicle fluids, hazardous materials, or rinsewater from parts cleaning into storm drains. No vehicle fluid removal shall be performed outside a building, nor on asphalt or ground surfaces, whether inside or outside a building, except in such a manner as to ensure that any spilled fluid will be in an area of secondary containment. Leaking vehicle fluids shall be contained or drained from the vehicle immediately. No person shall leave unattended drip parts or other open containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in an area of secondary containment. Refer to “Automotive Maintenance & Car Care Best Management Practices for Auto Body Shops, Auto Repair Shops, Car Dealerships, Gas Stations and Fleet Service Operations”. Brochure can be found at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Refer to Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Professional Mobile Service Providers for many of the Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants categories below. Brochure can be found at http://rcflood.org/stormwater/

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 L. Fuel Dispensing
Areas

Fueling areas6 shall have
impermeable floors (i.e., portland cement concrete or equivalent smooth impervious surface) that are: a) graded at the minimum slope necessary to prevent ponding; and b) separated from the rest of the site by a grade break that prevents run-on of stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. Fueling areas shall be covered by a canopy that extends a minimum of ten feet in each direction from each pump. [Alternative: The fueling area must be covered and the cover’s minimum dimensions must be equal to or greater than the area within the grade break or fuel dispensing area1.] The canopy [or cover] shall not drain onto the fueling area.

The property owner shall dry sweep the fueling area routinely. See the Fact Sheet SD-30 , “Fueling Areas” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com 6 The fueling area shall be defined as the area extending a minimum of 6.5 feet from the corner of each fuel dispenser or the length at which the hose and nozzle assembly may be operated plus a minimum of one foot, whichever is greater.

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 M. Loading Docks

Show a preliminary design for the loading dock area, including roofing and drainage. Loading docks shall be covered and/or graded to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area. Roof downspouts shall be positioned to direct stormwater away from the loading area. Water from loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer. Loading dock areas draining directly to the sanitary sewer shall be equipped with a spill control valve or equivalent device, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. Provide a roof overhang over the loading area or install door skirts (cowling) at each bay that enclose the end of the trailer. 
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

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 N. Fire Sprinkler Test
Water
 Provide a means to drain fire
sprinkler test water to the sanitary sewer.
 See the note in Fact Sheet SC-41,
“Building and Grounds Maintenance,” in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com 
O. Miscellaneous Drain
or Wash Water or Other Sources Boiler drain lines Condensate drain lines Rooftop equipment Drainage sumps Roofing, gutters, and trim. Other sources 
Boiler drain lines shall be directly or indirectly connected to the sanitary sewer system and may not discharge to the storm drain system. Condensate drain lines may discharge to landscaped areas if the flow is small enough that runoff will not occur. Condensate drain lines may not discharge to the storm drain system. Rooftop equipment with potential to produce pollutants shall be roofed and/or have secondary containment. Any drainage sumps on-site shall feature a sediment sump to reduce the quantity of sediment in pumped water. Avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff. Include controls for other sources as specified by local reviewer.

STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST
IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ON THE PROJECT SITE … … THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE 1 Potential Sources of
Runoff Pollutants
2 Permanent Controls—Show on
WQMP Drawings
3 Permanent Controls—List in WQMP
Table and Narrative
4 Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP
Table and Narrative
 P. Plazas, sidewalks,
and 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.

X X
- 27 -
Appendix 9: O&M
Operation and Maintenance Plan and Documentation of Finance, Maintenance and Recording Mechanisms Will be provided in Final WQMP Report
- 28 -
Appendix 10: Educational Materials
BMP Fact Sheets, Maintenance Guidelines and Other End-User BMP Information R
iverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012

Page 1 ends
← All documents from this meeting