5- Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan — Riverside City Council, February 24, 2026

- 3 -
Table of Contents
Section A: Project and Site Information ................................................................................................... 5 A.1 Maps and Site Plans ....................................................................................................................... 6 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 ............................................................................................................................. 12 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 ............................................................................................... 12 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
This Project is a proposal to construct a parking lot on a portion of a 1.00 acre parcel in the City of Riverside. The portion of the parcel to be disturbed for the proposed parking lot is 0.8 acres. The project site is located on the south of Indiana Avenue west of Harrison Street. Stormwater from the site will be treated by Bioretention. The proposed condition site strives to keep the drainage proceeding to the north of the site, which is where the existing lot natural drainage flows to Indiana Ave.

The existing condition of the site is vacant with no vegetation, with improved road to the north.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Type of Project: Commercial
Planning Area: Ward 5, City of Riverside, County of Riverside Community Name: Arlington South
Development Name: Richardson Storage

PROJECT LOCATION
Latitude & Longitude (DMS): 33° 54' 28'' N, 117° 27' 3'' W Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed: Santa Ana; Santa Ana River, Reach 3 APN(s): 234-160-009
Map Book and Page No.: MB 1/70

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed or Potential Land Use(s) Parking Lot
Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s) 7521
Area of Impervious Project Footprint (SF) 38,315 S.F.

Total Area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits (SF)/or Replacement 36,512 S.F.

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) 1,803 S.F.

Is the project located within any MSHCP Criteria Cell? Y N If so, identify the Cell number:

Are there any natural hydrologic features on the project site? Y N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? Y N
If no Geotech. Report, 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 in.

Per Conversation with Chris Scully, No SWPPP is required. - 6 -
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
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
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 801.21 Pathogens AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE 6.2 Miles
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, this site strives to keep the drainage proceeding to the north towards Indiana Ave, which is where the existing lots natural drainage flows and into existing curb and gutter. Stormwater from the project will be collected and treated with a Bioretention System. All flows exceeding the design capture volume will be released from the site through a pipe and flow into the municipally maintained stormwater system on Indiana Ave.

Does the project identify and protect existing vegetation? If so, how? If not, why? No, the vegetation that exists does not meet current development standards. New drought tolerant landscaping is proposed through the disturbed area.

Does the project identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? If so, how? If not, why? Yes, the existing site is covered by undeveloped natural soil. The current infiltration capacity is comprised of the existing soils natural infiltration capacity. The development proposes a Bioretention System that will serve to mimic and exceed the existing infiltration capacity. City Standards state that outdoor storage must be paved with AC paving.

Does the project identify and minimize impervious area? If so, how? If not, why? Yes, landscape is proposed to surround the impervious portion of the site.

Does the project identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas? If so, how? If not, why? Yes, the first flush drainage from all impervious areas will sheet flow across the parking lot and directed to the appropriately sized Bioretention where it will be treated. - 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
1-A Concrete or Asphalt 2,749 D
1-B Roof 3,566 D
1-C Landscape 3,859 D
1-D Asphalt 32,000 D
1-E Bioretention 1,017 D
Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas
N/A
Table C.3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas
N/A
Table C.4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas N/A
Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs
DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID
1-A
1-B 1-E
1-C
1-D
- 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: All DMA’s
…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:
- 10 -
91-18
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 needs be assessed for the site.

Irrigation Use Feasibility
Step 1: Total Area of Irrigated Landscape: 0.11 Acres
Type of Landscaping (Conservation Design or Active Turf): Conservation Design Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: 0.88 Acres
Step 3: The project EIATIA factor: 0.79
Step 4: Minimum required irrigated area: 0.70 Acres
Step 5:

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

0.70 Acres 0.11 Acres
Toilet Use Feasibility
Step 1: Projected Number of Daily Toilet Users: 0
Project Type: Commercial
Step 2: Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: 0.88 Acres
Step 3: The project TUTIA factor: 132
Step 4: Minimum number of toilet users: 116
Step 5:

Minimum required Toilet Users (Step 4) Projected number of toilet users (Step 1) 116 0
Other Non-Potable Use Feasibility
N/A
- 11 -
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.
- 12 -
D.4 Feasibility Assessment Summaries
Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix
DMA
Name/ID
LID BMP Hierarchy No LID
(Alternative
Compliance)1. Infiltration 2. Harvest and use 3. Bioretention 4. Biotreatment 1-A
1-B
1-C
1-D
1-E
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
1-C -BIORETENTION
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
1-A 2,749 Concrete or
Asphalt
1 0.89 2,452.1
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
1-B 3,566 Roofs 1 0.89 3,180.9
1-C 3,859 Ornamental
Landscaping

0.1 0.11 426.3
1-D 32,000 Concrete or
Asphalt
1 0.89 28,544
1-E 1,017 Bioretention 0.1 0.11 112.3
AT= Σ[A] Σ= [D] [E] [F] = [D]x[E]
12 [G]
43191 34715.-6 0.60 1735.8 1760
[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 - 13 -
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 site- specific 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 sub- regional 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 Copermittee 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 concentration 1 of storm water runoff for the post- development 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 Co-Permittee
Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N 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 - 15 -
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
A. 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
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.”
P. Plazas, sidewalks, and parking
lots.

N/A 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
1-E Bioretention Area Conceptual
Grading Plan
33° 54' 28'' N
117° 27' 3'' 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: WQMP Covenant & Agreement
Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Home Owners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA)?
Y N
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
N
WQMP SITE PLAN10030 INDIANA AVE
WQMP SITE PLANN10030 INDIANA AVENUE
N
OCTOBER 2022RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE
- 20 -
Appendix 2: Construction Plans
Grading and Drainage Plans
A
A
BB
OCTOBER 2022N AT 10030 INDIANA AVENUERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIAPRELIMINARY GRADING PLANFOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE NPRELIMINARY GRADING PLANRECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGEAT 10030 INDIANA AVENUE - 21 -
Appendix 3: Soils Information
Geotechnical Study and Other Infiltration Testing Data

9980 Indiana Avenue ● Suite 14 ● Riverside ● California ● 92503 ● Phone (951) 688-5400 ● Fax (951) 688-5200 5714 West 96th Street ● Los Angeles ● California ● 90045 ● Phone (310) 590-6699

May 2, 2022
Project No.: 22123-01

Mr. Steven Richardson
10717 Indiana Avenue
Riverside, California 92503

SUBJECT: Preliminary Soil Investigation Report
Proposed Building Remodel & Shade Structure
10030 Indiana Avenue
Riverside, California

In accordance with your authorization, GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. (GeoMat) is pleased to present our Preliminary Soil Investigation Report for the proposed building remodel and shade structure addition at 10030 Indiana Avenue, Riverside , California. The accompanying report presents a summary of our findings, recommendations and limitation of work for the proposed site development.

The primary purpose of this investigation and report is to provide an evaluation of the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the design and construction of the proposed development. More specifically, this investigation was to address geotechnical conditions for the preliminary design of the foundations for the proposed remodel and shade structure.

Based on the results of our investigation, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and it is our professional opinion that the proposed development will not be subject to a hazard from settlement, slippage, or landslide, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the proposed development. It is also our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely affect the geologic stability of the site or adjacent properties provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the proposed construction.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you and look forward to future projects. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.

Submitted for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Haytham Nabilsi, GE 2375 Art Martinez
Project Engineer Staff Engineer
[email protected] [email protected]

Distribution: (3) Addressee

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc
Geotechnical Engineering/ Material Testing
www.geomatlabs.com
[email protected]

Preliminary Soil Investigation Report – Proposed Building Remodel and Shade Structure Addition Project No. 22123-01 10030 Indiana Avenue, Riverside, California May 2, 2022 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. geomatlabs.com TOC: i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 FIELD WORK ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 6

3.1 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 6

3.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 CAISSON FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 8

3.5 SLABS-ON-GRADE ............................................................................................................................................ 9

3.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 10

3.7 STORMWATER INFILTRATION ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.8 SITE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................................................. 12

4.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ........................................................................................................................... 13

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL RISK .............................................................................................................................. 14

6.0 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 14

ATTACHMENTS:

Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3 Regional Fault Map

Plate 1 Exploratory Boring Location Map

APPENDIX:

Appendix A Selected References
Appendix B Geotechnical Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Appendix E General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix F Field Infiltration Test Data

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

The subject site is located on the southeast side of Indiana Avenue, approximately 1700 fee northeast of the Indiana Avenue and Tyler Street intersection, in the City of Riverside, California. Access on site is from Indiana Avenue which is a paved road with existing concrete curb and gutter improvements. The geographical relationship of the site and surrounding vicinity is shown on the site Locations Map, Figure 1.

The site is general level without any abrupt major grade changes. The site is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 80 feet wide and 535 feet long. There is an existing single -family residence with concrete driveway and associated landscaping located on the northwest section of the property. The remainder of the property is generally vacant, covered mostly in gravel and light seasonal grasses.

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Based on the Site Plan prepared by Woodard Group (sheet 1 of 1, 03/2022), the site is proposed to remodel the existing residence into an office building and construct a 28’x35’ covered parking shade structure roughly 30 feet southeast of the building structure. The majority of the site will be covered in 4 -inches of class II aggregate base and utilized as parking.

We have not been provided with foundation plans but we assume the following:

• The building remodel will be supported on shallow, concrete foundations, and slab-on-grade. Continuous wall loads are not expected to exceed 1.5 kips per linear foot and isolated column loads of up to 8 kips.

• The shade structure will be supported on drilled pier “caisson” foundations or shallow spread foundations.

We anticipate isolated column loads on the canopy structure up to 10 kips, shear of 5 kips, and a maximum bending moment of 100 kip-foot.

Once the design phase and foundation loading configuration proceeds to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Any changes in the design, location or elevation of any structure, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. GeoMat should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.

1.3 FIELD WORK

One exploratory boring was excavated on April 21, 2022 to maximum depth of 15 feet below existing ground surface utilizing a CME-45 mobile drill rig equipped with 6-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Refer to Plate 1 for borehole locations. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained utilizing the California Ring Sampler (ASTM D 1587). Additional representative samples have been recovered with the SPT (Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D 1586) sampler. Bulk samples were also collected from the auger cuttings during drilling. The samples were collected in plastic bags, tied, and tagged for the location and depth. The geotechnical boring logs are presented in Appendix B and may include a description and classification of each stratum, sample locations, blow counts, groundwater conditions encountered during drilling, results from selected types of laboratory tests, and drilling information.

1.4 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples. The tests consisted primarily of the following:

Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)
Dry Density (ASTM D2937)
Sieve Analysis (ASTM C136)
Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829)
Consolidation (ASTM D2435)
Soluble Sulfate Content (Extinction/Turbidimetric Method)

The soil classifications are in conformance with the Unified Soil Classifications System (USCS), as outlined in the Classification and Symbols Chart (Appendix B). A summary of our laboratory testing, ASTM designation, and graphical presentation of test results is presented in Appendix C.

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC FINDINGS

Based on the Geologic Map of the Riverside West / of Fontana quadrangles (Dibblee Foundation Map DF- 128) the site is located in an area mapped as older alluvium (Qoa), see Figure 2 . Alluvium is weathered bedrock material and sediments that have been eroded from natural slopes and deposited in generally flat lying areas.

There are no mapped active or potentially active faults with surface expression that trend through or adjacent to the subject property, according to those references cited herein. The site does not lie within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDMG, 2000). According to the California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California 2010, the site is located approximately 9 miles northeast of the Elsinore fault zone, see Figure 3.

The subject site, as is the case with most of the tectonically-active California area, will be periodically subject to moderate to intense earthquake-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. Significant damage can occur to the site and structural improvements during a strong seismic event. Neither the location nor magnitude of earthquakes can accurately be predicted at this time.

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Detailed logs of the exploratory excavations are presented in Appendix B of this report. The earth materials encountered within the exploratory excavations are generally described below.

Based on our exploratory borehole, the site soil generally consists of moist, loose to medium dense silty fine to medium grained sand (USCS “SM”) to the total depth explored of 15 feet below ground surface.

2.2.1 Expansive Soil

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 precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.

Based on laboratory testing, the upper foundation soil onsite is expected to have a low expansion potential (EI=23), as defined in ASTM D4829. This would require verification subsequent to completion of new footing excavations.

2.2.2 Corrosive Soil

To preliminarily assess the sulfate exposure of concrete in contact with the site soils, a representative soil sample was tested for water-soluble sulfate content. The test results suggest the site soils have a negligible potential for sulfate attack (0.030 percent) based on commonly accepted criteria. We recommend following the procedures provided in ACI 318-19, Section 19.3, Table 19.3.2.1 for exposure “S0”. We recommend Type II cement for all concrete work in contact with soil.

Ferrous metal pipes should be protected from potential corrosion by bituminous coating, etc. We recommend that all utility pipes be nonmetallic and/or corrosion resistant. Recommendations should be verified by soluble sulfate and corrosion testing of soi l samples obtained from specific locations at the completion of rough grading.

2.2.3 Collapsible Soil

Soil hydroconsolidation (hydro-collapse) is a phenomenon that results in relatively rapid settlement of soil deposits due to addition of water. This generally occurs in soils having a loose particle structure cemented together with soluble minerals or with small quantities of clay. Water infiltration into such soils can break down the interparticle cementation, resulting in collapse of the soil structure. Collapsible soils are found primarily in Holocene alluvial fan deposits.

A soil sample, representing the upper alluvial soil onsite, was tested in the laboratory for one-directional consolidation analyses. Test results indicate that approximately 1.5% of hydro-collapse occurred in the tested sample. Therefore, the severity of hydrocollapse potential onsite is considered “Moderate” based on NAVFAC DM7.01, see Appendix C for Results. Settlement due to hydrocollapse is not within the scope of this work.

2.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater study is not within the scope of our work. Groundwater wasn’t encountered in our exploratory borehole, excavated onsite to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface.

A contour map showing minimum depths to ground water in the Santa Ana River Valley Region was constructed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and subsequently, a report (USGS Map MF - 1802) was published in 1985. The map was constructed by contouring the shallowest water level measurements reported to the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) for the period from 1973- 1979. Based on our review of the map, the minimum depth to ground water in the general project site area, during this period, was indicated to be between 10 and 30 feet below ground surface.

Please note that the potential for rain or irrigation water locally seeping through from elevated areas and showing up near grades cannot be precluded. Our experience indicates that surface or near -surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. Fluctuations in perched water elevations are likely to occur in the future due to variations in precipitation, temperature, consumptive uses, and other factors including mounding of perched water over bedrock or natural soil. Mitigation for nuisance shallow seeps moving from elevated lower areas will be needed if encountered. These mitigations may include subdrains, horizontal drains, toe drains, french drains, heel drains or other devices.

2.4 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

Based on current standards, the proposed development is expected to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height.

Based on the soils encountered in the exploratory borehole within the subject site and with consideration of the geologic units mapped in the area, it is our opinion that the site soil profile corresponds to Site Class D in accordance with Section 1613.2.2 of the California Building Code (CBC 2019) and Chapter 20 of ASCE/SEI 7-16.

We have downloa ded the seismic design parameters in accordance with the provisions of the current California Building Code (CBC, 2019) and ASCE/SEI 7 -16 Standard using the Structural Engineers Association of California, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Web Application ( https://seismicmaps.org). The mapped seismic parameters are attached to this report in Appendix D.

The 2019 CBC is based on the guidelines contained within ASCE 7 -16 which stipulates that where S 1 is greater than 0.2 times gravity (g) for Site Class D, a ground motion hazard analysis is needed unless the seismic response coefficient (Cs) value will be calculated as outlined in Section 11.4.8, Exception 2. Assuming the Cs value will be calculated as outlined in Section 11.4.8, Exception 2, we recommend the following seismic design parameters.

Parameter ASCE 7-16 2019 CBC Coefficient Value

0.2-second Period MCE Figure 22-1 Figure 1613.2.1(1) SS 1.500

1.0-second Period MCER Figure 22-2 Figure 1613.2.1(2) S1 0.571 Soil Site Class Figure 20.3-1 Section 1613.2.2 Site Class D Site Coefficient Figure 11.4-1 Section 1613.2.3(1) Fa 1.200 Site Coefficient Figure 11.4-2 Section 1613.2.3(2) Fv 1.729 * Adjusted MCE Spectral
Response Parameters
Equation 11.4-1 Equation 16-36 SMS 1.800
Equation 11.4-2 Equation 16-37 SM1 0.987 *
Design Spectral
Acceleration Parameters
Equation 11.4-3 Equation 16-38 SDS 1.200
Equation 11.4-4 Equation 16-39 SD1 0.658 *
*The values provided are valid provided the requirements in Exception Note No. 2 in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 are met. If not, a site specific ground motion hazard analysis will be required.

3.0 TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are provided regarding aspects of the anticipated earthwork construction.

These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on additional geotechnical evaluation of the conditions observed by the Geotechnical Engineer during grading operations. All grading should be performed in accordance with our General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix E except as modified within the text of this report.

3.1.1 Site Clearing, Grubbing and Fill Removal

All debris, undocumented fill, abandoned utility lines, roots, irrigation appurtenances, underground structures, deleterious materials, etc., should be removed and hauled offsite. Cavities created during site clearance should be backfilled in a controlled manner.

3.1.2 Trench Backfill

All utility trench backfills should be mechanically compacted to the minimum requirements of at least 90 percent relative compaction. Onsite soils derived from trench excavations can be used as trench backfill except for deleterious materials. Soils with sand equivalent greater than 30 may be utilized for pipe bedding and shading. Pipe bedding should be required to provide uniform support for piping. Excavated material from footing trenches should not be placed in slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested.

3.1.3 Compacted Fills/Imported Soils

Any soil to be placed as fill, whether presently onsite or import, should be approved by the soil engineer or his representative prior to their placement. All onsite soils to be used as fill should be cleansed of any roots, or other deleterious materials. Rocks larger than 8-inches in diameter should be removed from soil to be used as compacted fill.

All fills should be placed in 6- to 8-inch loose lifts, thoroughly watered, or aerated to near optimum moisture content, mixed and compacted to at least 90 or 95 percent relative compaction depending on the material (subgrade soil or aggregate base) and application (pavement subgrade, building pad, etc.). This is relative to the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method.

Any imported soils should be sandy (preferably USCS "SM" or "SW", and very low in expansion potential) and approved by the soil engineer. The soil engineer or his representative should observe the placement of all fill and take sufficient tests to verify the moisture content and the uniformity and degree of compaction obtained.

3.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

All excavation slopes and shoring systems should meet the minimum requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) Standards. Maintaining safe and stable slopes on excavations is the responsibility of the contractor and will depend on the nature of the soils and groundwater conditions encountered and his method of excavation. Excavations during construction should be carried out in such a manner that failure or ground movement will not occur. The contractor should perform any additional studies deemed necessary to supplement the information contained in this report for the purpose of planning and executing his excavation plan.

3.2.1 Cal/OSHA Soil Type

The subsurface soil expected to be encountered during site development may be classified as “Soil Type B” p er the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA). Caving of the exploratory borings did not occur. Due to the presence of apparent cohesion encountered within the boreholes, caving is not expected to be a major concern during site development.

3.2.2 Excavation Characteristics

The upper soil onsite is generally composed of medium dense silty sand which is not expected to exhibit difficult excavation resistance for typical grading equipment in good working condition.

However, the onsite soil is considered to have a moderate to high caving potential. This caving condition could endanger personnel working within or adjacent to the excavation as well as nearby equipment, structures, or other existing improvements. The contractor should be aware of the potential for caving of sandy material on this project and take appropriate precautions to protect the safety of site personnel as well as the integrity of the excavation slopes and any existing nearby structures or other improvements.

3.2.3 Safe Vertical Cuts

Temporary un-surcharged excavations of 4 feet high may be made at a vertical gradient for short periods of time. Excavations greater than 4 feet should be sloped back to a gradient of 1H:1V to a maximum of 10 vertical feet. Exposed excavation conditions should be verified by the project geotechnical engineer during construction. No excavations should take place without the direct supervision of the project geotechnical engineer. If potentially unstable soil conditions are encountered, modifications of slope ratios for temporary cuts may be required.

3.2.4 Excavation Setbacks

No excavations should be conducted, without special considerations, along property lines, public right -of- ways, or existing foundations, where the excavation depth will encroach within the “zone of influence”. The “zone of influence” of the existing footings, property lines, or public right-of-way may be assumed to be below a 45-degree line projected down from the bottom edge of the footing, property line, or right-of-way.

3.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

The proposed office building remodel and shade structure may be supported on conventional shallow foundation systems deriving support in compacted native soil. All foundation excavations must be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative, prior to placing steel reinforcement or concrete.

3.3.1 Subgrade Preparation

All shallow foundations should be underlain with at least 12 inches of compacted fill. GeoMat Testing Laboratories should observe the bottom of footings immediately after the excavations and prior to compaction.

3.3.2 Underpinning

Where proposed excavations encroach within a 45-degree line projected down from the bottom edge of an existing footing, underpinning may be utilized to transfer the footing load below the proposed excavations.

Affected continuous footings, may be underpinned by a minimum 2 feet by 2 feet by 2 feet deep concrete pads. The design of underpinning should be performed by a specialty contractor. To prevent foundation cracking, strengthening of the existing structure should be considered.

3.3.3 Bearing Capacity

Spread, continuous, or pad-type foundations carried at least 24-inches below the lowest adjacent grade may be designed to impose a net dead-plus-live load pressure of 1000 psf. A one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads.

3.3.4 Lateral Resistance

Resistance to lateral footing will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings bearing against firm native material, passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of 200 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 2000 psf. Base friction may be computed at 0.37 times the normal load. If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two-thirds the value.

3.3.5 Settlement

The o nsite soils below the foundation depth have relatively high strengths and will not be subject to significant stress increases from foundations of the new structure. Therefore, estimated total long-term static and seismic settlement between similarly loaded adjacent foundation systems should not exceed 1 - inch. The structures should be designed to tolerate a differential settlement on the order of 1/2-inch over a 30-foot span.

3.3.6 Reinforcement

Footing reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer; however, minimum reinforcement should be at least two No. 4 reinforcing bars, top and bottom. Reinforcement and size recommendations presented in this report are considered the minimum necessary for the soil conditions present at the foundation level and are not intended to supersede the design of the project structural engineer or criteria of the governing agencies for the project.

3.4 CAISSON FOUNDATIONS

If used, caisson foundations (Drilled Piers) for the canopy structure should be at least 30 inches in diameter and embedded at least 5 feet below existing ground surface. The caisson diameter and embedment depth recommendations presented in this report are considered the minimum necessary for the soil conditions present at the foundation level and are not intended to supersede the design of the project structural engineer or criteria of the governing agencies for the project.

3.4.1 Axial Capacity

The upper 12-inches of soil should be ignored when determining the axial capacity of the piers. The axial load capacity of caissons should be designed as friction piles with no end bearing. An allowable skin friction value of 290 psf may be utilized for the onsite soils. Single pile uplift capacity may be taken as 50% of the allowable downward capacity. The allowable downward capacity and allowable uplift capacity may be increased by one-third when considering transient wind or seismic loads.

3.4.2 Lateral Resistance

The upper 12-inches of soil should also be ignored when determining the lateral capacity of the piers. An allowable passive earth pressure, for the sides of piles poured against competent soil, may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot. The allowable capacity may be doubled for isolated caissons/piles spaced more than three diameters apart.

Additionally, a lateral subgrade modulus (k) of 300 pci and a soil 50-percent strain parameter (ε50) of 0.9 may be utilized for the alluvial soil onsite. The lateral deflection of the pier should be limited to 1-inch maximum under combined service level shear and moment loadings.

3.4.3 Caisson Settlement

Following the above recommended design parameters, the total estimated settlement of piers should not exceed 1/2-inch.

3.4.4 Caisson Reinforcement

The compressive and tensile strength of piers should be checked to verify the structural capacity of the pier.

Reinforcement of piers should be verified and specified by the structural engineer for vertical and lateral loading. Minimum reinforcement of 1% is recommended.

3.4.5 Caisson Installation

The following recommendations are based upon tentative analysis of the geotechnical conditions at the project site and our understanding of the project. The project civil and structural engineers may require additional installation criteria based on other factors (type of pile, structural design, method of construction, etc.).

• The geotechnical engineer should provide full time observation during excavation and installation of all piers to observe subsurface conditions, and to document penetration into load supporting materials.

• The concrete mix design to be used in the pier construction should be established and approved by the structural engineer prior to the time of construction. Compression tests should be performed on samples of the concrete in accordance with applicable codes or requirements of the structural engineer.

Inspection by qualified personnel should be provided during the concrete batching and during placement of pier steel and concrete.

• Piers located within three pier diameters of each other should be drilled and filled alternately so that concrete is permitted to set before drilling an adjacent pier. The time for initial set of the concrete will depend on the design mix and should be determined in the field at the time of construction. No fewer than 4 hours should be allowed for the concrete to set before drilling for an adjacent pier.

• No pier hole should be left open overnight. Since the exact pier installation process is not known at this time, it is important for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. to be consulted relative to recommendations for placement criteria to aid in maintaining the integrity of the pier during placement.

• The bottoms of pier excavations should be relatively clean of loose soils and debris prior to placement of concrete. The contractor should have readily available pier drilling casings for protection against caving. Any water encountered should be pumped from the boreholes prior to the placement of concrete, or placement of concrete should be by use of a tremie or pump line such that the water is displaced during the concrete placement. The volume of concrete placed should be measured to compare with the design volume.

• Installed piers should not be more than two percent (2%) from the plumb position.

3.5 SLABS-ON-GRADE

Slabs-on-grade should be supported on at least 12-inches of engineered fill, compacted to at least 90 percent, relative to ASTM D 1557. Slabs-on-grade should be at least 5-inches thick. Slab -on-grade reinforcement should be at least No. 4 bars at 12-inches on-center both ways, properly centered in mid thickness of slabs.

The structural engineer should design the actual slab thickness and reinforcement based on structural load requirements.

3.5.1 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

A coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction (KV) of 150 psi/in may be assumed for the building pad compacted fill soils. The modulus of subgrade reaction was estimated based on the NAVFAC 7.1 design charts. This value is for a small loaded area (1 sq. ft or less) such as for wheel loads or point loads and should be adjusted for larger loaded areas, as necessary.

3.5.2 Capillary Break & Vapor Membrane

If vinyl or other moisture -sensitive floor coverings are planned, we recommend that the floor slab in those areas be underlain by a vapor membrane and capillary break consisting of a minimum 10-mil vapor-retarding membrane over a 4-inch thick layer of clean sand. The 4-inch thick layer of sand should be placed between the subgrade soil and the membrane to decrease the possibility of damage to the membrane.

3.5.3 Slab Curling Precautions

A low-slump concrete should be used to minimize possible curling of the slab. Additionally, a layer of sand may be placed over the vapor retarding membrane to reduce slab curling. If this sand bedding is used, care should be taken during the placement of the concrete to prevent displacement of the sand. However, the need for sand and/or the thickness of sand above the moisture vapor barrier should be specified by the structural engineer or concrete contractor. The selection of sand above the barrier is not a geotechnical engineering issue and hence outside our purview.

3.5.4 Subgrade Exposure

Construction activities and exposure to the environment can cause deterioration of the prepared subgrade.

Therefore, we recommend that our field representative observe the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to slab -on-grade construction, and, if necessary, perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the suitability of the final prepared subgrade.

Additionally, the slab subgrade should be moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. The moisture content of the floor slab subgrade soils should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 24 hours prior to placing the vapor retarding membrane.

3.6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

3.6.1 Subgrade Uniformity

If pavement is proposed, the pavement subgrade should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 18-inches below existing grade or a minimum of 12-inches below the proposed pavement’s structural section (AC and aggregate base), whichever is deeper. The lateral extent of overexcavation should be at least 2 feet, where achievable.

The subgrade for pavement support must be firm, unyielding, and uniform with no abrupt horizontal changes in degree of support. The subgrade soil should be uniform materials and density. Soft spots, if encountered, should be excavated and recompacted with the same type of soil as found in adjacent subgrade.

3.6.2 Aggregate Base

The aggregate base should conform to Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base or the Standard Specifications for Public Works for Crushed Miscellaneous Base, should be firm and unyielding, and without pumping conditions prior to placement of pavement. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557.

3.6.3 Flexible Pavement Design

The following recommended pavement section is based on the following assumed Traffic Index and R-value.

The minimum recommended asphalt concrete (AC) pavement thickness is as follows:

Pavement Use
Assumed
Traffic
Index (TI)
R-Value
(Assumed)
Minimum
Recommended
Pavement Section
AC AB
Light Duty 4 20 2.5” 5.5”
Heavy Duty 5 20 3.0” 7.5”
AC: Asphalt Concrete, AB: Aggregate Base.

Final pavement design recommendations should be based on laboratory test results of representative pavement subgrade soils upon the completion of rough grading.

3.7 STORMWATER INFILTRATION

Infiltration testing was conducted utilizing the shallow percolation test method at a depth of 60-inches below existing ground surface. The infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in the Riverside County Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, Infiltration Testing Guidelines . The following table summarizes the re sult of the infiltration feasibility study. Refer to Appendix F for field infiltration test data.

Test No. Test Depth Below
Ground Surface
Adjusted Infiltration Rate
(in/hr)
P-1 60” 0.19
P-2 60” 0.39
P-3 60” 0.39
P-4 60” 0.60

The raw percolation rate is the rate of water infiltration in the horizontal and vertical direction. This percolation rate is adjusted using the “Porchet Method” to obtain the adjusted water infiltration rate in the vertical direction only.

Long-term infiltration rates may be reduced significantly by factors such as soil variability and inaccuracy in the infiltration rate measurement. The correction factor for site variability is between 3 and 10. Safety factors for operating the system, maintenance, siltation, biofouling, etc. should also be considered by the design civil engineer at his discretion. Minimum safety factor required by the County of Riverside for tests conducted when deep exploratory borehole has been drilled at the site is 3.

Please note that the introduction of water to granular soft soil may cause the wetted soil to compact and settle and eventually propagate to the surface yielding significant surface depression. Surface infiltration facility adjacent to foundation or along block walls is not recommended. In addition, the recorded highest historical groundwater depth in the area is between 10 and 30 feet. Minimum separation between highest historical groundwater depth and bottom of infiltration facility is 10 feet.

The infiltration system must be located such that the closest distance between an adjacent foundation is at least 10 feet in all directions from the zone of saturation. The zone of saturation may be assumed to project downward from the discharge of the infilt ration facility at a gradient of 1H:1V. Additional property line or foundation setbacks may be required by the governing jurisdiction and should be incorporated into the stormwater infiltration system design as necessary.

If applicable, 4- to 6-inch diameter observation well(s), with locking cap, extending vertically into the system’s bottom is suggested as an observation point. Observation well(s) should be checked regularly and after large storm event. Once performance stabilizes, frequency of monitoring may be reduced.

GeoMat Testing Laboratories should observe the subgrade of excavation. Additional laboratory testing including but not limited to grain size analysis, sand equivalent, sulfate content, etc. should be conducted during construction.

3.8 SITE DRAINAGE

Positive drainage should be provided and maintained for the life of the project around the perimeter of all structures (including slopes and retaining walls) and all foundations toward streets or approved drainage devices to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying natural and engineered fill soils. In addition, finish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down (at least 2%) and away to facilitate surface drainage. Perimeter water collection devices may be installed around the structure to collect roof/irrigation/natural drainage. Roof drainage should be collected and directed away from foundations via nonerosive devices. Over the slope drainage must not be permitted.

Water, either natural or by irrigation, should not be permitted to pond or saturate the foundation soils. Planter areas and large trees adjacent to the foundations are not recommended. All planters and terraces should be provided with drainage devices. Internal drainage should be directed to approved drainage collection devices.

Location of drainage device should be in accordance with the design civil engineer ’s drainage and erosion control recommendations. The owner should be made aware of the potential problems, which may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, patios and other devices. Ponded water, leaking irrigation systems, over watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation should be avoided. Surface and subsurface runoff from adjace nt properties should be controlled. Area drainage collection should be directed through approved drainage devices. All drainage devices should be properly maintained.

4.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Plan Reviews

The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from limited exploratory boreholes at the site. We should be retained to review the final project plans to revise our conclusions and recommendations, as necessary. Professional fees will apply for each review.

Our conclusions and recommendations should also be reviewed and verified during site grading and revised accordingly if exposed geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations.

Additional Observation and/or Testing

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. should observe and/or test at the following stages of construction.

• During footing excavation and prior to placement of footing materials. • Following slab subgrade compaction and saturation for moisture testing. • During all trench backfills.
• When any unusual conditions are encountered.

Final Report of Compaction During Grading

A final report of compaction control should be prepared subsequent to the completion of grading. The report should include a summary of work performed, laboratory test results, and the results and locations of field density tests performed during grading.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL RISK

The concept of risk is an important aspect of the geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science.

The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be used in conjunction with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions and recommendations presented in the geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as planned.

The engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections constitute GeoMat Testing Laboratories professional estimate of those measures that are necessary for the proposed development to perform according to the proposed design based on the information generated and referenced during this evaluation, and GeoMat Testing Laboratories experience in working with these conditions.

6.0 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION

This report was prepared for the exclusive use on the new construction. The use by others, or for the purposes other than intended, is at the user’s sole risk.

Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill or dinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar locations within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

The field and laboratory test data are believed representative of the site; however, soil conditions can vary significantly. As in most projects, conditions revealed during construction may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this condition occurs, the possible variations must be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and adjusted as required or alternate design recommended.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer for the development and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractor carry out such recommendations in the field.

This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based on our understanding of the proposed development and on subsurface conditions observed during our site work, and are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

SITE
Figure 1DWN BY:CHK'D BY:DATUM:PROJECTION:SCALE:REV. NO.:PROJECT:TITLE:SITE LOCATION MAPDATE:PROJECT NO.:FIGURE NO.:AMMN----1" = 1/4 MILE--ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE00.51.02.0APPROXIMATE SCALE (MILES)geo matGeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14,Riverside, CaliforniaPRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT10030 INDIANA AVENUERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIAAPRIL 202222123-01USGS, THE NATIONAL MAP, US TOPO, RIVERSIDE WEST, 2021 SITE
Figure 2DWN BY:CHK'D BY:DATUM:PROJECTION:SCALE:REV. NO.:PROJECT:TITLE:REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPDATE:PROJECT NO.:FIGURE NO.:AMMN-------- REFERENCE MAP:Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2004, Geologic map of the Riverside West/south1/2 of Fontana quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California,Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-128, 1:24,000geo matGeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14,Riverside, California LEGEND:Qoa: Older Alluviumhdg: Hornblende Diorite-GabbroQTc: Sandstone and ConglomeratePRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT10030 INDIANA AVENUERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIAAPRIL 202222123-01 SITE
FAULT EXPLANATION:Historic Fault DisplacementHolocene Fault DisplacementEvidence of Late QuaternaryFault DisplacementUndivided Quaternary FaultsREFERENCES:Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2010,“Fault Activity Map ofCalifornia,” California Geological Survey, GDM-006, May 2010Figure 3DWN BY:CHK'D BY:DATUM:PROJECTION:SCALE:REV. NO.:PROJECT:TITLE:REGIONAL FAULT MAPDATE:PROJECT NO.:FIGURE NO.:AMMN--------geo matGeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14,Riverside, CaliforniaPRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT10030 INDIANA AVENUERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIAAPRIL 202222123-01

APPENDIX A

SELECTED REFERENCES

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering
Engineering Geology
Material Testing

Inland Empire
9980 Indiana Ave, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92503
Office (951) 688-5400

Los Angeles
5714 W. 96th Street
Los Angeles, California 90045
Office (310) 337-9400

geomatlabs.com

SELECTED REFERENCES

Woodard Group, Site Plan, Recreational Vehicle Storage at 10030 Indiana Avenue, Sheet 1 of 1, March 2022.

Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2004, Geologic map of the Riverside West/south 1/2 of Fontana quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-128, 1:24,000

USGS TopoView Interactive Webpage (https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/39.98/-107.53)

Structural Engineers Association of California, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Interactive Website (https://seismicmaps.org/)

Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.01, Soil Mechanics, September 1986.

Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.02, Foundation and Earth Structures, September 1986.

Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design, Bearing Capacity of Soils, EM 1110-1-1905.

Foundation Design, D. Cudoto, Second Edition, 2000.

Robert Day, Geotechnical Engineer’s Portable Handbook.

Robert Day, Geotechnical Foundation Handbook.

APPENDIX B

BOREHOLE LOGS

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering
Engineering Geology
Material Testing

Inland Empire
9980 Indiana Ave, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92503
Office (951) 688-5400

Los Angeles
5714 W. 96th Street
Los Angeles, California 90045
Office (310) 337-9400

geomatlabs.com

DescriptorVery SoftSoftMedium StiffStiffVery StiffHardUnconfined CompressiveStrength (tsf)< 0.250.25 - 0.500.50 - 1.01.0 - 2.02.0 - 4.0> 4.0CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILSPocketPenetrometer (tsf)< 0.250.25 - 0.500.50 - 1.01.0 - 2.02.0 - 4.0> 4.0DescriptorVery LooseLooseMedium DenseDenseVery DenseAPPARENT DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILSSPT N60- Value (blows / foot)11 - 300 - 45 - 10Moist31 - 50> 50DescriptorTraceFewLittleSomeMostlyPERCENT OR PROPORTION OF SOILSCriteriaParticles are present but estimatedto be less than 5%5 to 10%15 to 25%30 to 45%50 to 100%WetDamp but no visible waterVisible free water, usually soil is belowwater tableDescriptorBoulderCobbleGravelSandSilt and ClayPLASTICITY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILSDescriptorNonplasticLowMediumHighA 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.CriteriaThe thread can barely be rolled, and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.The thread is easy to roll, and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit; it cannot be rerolled afterreaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several timesafter reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.DescriptorWeakModerateStrongCEMENTATIONCriteriaCrumbles or breaks with handling orlittle finger pressure.Crumbles or breaks with considerablefinger pressure.Will not crumble or break with fingerpressure.

SOIL PARTICLE SIZESizeCoarseFineCoarseMediumFine3/4 inch to 3 inches> 12 inches3 to 12 inchesNo. 4 Sieve to 3/4 inchNo. 10 Sieve to No. 4 SieveNo. 40 Sieve to No. 10 SieveNo. 200 Sieve to No. 40 SievePassing No. 200 Sieve Torvane (tsf)0.25 - 0.50< 0.120.12 - 0.250.50 - 1.01.0 - 2.0> 2.0Field ApproximationEasily penetrated several inches by fistEasily penetrated several inches by thumbCan be penetrated several inches by thumbwith moderate effortReadily indented by thumb but penetratedonly with great effortIndented by thumbnail with difficultyReadily indented by thumbnailMOISTUREDescriptorDryCriteriaAbsence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch APPENDIX BKEY TO LOG OF BORINGGeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14Riverside, California 92503(951) 688-5400MAJOR DIVISIONSGRAVEL ANDGRAVELLYSOILSCOARSEGRAINED SOILSMORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISLARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZEMORE THAN 50% OFCOARSE FRACTIONRETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVESAND ANDSANDY SOILSMORE THAN 50% OFCOARSE FRACTIONPASSING NO. 4 SIEVESOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTSYMBOLSCLEANGRAVELS(LITTLE OR NOFINES)GRAVELS WITHFINES(APPRECIABLEAMOUNT OF FINES)CLEAN SANDS(LITTLE OR NOFINES)SANDS WITHFINES(APPRECIABLEAMOUNT OF FINES)FINE GRAINEDSOILSMORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISSMALLER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZESILTS ANDCLAYSLIQUID LIMIT LESSTHAN 50GWGPGCSWSPSMSCMLCLOLMHSILTS ANDCLAYSHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSLIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50OHPTTYPICAL DESCRIPTIONSWELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINESPOORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINESSILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURESWELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NOFINESPOORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE ORNO FINESSILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURESINORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITHSLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEANCLAYSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOWPLASTICITYINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINESANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITYORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTSPEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANICCONTENTSNOTE: Dual symbols are used to indicate gravels or sand with 5-12% fines and soils with fines classifying as CL-ML. Symbols separated by a slashindicate borderline soil classifications.GMCH Borehole Logged by:

Excavating Co. / Rig: Depth to Groundwater: ft
Depth to Bedrock: ft
Total Depth of Borehole: ft
6 5
10 5
5 10
4 5
5 4
4 3
LOG LEGEND Silty Sands Bulk "Grab" Sample (B) Groundwater (During Drilling)Groundwater (During Drilling) Bedrock/Formation Silts Modified California Ring (R) Groundwater (Stabilized)Groundwater (Stabilized) Gravels Clayey Sands Standard Penetration (S) D Disturbed Sample Clean Sands Clays Modified Dames & Moore (D) N No Sample Recovery Hollow-Stem Auger
140 lbs./30-inches

SILTY SAND
few thin lenses of medium brown lean clay
Longitude:

Latitude:

Elevation:

Depth (ft)
22123-01
GeoMat / CME-45
TD = 15'
Blows / 6"
Sample
Type

SAMPLES
SPT "N" Value
N/A
N/A
Dry Density (pcf)
Unconfined
Compressive Strength
by Pocket Pen., qu (tsf)
B-1

LABORATORY TEST DATA
15 Plastic Limit
Plast. Index
4/21/2022
4/21/2022
Automatic
See Plate 1Location:

Date Started:

Date Finished:

Hammer Type:
moist, loose to medium dense
orange-brown silty medium to fine grained sand

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
16 B
R
R
S
S
35 30
40 45
25 Fines Content (%)
Liquid Limit
Log of Boring
5 20
10 15
PROJECT: 10030 Indiana Avenue
Riverside, California
SM
10 Project No.

Symbol
Hammer Weight / Drop:

Moisture Content (%)
Classification (USCS)
Method:
10 8
6 This log is part of the report prepared by GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the exploration and at the time of drilling or excavation. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with tiume. Data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered. 50 MN
108
107

1.75 7
26 1
10 10
GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.
9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92504

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTING

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering
Engineering Geology
Material Testing

Inland Empire
9980 Indiana Ave, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92503
Office (951) 688-5400

Los Angeles
5714 W. 96th Street
Los Angeles, California 90045
Office (310) 337-9400

geomatlabs.com

Project No.:

Date Tested:

Tested by:

Exhibit:

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.
9980 Indinana Avenue, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92504
geomatlabs.com

Silty Sand
Silty Sand
●
▲

Riverside, California

B-1
B-1

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
(ASTM C136)
Fines
(%)
Depth USCS CuCcD60D30D10Classification
Moisture
(%)
Symbol Location

0.87 5.6 0.05 0.19 0.76 15.75 0.99

9.8 0.03 0.10 0.41 14.5026
16 10030 Indiana Avenue

PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Proposed Building Remodel and Shade Canopy

15' SM
3' SM

22123-01
4/22/2022
AM
Appendix C

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.0010.010.11101001000
% Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results Cobbles
Gravels Sands
Silts
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Clays
#41½ 10 16620 ¾ ⅜ 30 50 100 20034 4020½
Project No. 22123-01
29B-1 @ 5' Silty Sand SM Ultimate
N/AB-1 @ 5' Silty Sand SM *Residual
10030 Indiana Avenue
Riverside, California April 22, 2022
B-1 @ 5' SM Peak 232
Cohesion
c [psf]

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample Symbol Description Soil Type
[USCS]
Shear
Strength
Friction Angle
φ [degrees]
29 Appendix C
*Residual shear strength results were determined from the lowest of the residual shears shown abve.

Performed in General Accordance with ASTM D-3080
Sample Moisture [%] Saturated Moisture [%] Dry Unit Weight [pcf]

10.8 18.3 110.4
(Individual residual shear results plotted with red dashed line above) GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Silty Sand
192
N/A
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Shear Stress (psf)
Normal Stress (psf)
GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.
9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92503
Water Content: w0 % wf %
Void Ratio: e0 ef
Saturation: S0 % Sf %
Dry Density: γd pcf γd pcf
Preconsolidation Pressure, Pp (ksf)
GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C
Project No. 22123-01
May 2, 2022
10030 Indiana Avenue
Riverside, California
--
Performed in General Accordance with ASTM D2435
Consolidation Test
California Ring Sampler
117.3
Sample Location:

Swell Index, Cs
Compression Index, Cc
Soil Classification (USCS):
106.10.136

0.013
B-1 @ 5'
Sampler Type:

Specific Gravity of Soil, GS
Diameter(in):
(Assumed)

CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT

17.5 0.423

69.5 2.41

2.65 SM

11.1 0.557

52.7 After TestBefore TestCondition:

1.0Height(in):

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOID RATIO

VERTICAL STRSS IN (KSF)
Initial Loading Water Inundation Secondary Loading Rebound

BORING NUMBER
AND SAMPLE DEPTH:

SOIL TYPE (USCS):

CONFINING PRESSURE (psf):

INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%):

FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%):

DRY DENSITY (pcf):

EXPANSION INDEX:

EXPANSION POTENTIAL:

DATE TESTED:

TESTED BY:

Project No.

Checked:

Checked by:

Exhibit:
22123-01
4/28/2022
HMN
N/A
GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.
9980 Indiana Ave, Suite 14
Riverside, California Riverside, California
AM
4/27/2022
23 Low

16.9 112.8

8.6 EXPANSION INDEX TEST
(ASTM D4829)

PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Proposed Remodel & Shade Structure
10030 Indiana Avenue
B-1 @ 0-5'
SM
144

9980 Indiana Avenue ● Suite 14 ● Riverside ● California ● 92503 ● Phone (951) 688-5400 ● Fax (951) 688-5200 www.geomatlabs.com, contact: e-mail: [email protected] GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology

SOLUBLE SULFATE AND CHLORIDE TEST RESULTS
Project Name 10030 Indiana Avenue, Riverside, CA Test Date 4/22/2022 Project No. 22123-01 Date Sampled 4/21/2022
Project Location 10030 Indiana Avenue, Riverside, CA Sampled By HMN Location in Structure B-1 @ 0-3’ Sample Type Bulk
Sampled Classification SM Tested By AM

TESTING INFORMATION
Sample weight before drying
Sample weight after drying
Sample Weight Passing No. 10 Sieve
Moisture (%)

Location Mixing
Ratio
Dilution
Factor
Sulfate
Reading
(ppm)
Sulfate
Content Chloride
Reading
(ppm)
Chloride
Content pH
(ppm) (%) (ppm) (%)
B-1 3 1 100 300 0.030

Average Average Average

ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.2.1 - Requirements for Concrete by Exposure Class Exposure
Class
Water-
Soluble
Sulfate
(%)
Maximum
w/cm
Minimum
f’c
(psi)
Cementitous Material (Types) Calcium
Chloride
Admixture
ASTM
C150- ASTM C595 ASTM
C1157
S0 <0.10 N/A 2500 No Type
Restriction No Type Restriction No Type
Restriction No Restriction
S1 0.10 to 0.20 0.50 4000 II Type IP, IS, or IT with
(MS) Designation MS No Restriction
S2 0.20 to 2.00 0.45 4500 V Type IP, IS, or IT with
(HS) Designation HS Not Permitted
S3
Option 1 >2.00 0.45 4500
V +
Pozzolan
or Slag
Cement
Type IP, IS, or IT with
(HS) Designation +
Pozzolan or Slag Cement
HS +
Pozzolan or
Slag
Cement
Not Permitted
Option 2 >2.00 0.40 5000 V Types with (HS)
designation HS Not Permitted
Exposure
Class
Maximum
w/cm
Minimum
f’c
(psi)
Maximum Water-Soluble Chloride ion (Cl-) Content
in Concrete, Percent by Wight of Cement Additional Provisions Nonprestressed Concrete
Prestressed
Concrete
C0 N/A 2500 1.00 0.06 None
C1 N/A 2500 0.30 0.06 None
C2 0.40 5000 0.15 0.06 Concrete Cover

Caltrans classifies a site as corrosive to structural concrete as an area where soil and/or water contains >500pp chloride, >2000ppm sulfate, or has a pH <5.5. A minimum resistivity of less than 1000 ohm -cm indicates the potential for corrosive environment requiring testing for the above criteria.

The information in this form is not intended for corrosion engineering design. If corrosion is critical, a corrosion specialist should be contacted to provide further recommendations.

APPENDIX D

2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering
Engineering Geology
Material Testing

Inland Empire
9980 Indiana Ave, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92503
Office (951) 688-5400

Los Angeles
5714 W. 96th Street
Los Angeles, California 90045
Office (310) 337-9400

geomatlabs.com

ASCE 7 Hazards Report
Address:

No Address at This
Location
Standard: ASCE/SEI 7-16
Risk Category: II
Soil Class: D - Default (see
Section 11.4.3)
Elevation: 781.79 ft (NAVD 88)
Latitude:

Longitude:

33.908036
-117.451204

Page 1 of 3 ends

SS : 1.5
S1 : 0.571
Fa : 1.2
Fv : N/A
SMS : 1.8
SM1 : N/A
SDS : 1.2
SD1 : N/A
TL : 8
PGA : 0.514
PGA M : 0.616
FPGA : 1.2
Ie : 1
Cv : 1.4
Seismic
Site Soil Class:

Results:

Data Accessed:

Date Source:

D - Default (see Section 11.4.3)
USGS Seismic Design Maps
Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 11.4.8.

Mon May 02 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided “as is” and without warranties of any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers; or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement, affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third-party content by or from ASCE.

ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard.

In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors, employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool.

Page 3 of 3 ends

APPENDIX E

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering
Engineering Geology
Material Testing

Inland Empire
9980 Indiana Ave, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92503
Office (951) 688-5400

Los Angeles
5714 W. 96th Street
Los Angeles, California 90045
Office (310) 337-9400

geomatlabs.com

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications, Page 1

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING PECIFICATIONS

1.0 GENERAL INTENT

These specifications present general procedures and
requirements for grading and earthwork as shown on the
approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installations of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the
geotechnical re port are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report.

2.0 EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING

Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soils engineer and engineering geologist, and their representatives) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly.

It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture conditions, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consulta nt will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the unsatisfactory conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance with ASTM D1557-00 test method.

3.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED

3.1 Clearing and Grubbing

All debris, undocumented fill, abandoned utility lines, roots, irrigation appurtenances, underground structures, deleterious materials, etc., should be removed from structural fill areas.

Cavities created during site clearance should be backfilled in a controlled manner.

3.2 Processing

The existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.

Existing ground which is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably unifor m and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction.

3.3 Overexcavation

Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, shall be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. Refer to the Soil Report for specific removal depths.

3.4 Moisture Conditioning

Overexcavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried - back, blended, and/or mixed, as required to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.

3.5 Recompaction

Overexcavation and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture -conditioned shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method.

3.6 Benching

Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal : vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench shall be a minimum of 15 ft, shall be at least 2 feet deep, shall expose firm materials, and shall be approved by the consultant. Other benches shall be excavated in firm materials for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (horizontal : vertical) shall be benched or otherwise overexcavated when con sidered necessary by the consultant.

3.7 Approval

All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas and toe-of-fill benches shall be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement.

4.0 FILL MATERIAL

4.1 General

Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by consultant or shall be mixed w ith other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material.

4.2 Oversize

Oversize materials defined as rock, or other irreducible material with maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant.

Oversize disposal operations shall be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.

Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant.

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications, Page 2

4.3 Import

If importing fill material is required for grad ing; import material shall meet the requirements of Section 4.1.

5.0 FILL PLACEMENT and COMPACTION

5.1 Fill Lifts

Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near -horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness.

Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer.

5.2 Fill Moisture

Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended wit h drier material. Moisture conditioning and mixing of fill layers shall continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum.

5.3 Compaction of Fill

After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, and mixed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for s oil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction.

5.4 Fill Slopes

Compacting of slopes shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent.

5.5 Compaction Testing

Field-tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests will be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment.

6.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION

Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade or material. All subdrains should be surv eyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrain.

7.0 EXCAVATION

Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas shall be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. Where fill -over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the
consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.

8.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS

Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under engineering supervision.

After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the top of the pipe. Soils with sand equivalent greater than 30 may be utilized fo r pipe bedding and shading. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand.

Onsite soils derived from trench excavations can be used as trench backfill except for deleterious materials. The onsite materials, or other soils approved by the soil engineer, shall be moisture conditioned as necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill.

The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 test method.

Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the soil engineer during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained.

The contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the soil engineer to enable sampling and testing.

9.0 DETAILS

WELL ABANDONMENT DETAIL

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications, Page 3

ROCK BURRIAL DETAIL

FILL SLOPE DETAIL

BENCHING AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL

BUILDING PAD ON SLOPE DETAIL

APPENDIX F

FIELD INFILTRATION TEST DATA

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering
Engineering Geology
Material Testing

Inland Empire
9980 Indiana Ave, Suite 14
Riverside, California 92503
Office (951) 688-5400

Los Angeles
5714 W. 96th Street
Los Angeles, California 90045
Office (310) 337-9400

geomatlabs.com

60 6
15 RM
4/22 & 4/23

CRITERIA TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

TRIAL NO. TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

AVERAGE
WETTED
DEPTH
(in)

SURFACE

AREA OF

SECTION
(in^2)

VOLUME OF

PERCOLATED
WATER
(in^3)

MEASURED

INFILTRATION
RATE
(in/hr)
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
0:00:00 0:30:00
0:30:00 30.00
PRESOAKING:

Pre-soaking shall be used with this procedure. Invert a full 5 gallon bottle (more if necessary) of clear water supported over the hole so that the water flow into the hole holds constant at a level at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of the hole. Testing may commence after all of the water has percolated through the test hole or after 15 hours has elapsed since initiating the pre-soak.

SANDY SOIL DETERMINATION:

Test hole shall be carefully filled with water to a depth equal to at least 5 times the hole’s radius (H/r>5) above the gravel at the bottom of the test hole prior to each test interval.

A) In sandy soils, when 2 consecutive measurements show that 6 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. Measurements shall be taken with a precision of 0.25 inches or better. The drop that occurs during the final 10 minutes is used to calculate the percolation rate. Field data must show the two 25 minute readings and the six 10 minute readings.

B) In non-sandy soils, the percolation rate measurement shall be made on the day following initiation of the pre-soak as described in Item #5 above. From a fixed reference point, measure the drop in water level over a 30 minute period for at least 6 hours, refilling after every 30 minute reading. Measurements shall be taken with a precision of 0.25 inches or better. The total depth of hole must be measured at every reading to verify that collapse of the borehole has not occurred. The drop that occurs during the final reading is used to calculate the percolation rate. 1 2 45
SANDY SOIL CRITERIA MET?
Project Name: 10030 Indiana Avenue, Riverside, CA
22123-01
10030 Indiana Avenue, Riverside, CA
MN
4/21/2022
Depth of Hole (in):

Borehole Diameter (in):

Test Refill Water Column Height, [d1] (in):

Pre-Soaked/Tested by:

Pre-Soak/Testing Date(s):

28.27 28.27
301.59

1.0046.00
301.59
301.59

28.27 46.50

46.00 1.00

1.50 46.00
301.59
301.59
301.59
296.88
301.59
301.59
301.59

46.00 46.00

14.50 14.50

46.00 46.00

46.00 1.00 14.50

1.00 28.27

28.27 0.19

14.50 28.27 0.19

0.29 1.00

1.00 0.19

28.27 0.19

0.19 0.19

0.19 0.19 in/hr
BORING PERCOLATION TEST P-1

1.07 0.3956.5514.00
141.37
Project No.:

Project Location:

Drillied/Augered by:

Drilling/Augering Date(s):

14.25 14.50

42.41 28.27
45 45

0.19 0.1928.27
45 45
3 4
NO

SANDY SOIL

TESTING

CRITERIA
45 5.00 263.89
292.172.00
NO

12.5050.00

47.00 5
6 7
8 MEASURED INFILTRATION RATE* =
12 45
45 45
45 45
45 9
10 11

46.00 1.00 14.50

1.00 14.501.00

14.50 14.50
60 6
15 RM
4/22 & 4/23

CRITERIA TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

TRIAL NO. TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

AVERAGE
WETTED
DEPTH
(in)

SURFACE

AREA OF

SECTION
(in^2)

VOLUME OF

PERCOLATED
WATER
(in^3)

MEASURED

47.00 2.00 14.00

2.00 14.002.00

14.00 14.00
45 45
3 4
NO

SANDY SOIL

TESTING

CRITERIA
45 3.00 282.74
292.172.00
NO

13.5048.00

47.00 0.39 in/hr
BORING PERCOLATION TEST P-2

0.60 0.3956.5514.00

84.82 Project No.:

Project Location:

Drillied/Augered by:

Drilling/Augering Date(s):

14.00 14.00

56.55 56.55
45 45

0.39 0.3956.55

14.00 56.55 0.39

0.39 2.00

2.00 0.39

56.55 0.39

0.39 0.39

0.39 47.00

47.00 47.00

2.00 14.00

2.00 56.55

56.55 0.39

56.55 56.55
292.17

2.0047.00
292.17
292.17

56.55 47.00

47.00 2.00

2.00 47.00
292.17
292.17
292.17
292.17
292.17
292.17
292.17

47.00 47.00

14.00 14.00
PRESOAKING:

SANDY SOIL DETERMINATION:

Test hole shall be carefully filled with water to a depth equal to at least 5 times the hole’s radius (H/r>5) above the gravel at the bottom of the test hole prior to each test interval.

Borehole Diameter (in):

Test Refill Water Column Height, [d1] (in):

Pre-Soaked/Tested by:

Pre-Soak/Testing Date(s):
60 6
15 RM
4/22 & 4/23

CRITERIA TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

TRIAL NO. TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

AVERAGE
WETTED
DEPTH
(in)

SURFACE

AREA OF

SECTION
(in^2)

VOLUME OF

PERCOLATED
WATER
(in^3)

MEASURED

47.00 2.00 14.00

2.00 14.002.00

14.00 14.00
45 45
3 4
NO

SANDY SOIL

TESTING

CRITERIA
45 3.00 282.74
282.743.00
NO

13.5048.00

48.00 0.39 in/hr
BORING PERCOLATION TEST P-3

0.60 0.6084.8213.50

84.82 Project No.:

Project Location:

Drillied/Augered by:

Drilling/Augering Date(s):

13.50 14.00

84.82 56.55
45 45

0.39 0.3956.55

14.00 56.55 0.39

0.60 2.00

2.00 0.39

56.55 0.39

0.39 0.39

0.39 47.00

47.00 47.00

2.00 14.00

2.00 56.55

56.55 0.39

56.55 56.55
292.17

2.0047.00
292.17
292.17

56.55 48.00

47.00 2.00

3.00 47.00
292.17
292.17
292.17
282.74
292.17
292.17
292.17

47.00 47.00

14.00 14.00
PRESOAKING:

SANDY SOIL DETERMINATION:

Test hole shall be carefully filled with water to a depth equal to at least 5 times the hole’s radius (H/r>5) above the gravel at the bottom of the test hole prior to each test interval.

Borehole Diameter (in):

Test Refill Water Column Height, [d1] (in):

Pre-Soaked/Tested by:

Pre-Soak/Testing Date(s):
60 6
15 RM
4/22 & 4/23

CRITERIA TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

TRIAL NO. TIME TIME

INTERVAL
(min)
D0, INITIAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
Df, FINAL

DEPTH TO
WATER
(in)
ΔH
WATER
DROP
(in)

AVERAGE
WETTED
DEPTH
(in)

SURFACE

AREA OF

SECTION
(in^2)

VOLUME OF

PERCOLATED
WATER
(in^3)

MEASURED

48.00 3.00 13.50

3.00 13.503.00

13.50 13.50
45 45
3 4
NO

SANDY SOIL

TESTING

CRITERIA
45 4.00 273.32
273.324.00
NO

13.0049.00

49.00 0.60 in/hr
BORING PERCOLATION TEST P-4

0.83 0.83113.1013.00
113.10
Project No.:

Project Location:

Drillied/Augered by:

Drilling/Augering Date(s):

13.00 13.50
113.10

84.82 45
45 0.60

0.6084.82

13.50 84.82 0.60

0.83 3.00

3.00 0.60

84.82 0.60

0.60 0.60

0.60 48.00

48.00 48.00

3.00 13.50

3.00 84.82

84.82 0.60

84.82 84.82
282.74

3.0048.00
282.74
282.74

84.82 49.00

48.00 3.00

4.00 48.00
282.74
282.74
282.74
273.32
282.74
282.74
282.74

48.00 48.00

13.50 13.50
PRESOAKING:

SANDY SOIL DETERMINATION:

Test hole shall be carefully filled with water to a depth equal to at least 5 times the hole’s radius (H/r>5) above the gravel at the bottom of the test hole prior to each test interval.

Borehole Diameter (in):

Test Refill Water Column Height, [d1] (in):

Pre-Soaked/Tested by:

Pre-Soak/Testing Date(s):
- 22 -
Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or Other Information on Past Site Use - 23 -
Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility
LID Technical Infeasibility Analysis
- 24 -
Appendix 6: BMP Design Details
BMP Sizing, Design Details and other Supporting Documentation BMP ID
1-E
Company Name: Date: 10/12/2022
Designed by: County/City Case No.:

Enter the area tributary to this feature AT= 1 acres
Enter VBMP determined from Section 2.1 of this Handbook VBMP= 1,736 ft3 Depth of Soil Filter Media Layer dS = 3.0 ft
Top Width of Bioretention Facility, excluding curb wT = 10.0 ft Total Effective Depth, dE
dE = 1.73 ft
dE = [(0.3) x dS + (0.4) x 1] + 0.5 dE = 1.80 ft
AM = 965 ft2
A= 1,017 ft2
Minimum Required Length of Bioretention Facility, L L = 96.5 ft z = :1
Diameter of Underdrain 6 inches
Longitudinal Slope of Site (3% maximum) 0 %
6" Check Dam Spacing 0 feet
Describe Vegetation:

Notes:

Legend:Bioretention Facility - Design Procedure
Woodard Group
ACW
Design Volume
Calculated Cells
Natural Grasses
Bioretention Facility Surface Area
Side Slopes in Bioretention Facility
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
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
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)
1-A 2749 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 2452.1
1-B 3566 Roofs 1 0.89 3180.9
1-C 3859 Ornamental
Landscaping 0.1 0.11 426.3
1-D 32000 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 28544
1-E 1017 Ornamental
Landscaping 0.1 0.11 112.3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 43191 34715.6 0.60 1735.8 1760
Notes:

Total
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP 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 WOODARD GROUP 10/13/2022
Designed by JF Case No
Company Project Number/Name
BMP Identification
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Design Rainfall Depth
BMP NAME / ID Bioretention - 1-E
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet

- 25 -
Appendix 7: Hydromodification
Supporting Detail Relating to Hydrologic Conditions of Concern

- 26 -
Appendix 8: Source Control
Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist
- 27 -
Appendix 9: O&M
Operation and Maintenance Plan and Documentation of Finance, Maintenance and Recording Mechanisms To be included in the Final WQMP
- 28 -
Appendix 10: Educational Materials
BMP Fact Sheets, Maintenance Guidelines and Other End-User BMP Information

1. “A citizen’s guide to understanding Stormwater” from EPA 833-B-00-002.

2. Stormwater pollution what you should know for “Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Non- point Source Discharges” from CRFC

3. Guidelines for maintaining your swimming pool, Jacuzzi and garden fountain.

4. CASQA Handouts
SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges
SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance
SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning
SD-12 Efficient Irrigation

Riverside City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Riverside City Council
February 24, 2026