Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tract No. 15961 Hydrology Study
EB ALLARD ENGINEERING eau engineering land surveying land pi�nmg TRACT 15961 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC REPORT Revised: November 1, 2001 Revised: February 19, 2002 Revised: April 10, 2002 Prepared For: Centerstone Communities 3500-B West Lake Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92704 (714) 437-0800 Prepared under the supervision of: No. 43976 Exgat P5F- DoDavid S. Hammer, ACE No. 43976 Exp. 06/30/05 Job Number 179.01.01 Table of Contents Introduction Purpose Methodology Findings Summary Hydrology Calculations Hydrology Exhibits Street and Catch Basin Capacity Calculations Street and Catch Basin Capacity Exhibit Storm Drain Calculations Hydrology Map Introduction Tract number 15961 is a proposed 76 single family lot subdivision located in Fontana. It is bounded on the west by San Sevaine Road, on the south by vacant, undeveloped land, on the east by Hemlock Avenue, and on the north by vacant, undeveloped land, (future Tract 16009). Purpose The purpose of this Hydrology Report is to determine the 100 year and 10 year event storm water runoff for the site and to show that the drainage systems, comprised of the proposed streets, catch basins and storm drain are adequately sized to carry the runoff. Methodology The rational method, as outlined by the current San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, is used to determine the 100 year event storm water runoff. Computer programs commonly used for this purpose are utilized, herein. Sizing catch basins and pipes is performed using hydraulic computer programs for this purpose. Findings The proposed interior tract streets adequately carry the expected runoff within the street right-of—way. Four catch basins remove the drainage from the streets. Two of the catch basins are a flow -by condition and accept, most, but not all of the surface water flowing to them. The runoff is conveyed out of the tract by an underground storm drain system that connects to the proposed 60" RCP storm drain in San Sevaine Road. Summary The on -site streets and storm drain system proposed for the tract will adequately convey 100 year event storm water runoff to a safe and acceptable storm drain. 1 Hundred Year Storm Analysis **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes), Ver. 5.1A Release Date: 08/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING, INC. 6101 CHERRY AVENUE FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92336 (909) 899 - 5011 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Centerstone Tract No. 15691 * 100 year hydrology * By: Joe Ramirez ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 0015961.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:30 4/ 9/2002 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* - USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .95 *USER -DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.000 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.500 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT= 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.5000 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = .6000 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 20.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .50 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 2 18.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .50 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 3 22.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .67 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH. CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = .15 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* UNIT-HYDROGRAPH DATA: WATERSHED LAG = .80 * Tc USED "VALLEY UNDEVELOPED" S-GRAPH FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 2 UNITS/ACRE AND LESS; AND "VALLEY DEVELOPED" S-GRAPH FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 3-4 UNITS/ACRE AND MORE. USER SPECIFIED RAINFALL VALUES: 2-YR 6-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 1.70 2-YR 24-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 3.60 100-YR 6-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 4.10 100-YR 24-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 9.20 SIERRA MADRE DEPTH -AREA FACTORS USED. AREA -AVERAGED DURATION RAINFALL(INCH) 5-MINUTES .56 30-MINUTES 1.14 1-HOUR 1.50 3-HOUR 2.78 6-HOUR 4.10 24-HOUR 9.20 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 2.1 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< »USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 370.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1367.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1360.74 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.712 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.473 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) RESIDENTIAL "3-4 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = Fp Ap SCS Tc (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL). CN (MIN.) A 1.50 .98 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .60 5.25 1.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) .60 32 9.71 5.25 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 6.2 » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « < » » >(STREET TABLE.SECTION # 1 USED) « « < UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1360.74 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1356.43 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.62 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.97 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.46 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.08 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .87 Tc(MIN.) = 10.58 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.249 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.40 .98 .50 32 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.74 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.90 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .54 AREA-AVERAGED'Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.69 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.05 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.64 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.21 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 6.2 » > COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « < »»> (STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1356.43 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1354.34 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 315.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 11.62 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW .DEPTH(FEET) = .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.43 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.34 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = .98 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.25 Tc(MIN.) = 12.83 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.785 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.30 .98 .50 32 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.86 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .52 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.33 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.74 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.39 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.02 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 8.1 -» »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « < MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 12.83 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.785 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.60 .98 .50 32 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.75 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5 80 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .51 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR)-= .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.08 *.*************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 6.2 >»»COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « < »»> (STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1354.34 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1352.07. STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 325.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER .OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 18.69 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .48 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 18.40 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.68 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.28 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.02 Tc(MIN.) = 14.85 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.467 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL LAND USE RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7. GROUP AREA (ACRES) Fp (INCH/HR) Ap SCS (DECIMAL) CN A 1.20 .98 .50 32 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 1.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.22 7.00 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .51 = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .52 00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.64 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .48 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 18.32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.69 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.29 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 8.1 » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « < MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 14.85 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.467 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 8. AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.60 Fp (INCH/HR) Ap SCS (DECIMAL) CN 1.60 .98 .50 32 RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.29 60 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .50 .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .52 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.93 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 6.2 » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « < »»> (STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1352.07 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1349.90 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 305.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 24.17 ***STREET FLOWING FULL*** STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .52 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 20.84 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.86 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.48 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.78 Tc(MIN.) = 16.63 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.239 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.00 .98 .50 32 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.48 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.60 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .50 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 23.65 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .51 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 20.72 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.83 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.46 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 8.1 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « < MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 16.63 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.239 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .70 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 10. AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.30 Fp Ap SCS (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN .70 .98 .50 32 RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.73 30 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .50 .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .51 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.38 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 2.1 » »>RATIONAL.METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « « < »USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 930.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1366.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1355.82 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 14.525 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.513 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ LAND USE RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = RATE DATA(AMC II): SCS SOIL AREA GROUP (ACRES) Fp (INCH/HR) Ap SCS Tc (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) A 5.80 .98 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 15.79 5.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.79 .50 32 14.53 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 6.2 » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< » » >(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) « « < UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1355.82 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1349.90 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 360.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 18.96 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.66 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.70 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.57 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.62 Tc(MIN.) = 16.15 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.297 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL LAND USE GROUP RESIDENTIAL. "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8. AREA Fp Ap SCS (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN A 2.50 .98 .50 32 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 2.50 SUBAREA.RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.32 8.30 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.99r- END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.80 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 1.66 End intract analyis I Begin San Sevaine hydrology **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 2.1 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< »USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 650.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1362.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1349.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.313 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.082 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.00 .98 .50 32 11.31 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.23 s end Analysis END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 1.00 Tc(MIN.) = 11.31 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= .49 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) _ .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.23 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1A Release Date: 08/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING, INC. 6101 CHERRY AVENUE FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92336 (909) 899 - 5011 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * Centerstone Tract No. 15691 * 100 yr offsite-hemlock * by: Joe Ramirez ************************** * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 0HM15961.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:11 2/18/2002 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .95 *USER -DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.000 100-YEAR STORM'60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.500 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.5000 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = .6000 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 20.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .50 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 2 18.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .50 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 3 22.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .67 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = .15 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* UNIT-HYDROGRAPH DATA: WATERSHED LAG = .80 * Tc USED "VALLEY UNDEVELOPED" S-GRAPH FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 2 UNITS/ACRE AND LESS; AND "VALLEY DEVELOPED" S-GRAPH FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 3-4 UNITS/ACRE AND MORE. USER SPECIFIED RAINFALL VALUES: 2-YR 6-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 1.70 2-YR 24-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 3.60 100-YR 6-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 4.10 100-YR 24-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 9.20 SIERRA MADRE DEPTH -AREA FACTORS USED. AREA -AVERAGED DURATION RAINFALL(INCH) 5-MINUTES .56 30-MINUTES 1.14 1-HOUR 1.50 3-HOUR 2.78 6-HOUR 4.10 24-HOUR 9.20 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 2.1 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « « < »USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 1000.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1395.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1374.20 Tc = K*E(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE))** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 10.453 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.280 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA FP Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL A 1.00 .98 .10 32 10.45 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.76 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 6.1 » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) « « < UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1374.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1361.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 670.70 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) =. .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.47 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.66 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.37 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.25 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.32 Tc(MIN.) = 13.77 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.628 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA FP Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1. A .50 .98 .50 32 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.41 1.50 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .23 = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .23 50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.59 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.82 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.37 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.26 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 1.50 1.50 .98 4.59 TC(MIN.) = 13.77 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= .23 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .23 ,END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Ten Year Storm Analysis **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1A Release Date: 08/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING, INC. 6101 CHERRY AVENUE FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92336 (909) 899 - 5011 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * Centerstone Tract No. 15691 * 10 yr. hydrology * By: Joe Ramirez ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1015961.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:37 4/ 9/2002 ************************** USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL* -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .95 *USER -DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR RAINFALL* 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.000 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.500 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 10.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.0100 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = .6000 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 20.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .50 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 2 18.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .50 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 3 22.0 10.0 .020/ .020/ .020 .67 1.50 .03125 .1100 .01500 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = .15 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* UNIT-HYDROGRAPH DATA: WATERSHED LAG = .80 * Tc USED "VALLEY UNDEVELOPED" S-GRAPH FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 2 UNITS/ACRE AND LESS; AND "VALLEY DEVELOPED" S-GRAPH FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 3-4 UNITS/ACRE AND MORE. USER SPECIFIED RAINFALL VALUES: 2-YR 6-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 1.70 2-YR 24-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 3.60 100-YR 6-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 4.10 100-YR 24-HR RAINFALL DEPTH(INCH) = 9.20 SIERRA MADRE DEPTH -AREA FACTORS USED. AREA -AVERAGED DURATION RAINFALL(INCH) 5-MINUTES .56 30-MINUTES 1.14 1-HOUR 1.50 3-HOUR 2.78 6-HOUR 4.10 24-HOUR 9.20 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 2.1 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< »USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 370.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1367.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1360.74 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.170 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.117 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA FP Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.50 .98 .50 32 9.17 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.55 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 6.2 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « < »»> (STREET ..TABLE .SECTION # 1 .USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1360.74 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET)= 1356.43 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) _. 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.10 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.37 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.15 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = .88 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .95 Tc(MIN.) = 10.12 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.938 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.40 .98 .50 32 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.09 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.90 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.40 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.24 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.33 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = .99 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 6.2 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « < » » >(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) «« < UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1356.43 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1354.34 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 315.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.62 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.01 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.12 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = .79 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.48 Tc(MIN.) = 12.60 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.576 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4. A 1.30 .98 .50 32 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.44 4.20 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.90 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .38 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.24 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.12 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = .80 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 8.1 » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « < MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 12.60 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.576 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.60 .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.80 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.80 Fp Ap SCS (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN .50 32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.01 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.90 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 6.2 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« < » » >(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) « « < UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1354.34 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1352.07 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 325.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF.-HALFSTREETS..CARRYING RUNOFF.= 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 11.90 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.43 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.39 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.00 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.26 Tc(MIN.) = 14.86 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.333 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.20 .98 .50 32 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.99 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 7.00 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.63 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.27 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.38 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = .99 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 8.1 » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « < MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 14.86 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.333 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 8. AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.60 1.60 .98 .50 32 RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.66 60 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 .97 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.28 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 6.2 »» >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< »»>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET)-= 1352.07 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1349.90 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 305.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 15.04 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .45 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.84 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.56 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.15 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.99 Tc(MIN.) = 16.85 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.164 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL LAND USE GROUP RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9. AREA Fp Ap SCS (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN A 1.00 .98 .50 32 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = _ .50 1.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.51 9.60 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 14.48 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.60 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.53 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. 1.12 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 8.1. » »»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 16.85 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.164 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .70 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 10. AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.30 Fp (INCH/HR) Ap SCS (DECIMAL) CN .70 .98 .50 32 RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 FRACTION, Ap = .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.06 30 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.54 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 2.1 > »»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « « < »USE TIME, -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL -SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 930.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 1366.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1355.82 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 14.525 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.366 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ LAND USE RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = SCS SOIL AREA GROUP (ACRES) Fp (INCH/HR) Ap SCS (DECIMAL) CN A 5.80 .98 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 9.80 5.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) .50 32 9.80 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 6.2 Tc (MIN.) 14.53 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « < » » >(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) « « < UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1355.82 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1349.90 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 360.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED.NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.93 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.30 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.22 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.82 Tc(MIN.) = 16.34 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.204 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8. 11.74 Fp Ap SCS (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN A 2.50 .98 .50 32 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 2.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.86 8.30 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .49 = .98 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.82 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .38 HALFSTREET: FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) = 13.40 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.37 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.28 End intract analyis I Begin San Sevaine hydrology **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 2.1 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< »USE TIME -OF -CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 650.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1362.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.313 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.748 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) RESIDENTIAL "5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1349.40 Ap SCS Tc (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) A 1.00 .98 LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = .98 AREA FRACTION, Ap = .50 2.03 1.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.03 .50 32 11.31 end Analysis END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = AREA -AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.00 1.00 .98 2.03 TC(MIN.) = 11.31 AREA -AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= .49 AREA -AVERAGED Ap = .50 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Hydrology Exhibits SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HYDROLOGY MANUAL 1 C-1 `•) C-2 ) I SAN BERNARD Wt�� � O COUNTY \ - �'lb_ C-T C-E C-3 C-4 INDEX MAP sODkCE aE-Og;L%d'6Ry / •r -C.7 ?• .,p{ti'- ' tia,• Via: • s r�`t. '•J GOOD • SOIL GROUP BOUNDARY SOIL GROUP DESIGNATION BOUNDARY OF INDICATED SOURCE T •� �i•n14 •� ��: • „' to 7 • T� SOURCE Q OLfrr MAr .�-_ _uWM .- r. L.• ,\+`.. J 1 ..�-' III%[: :__±��� ,. r',. �1r'ly�i. .11 - ;. • • • ��� Vie'—'' •y ` ' lio,l=,•&y- a 'c�-'-- L�r� ;• ri • r; d•--r4. �]•C i —; • . -a�J = .y,i, ir + Ire ,1-1F1'�.?.! ..�.•� f '•,�• - ill LA_ ,fir • ••I. • '_~�.•: .r..y. Mil . 3,_:i`:: , i�+�•. 1 }'r.'• :S Ilt i 1 1• .4O -r •T9► 1 �.• -C •��,�s A Y •�,1 I •• '1M�71.�1 a:, r it •"-r ` °.• „{' r >, Tv �,rL� .i�a• : • :. r +t •, n• ,, r. • U • -' lI�• j; :1y :L'' �. is ,l. •� j iL•••• • c+• .••• L.✓. �4` 1.W"•kf�.....'Se' • —'V._- • • 1 _ - r•-.ice iT SCALE I•48P00. SCALE .REDUCED BY 1/2? C-26 HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP MAP FOR. SOUTHWEST -A AREA FIGURE C-I3- i �ayxNA1M.:.nA.N.'-tn. .• +' - I - 1'. I.' 1 i W M ESI(RIA R2W fi WCeR E YNAEY 1189 B- .- 1GUR` 1•. I 4W , tnjs" R2W t L maillaillL kP fro ._°"s __:.�:, � �r �i e�®eEzrang►�®E p ®d�ra RIALTO :;'- %ii� .0c er f j ii •S � o �• .. n fi 1111. Ilk ® I ,Lett ��® k.. ' �"* �®_®cisinE �► COL i�N i � '� ' z.. �. � tat -- - is ",'#E 11 ,_k .�,1�'...j� 'tec Al Alit .. 2- 4 ,,'' i� �\lil .tw.a /f: -t:- 1 "REOL ND lei MO o+w • 8712 FIGUR f; Street & Catch Basin Capacity Calculations **************************************************************************** (C) HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE Copyright 1982-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING 8253 SIERRA AVE FONTANA CA. TEL (909) 356 - 1815 FAX (909) 356-1795 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16: 3 2/18/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * Street Capacity Calculations * Centerstone Way Flowby Condition * By: Joe Ramirez ************************** ************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** • »STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION« « CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET/FEET) = .019600 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 21.00 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = CONSTANT DISTANCE INTERIOR OUTSIDE CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT CONSTANT .015000 SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF-WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = .50 SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-LIP(FEET) = .03125 SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-HIKE(FEET) = .12500 FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET EVENLY ON BOTH SIDES STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.66 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.08 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.79 **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING 8253 SIERRA AVE FONTANA CA. TEL (909) 356 - 1815 FAX (909) 356-1795 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:41 2/18/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * CATCH BASIN SIZING FOR FLOWBY CONDITION * * ************************** * * * ************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** » »FLOWBY CATCH BASIN INLET CAPACITY INPUT INFORMATION«« Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins. STREETFLOW(CFS) = 10.50 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .44 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) = .33 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 14.00 » »CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 24.8 »»CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 7.5 **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING 8253 SIERRA AVE FONTANA CA. TEL (909) 356 - 1815 FAX (909) 356-1795 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:48 4/ 9/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Street Capacity Calculation- Westgate Drive, East Sump Condition * file: wgstcp * ************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** > >STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION< «< CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET/FEET) _ .014600 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 25.40 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = .015000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF-WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = .50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-LIP(FEET) = .03125 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-HIKE(FEET) = .12500 FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET EVENLY ON BOTH SIDES STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .49 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 17.98 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.79 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.84 **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING 8253 SIERRA AVE FONTANA CA. TEL (909) 356 - 1815 FAX (909) 356-1795 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15: 6 4/ 9/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Catch Basin Sizing Calculations for Sump Condition * Use W=10' for Catch Basin in Sump Condition * By: Joe Ramirez ************************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************************** » »SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION« « Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins. BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 18.70 BASIN OPENING(FEET) = .83 DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) = .93 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 7.15 **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING 8253 SIERRA AVE FONTANA CA. TEL (909) 356 - 1815 FAX (909) 356-1795 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:25 2/18/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * CENTERSTONE TRACT NO. 15961 * STREET CAPACITY CALCULATION FOR SAN SEVAINE LATERAL "C" ************************************************************************** »»STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION« « * * CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET/FEET) = .016700 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 3.20 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = .015000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF-WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = .67 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-LIP(FEET) = .03125 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-HIKE(FEET) = .11000 FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.88 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.95 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .91 **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING 8253 SIERRA AVE FONTANA CA. TEL (909) 356 - 1815 FAX (909) 356-1795 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:31 2/18/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * CATCH BASIN CALCULATION FOR SAN SEVAINE AVE. * LATEREAL "C" CATCH BASIN ************************************************************************** * * * **************************************************************************** » »FLOWBY CATCH BASIN INLET CAPACITY INPUT INFORMATION« « Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins. STREETFLOW(CFS) = 3.20 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .31 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) = .33 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 » »CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 10.9 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 3.0 **************************************************************************** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1400 Analysis prepared by: ALLARD ENGINEERING 8253 SIERRA AVE FONTANA CA. TEL (909) 356 - 1815 FAX (909) 356-1795 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:33 2/18/2002 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * Street Capacity Calculation for Hemlock Ave. * By: Joe Ramirez ************************************************************************** ************************** **************************************************************************** > »>STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT _INFORMATION« « CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET/FEET) = .018000 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 4.60 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = .015000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF-WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = .67 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-LIP(FEET) = .03125 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-HIKE(FEET) = .11000 FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.62 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.16 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.09 WAstigioe 7-JThe_ E1 3-r + BAS D 6/4 ram- 4(600e cA-C CC) - - .c Storm Drain Calculations T1 Centerstone Tract 15961 0 T2 line " A" mainline design T3 file: cntrlinea SO 1011.1801340.030 1 1340.030 R 1032.7501340.190 1 .013 .000 .000 0 R 1068.0201340.310 1 .013 44.541 .000 0 R 1182.7701340.880 1 .013 .000 .000 0 JX 1187.4301340.910 3 2 .013 15.000 1341.350 45.0 .000 R 1227.3501341.115 3 .013 .000 .000 0 JX 1229.3501341.125 5 4 .013 13.400 1341.620 45.0 .000 R 1261.2501341.280 5 .013 .000 .000 0 WE 1261.2501341.280 6 .500 SH 1261.2501341.280 6 1341.280 CD 1 4 1 .000 3.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 2 4 1 .000 2.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 3 4 1 .000 3.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 4 4 1 .000 2.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 5 4 1 .000 3.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 6 2 0 .000 7.800 10.000 .000 .000 .00 Q 18.700 .0 FILE: cntrlinea.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 PAGE 1 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 1:52:25 Centerstone Tract 15961 line " A" mainline design file: cntrlinea AR Used Station L/Elem ********* 1011.180 11.555 1022.735 10.015 1032.750 4.124 Invert Elev Ch Slope ********* 1340.030 .0074 1340.116 .0074 1340.190 .0034 Depth (FT) Water Elev 2.111 1342.141 2.136 1342.251 2.235 1342.425 1036.874 1340.204 2.343 1342.547 1340.263 2.464 1342.727 .0034 17.396 .0034 1054 270 13 750 1068 020 114.750 1182.770 JUNCT STR 1187.430 39.920 1227.350 JUNCT STR 1340.310 2.519 1342.829 .0050 1340.880 2.483 1343.363 .0064 1340.910 3.207 1344.117 .0051 1341.115 3.095 1344.210 .0050 4 (CFS) Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave Energy Grd.E1. HF Super Elev S- E Dpth 47.10 8.86 1.22 1343.36 .00 -I- -I- - - .0069 .08 2.11 47.10 8.75 1.19 1343.44 .00 -I- -I- -I- .0065 .06 2.14 47.10 8.34 1.08 1343.51 .12 - - - -I- -I- -I- .0058 .02 2.36 47.10 7.95 .98I 1343.53 ' .11 -I- -I- -I- - .0052 .09 2.45 47.10 7.58 .89 1343.62 .09 _ _I- _I_ _I- .0049 .07 2.55 47.10 7.43 .86 1343.69 .00 -I- -I- -I- - .0048 .56 2.52 47.10 7.53 .88 1344.24 .00 .0036 .02 2.48 32.10 4.54 .32 1344.44 .00 - -I- -I- -I- -I- - .0023 .09 3.21 32.10 4.54 .32 1344.53 .00 .0016 .00 3.09 CriticallFlow Top Depth ( Width Froude NlNorm 2.24 1.12 2.24 1.10 Dp 2.74 2.07 2.72 2.07 2.24 2.62 1.00 3.00 2.24 2.48 .91 3.00 2.24 2.30 ▪ 81 3.00 2.24 2.20 .77 2.46 2.24 2.27 .80 1.84 .00 . 00 1.80 1.84 .00 .00 Height/ Dia.-FT "N" 3.000 .013 3.000 .013 3.000 .013 3.000 .013 3.000 .013 3.000 .013 ' 3.000 .013 3.000 .013 3.000 ******** ******** Base Wt No Wth or I.D. ZL Prs/Pip X-Fall - ZR Type Ch ******* .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1 .0 P- IPE 1 0 P- IPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .000 .00 .00 .00 .000 .00 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 .013 .00 .00 PIPE IMO INN II1= MN NMI INN EMI INN MIMI MI =II NM Mill INN MO MN NMI FILE: cntrlinea.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 PAGE 2 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 1:52:25 Centerstone Tract 15961 line " A" mainline design file: cntrlinea AR Used I Invert Depth Station I Elev (FT) L/Elem ICh Slope 1229.350 1341.125 3.333 1344.458 31.900 .0049 I I 1261.250 1341.280 3.203 -I- -I- WALL ENTRANCE 1261.250I 1341.280I 3.412 Water. Elev 1344.483 1344.692 Q (CFS) 18.70 18.70 18.70 Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave ******* Energy Grd.E1. HF 2.65 .11 1344.57 - -I- .0008 .03 2.65 .11 -I- - .55 .00 1344.59 1344.70 Super Elev SE Dpth .00 3.33 .00 .00 CriticallFlow Top Depth I Width Froude NlNorm Dp ******k*I******** Height/ Base Wt No Wth Dia.-FT or I.D. ZL Prs/Pip "N" X-Fall ZR Type Ch ******* ******* 1.39 .00 3.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -I- - - l- .00 1.32 .013 .00 .00 PIPE I I 1.39 .00 3.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -I- - - - - - - I- I I .48 10.00 7.800 10.000 .00 0 .0 -I- -I- - - I- Tl Centerstone Tract 15961 0 T2 lateral "A" T3 cntrlata SO 1001.6801341.620 1 1344.460 R 1030.1701343.080 1 .013 .000 .000 0 WE 1030.1701343.080 2 .250 SH 1030.1701343.080 2 1343.080 CD 1 4 1 .000 2.000 .000 000 .000 .00 CD 2 2 0 .000 5.980 10.000 000 .000 .00 Q 13.400 .0 nil Sill NM 1111111 FILE: cntrlata.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Centerstone Tract 15961 lateral "A" cntrlata PAGE Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 4:28:30 AR Used Station L/Elem. 1001.680 17.596 1019.276 3.254 1022.530 1.313 1023.843 HYDRAULIC 1023.843 .537 1024.380 1.694 1026.074 1.341 1027.415 1.040 1028.455 .771 Invert Elev C- h Slope Depth (FT) Water Elev 1341.620 2.840 1344.460 .0512 1342.522 2.000 1344.522 .0512 1342.688 -I- .0512 1 1342.756 -1- J- UMP 1 1342.756 -1- .0512 1342.783 .0512 1 1342.870 - -1- .0512 1342.939 - -1- .0512 1342.992 - -1- .0512 1.815 1.707 1.000 1.000 1.038 1.079 1.121 R (CFS) 1344.503 -1- 1 1344.463 -1- 1 1343.756 -1- 1 1343.783 1 1343.908 -1- 1 1344.017 -1- 1 1344.113 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 13.40 Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave 1 4.27 .28 -I_ - .0035 4.27 .28 .0033 4.47 .31 .0032 4.69 _1- .34 8.53 1.13 -1- .0140 8.53 1.13 .0132 8.13 1.03 -1_ .0116 7.76 .93 -1- - .0103 7.40 .85 .0091 Energy Grd.E1. HF 1344.74 .06 Super ICriticallFlow Top Elev 1 Depth 1 Width SE DpthlFroude NjNorm Dp ***4**** 1 .00 1.32 .00 -I- -1- 2.84 .00 .70 1 1 .00 1.32 .00 -1- -1- 2.00 .00 .70 .00 1.32 1.16 1.81 .49 .70 .00 1.32 1.41 1 1344.80 -I- .01 1 1344.81 -1- .00 1 1344.80 1344.89 .00 1.32 2.00 _1_ -1- -I- .01 1.00 1.70 .70 1 1 1 1344.91 .00 1.32 2.00 - -1- -1- -1- .02 1.00 1.70 .70 1344.94 .00 1.32 2.00 -I -I- -1- .02' 1.04 1.58 .70 1 1 1344.95 .00 1.32 1.99 -1- -1- -i- .01 1.08 1.47 .70 1344.96 .00 1.32 1.99 - -i- -1- -1- .01 1.12 1.36 .70 Height/ Dia.-FT "N" 2.000 .013 2.000 .013 2.000 .013 2.000 2.000 .013 2.000 .013 2.000 .013 2.000 .013 2.000 .013 Base Wt or I.D. X-Fall .000 .00 ZL ZR .000 _ -1- .00 .00 .000 .00 .00 .00 1 .000 .00 - -1- 1 .000 .00 .00 .00 1 .000 .00 .00 .00 .000 .00 - -1- .00 .00 1 .000 .00 - -1- .00 .00 .000 .00 - -1- .00 .00 .00 .00 No Wth Prs/Pip Type Ch 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 P- IPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 P- IPE 1 MN FILE: cntrlata.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE. PROFILE LISTING Centerstone Tract 15961 lateral "A" cntrlata PAGE Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 4:28:30 AR Used Station L/Elem 1029.226 .529 1029.755 .310 1030.065 .105 1030.170 Invert Elev Ch Slope 1343.032 .0512 1343.059 .0512 1343.075 .0512 1343.080 WALL ENTRANCE 1030.170 1343.080' Depth (FT) Water Elev 1.166 1344.197 1.213 1344.271 1.263 1344.338 1.317 1344.397 2.200 1345.280 Q (CFS) 13.40 13.40 13.40 Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave 7.05 .77 -I .0080 6.72 .70 .0071 6.41 .64 .0063 13.40 6.11 .58 13.40 .61 .01 Energy I Super Grd.E1.I Elev HF ISE Dpth 1344.97 .00 .00 1344.97 .00 1344.98 .00 1344.98 1345.29 _I_ 1.17 .00 _I. 1.21 .00 1.26 . 00 -I- I . 00 CriticalJFlow ToplHeight/ Depth I Width IDia.-FT Froude NlNorm DP I ********I********I I I 1.32 1.97 2.000 1.27 .70 .013 1.32 1.95 2.000 IIN 11 1.17 .70 .013 I I 1.32 1.93 2.000 1.09 .70 .013 I I 1.32 1.90 2.000 -I- -I- - I .38 10.00 5.980 _I- - Base Wt or I.D. X-Fall .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 10.000 INo Wth ZL IPrs/Pip ZR 'Type Ch .00 1 .0 .00 (PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 0 .0 T1 CENTERSTONE TRACT NO. 15961 0 T2 LINE "B" T3 SO 1002.2901341.380 1 1344.120 R 1010.3501341.520 1 .013 .000 .000 0 R 1045.6901342.170 1 .013 -45.000 .000 0 R 1117.6201343.490 1 .013 .000 .000 0 JX 1124.5601343.620 3 2 .013 7.500 1343.990 -45.0 .000 R 1136.4601343.840 3 .013 .000 .000 0 R 1171.8101344.480 3 .013 45.000 .000 0 R 1173.0901344.500 3 .013 .000 .000 0 WE 1173.0901344.500 4 .250 SH 1173.0901344.500 4 1346.010 CD 1 4 1 .000 2.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 2 4 1 .000 2.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 3 4 1 .000 2.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 4 2 0 .000 7.570 14.000 .000 .000 .00 Q 7.500 .0 1 N M - 1 N 1 M I-! M - I N - 1 N V FILE: lineb.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 PAGE 1 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 3:50:28 CENTERSTONE TRACT NO 15961 LINE "B° AR Used Invert Station Elev L/Elem Ch Slope 1002.290 1341.380 8.060 .0174 1010.350 1341.520 35.340 .0184 1045.690 1342.170 13.672 .0184 1059.362 1342.421 9.290 .0184 1068.653 1342.591 HYDRAULIC JUMP 1068.653 1342.591 7.708 .0184 1076.360 1342.733 16.299 .0184 1092.659 1343.032 9.835 .0184 1102.494 1343.212 6.387 .0184 Depth (FT) Water Elev Q (CFS) 2.740 1344.120 15.00 2.635 1344.155 15.00 2.191 1344.361 15.00 2.000 1344.421 15.00 1.837 1344.428 15.00 Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave 4.77 .35 - -I- - .0044 4.77 .35 .0044 4.77 .35 .0044 4.77 4.97 I_ .35 Energy Grd.E1. HF 1344.47 .04 1344.51 .16 1344.71 .06 1344.77 .0041 .04 .38 1344.81 1.053 1343.644 15.00 8.95 1.24 1344.89 -�- -�- -I- -I- Super Elev S- E Dpth .00 2.74 .00 .00 .00 2.19 .00 2.00 .00 .00 . 0148I .11 1.05 1.053 1343.786 15.00 8.95 1.24 1345.03 .00 - -I- -I- -I- -I- -1- - - - ' I I .0139I .23 1.05 1.094 1344.126 15.00 8.53 1.13 1345.26 .00 - -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- - - . 0123 .12 1.09 I 1.137 1344.349 15.00 8.14 1.03 1345.38 .00 -I -I- -I- 1 -I- -I- - .0109 .07 1.14 CriticallFlow Top Depth I Width Froude NINorm Dp 1.40 .00 .00 1.00 1.40 .00 .00. .99 1.40 .00 .00 .99 1.40 .00 .00 .99 1.40 1.09 1.40 2.00 - -I- 1.72 .99 1.40 2.00 1.72 .99 1.40 1.99 1.60 .99 1.40 1.98 - -I- 1.49 .99 Height/ease Wt Dia.-FTlor I.D. "N" I X-Fall ******* 2.000 .013 ZL ZR No Wth Prs/Pip Type Ch .000 .00 1 .0 .00 .00 PIPE 2.000 .000 .00 .013 .00 .00 2.000 .000I .00 .013 .00 .00 2.000 .000 .00 .013 .00 .00 2.000 .000I .00 2.000 .000 .00 .013 .00 .00 2.000 .000 .00 .013 .00 .00 2.000 .000 .00 -I- -1- .013 .00 .00 2.000 .000 .00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 0 PIPE 1 .0 1 1 � FILE: lineb.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING CENTERSTONE TRACT NO. 15961 LINE "B" PAGE Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 3:50:28 ************«******«*******************+***«******+*********+********************************************* AR Used Invert Depth Water Q Vel Vel Energy Super CriticallFlow Top Height/ Base Wt No Wth Station Elev (FT) Elev (CFS) (FPS) Head Grd.E1 Elev Depth I Width Dia.-FT or I.D. ZL Prs/Pip L/Elem Ch Slope SF Ave HF SE Dpth Froude NlNorm Dp "N" X-Fall - ZR Type Ch +++++*+** *+*«*««« I ******* I ****+*+ 1108.881 1343.330 1.182 1344.512 15.00 7.76 .93 1345.45 .00 1.40 I 1.97 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 4.202 .0184 .0096 .04 1.18 1.38 .99 .013 .00 .00 P- IPE 1113.083 1343.407 1.231 1344.637 15.00 7.40 .85 1345.49 .00 1.40 I 1.95 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 2.634 .0184 0085 .02 1.23 1.28 .99 .013 .00 .00 PIPE I I 1115.718 1343.455 1.282 1344.737 15.00 7.05 .77 1345.51 .00 1.40 1.92 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -- - -- - - -I- -- -- -- -I- -- -- -I- - 1.445 .0184 .0076 .01 1.28 1.18 .99 .013 .00 .00 PIPE 1117.163 1343.482 1.337 1344.818 15.00 6.72 .70 1345.52 .00 1.40 I 1.88 2.000 .000I .00 1 .0 - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - -I- - - -I- .457 .0184 .0067 .00 1.34 1.09 .99 .013 .00 .00 PIPE I I 1117.620 1343.490 1.396 1344.886 15.00 6.41 .64 1345.52 .00 1.40 1.84 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 - - -�- - - - - -�- - - - - - -I- - - - -I- - JUNCT STR .0187 .0037 .03 1.40 1.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE I I 1124.560 1343.620 1.958 1345.578 7.50 2.40 .09 1345.67 .00 .97 .57 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 - I- -I- - - - - -I- -I- - - - - -I- - - 8.427 .0185 .0010 .01 1.96 .18 .67 .013 .00 .00 P- IPE I I I I I 1132.987 1343.776 1.802 1345.577 7.50 2.52 .10 1345.68 .00 .97 1.20 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 - I- -I- - - - -I- -I- - - - -I- - - -I- - 3.473 .0185 .0010 .00 1.80 .28 .67 .013 .00 .00 PIPE I I I I 1136.460 1343.840 1.735 1345.575 7.50 2.59 .10 1345.68 .01 .97 1.36 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -I- -I- - - - -I- -I- - - - -I- - - - -I- 4.850 .0181 .0011 .01 1.74 .31 .68 .013 .00 .00 PIPE I I I I I 1141.310 1343.928 1.642 1345.570 7.50 2.72 .11 1345.68 .01 .97 1.53 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0 - I- -I- - - - - - -I- -I - - - - -I- - - - - -I- 4.072 .0181 .0012 .00 1.65 .36 .68 .013 .00 .00 PIPE N M EN EN MIN FILE: lineb.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 PAGE 3 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 3:50:28 CENTERSTONE TRACT NO. 15961 LINE " B " AR Used Station L/Elem ********* 1145.382 3.529 1148.911 3.107 1152.018 2.740 1154.758 2.428 1157.186 2.134 1159.319 1.823 1161.142 HYDRAULIC 1161.142 .179 1161.321 4.241 Invert Elev C- h Slope 1344.001 .0181 1344.065 .0181 1344.122 .0181 1344.171 .0181 1344.215 .0181 1344.254 Depth (FT) 1.562 Water Elev 1345.563 1.490 1345.555 1.424 1.364 1345.546 1345.535 1.307 1345.522 1.254 1345.508 4 (CFS) 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 3.62 Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave 2.85 .13 -1- .0013 Energy Grd.E1. HF 1345.69 .00 2.99 .14 1345.69 - -I- .0014 .00 3.13 .15 1345.70 -I- .0016 .00 3.29 .17 1345.70 .0018 .00 3.45 .18 1345.71 .0020 .00 .20 1345.71 .0181 .0023 .00 1344.287 1.205 1345.491 7.50 3.79 .22 1345.71 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- - J- UMP 1344.287 .0181 .751 1345.037 7.50 6.96 .75 1345.79 -I -I- -I- -I- -I- - .0115 .00 I. 1344.290 .778 1345.068 7.50 6.64 .68 1345.75 -I- -I- -I- -I- .0181 .0101 .04 Super Elev SE Dpth .01 1.57 .01 1.50 .01 1.44 .01 1.38 02 1.32 .02 1.27 .02 .06 .82 .06 .84 Critical(Flow Top Depth I Width Froude NlNorm Dp .97 1.65 .40 .68 .97 1.74 .44 .97 .48 .97 .52 .97 .57 .97 - - -1- .62 .97 .97 1.65 .97 1.54 Height/ Dia.-FT "Nu Base Wt or I.D. X-Fall ******* 2.000 .000 .013 .00 2.000 .000 .013 .00 2.000 .000 .013 .00 2.000 .013 2.000 .013 2.000 -I- - .68 .013 1.96 2.000 1.94 2.000 .68 .013 1.95 2.000 .68 .013 .68 1.81 .68 1.86 .68 1.90 .68 1.93 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .000 .00 .000 .00 No Wth ZL Prs/Pip ZR Type Ch ***** *****•* .00 .00 .00 .00 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 .PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE Mil Mil IMO =I FILE: lineb.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING CENTERSTONE TRACT NO. 15961 LINE "B" PAGE Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 3:50:28 ************************* t************************************, **************************►*, ****************************■* AR Used Invert Depth Water I Q Vel Vel Energy I Super ICriticalIFlow Top Height/ Base Wt Station Elev (FT) Elev I (CFS) (FPS) Head Grd.E1.j Elev I Depth I Width Dia.-FT or I.D. ZL -�- I - -I- -I- -I- L/Elem Ch Slope I SF Ave HF ISE DpthjFroude NjNorm Dp - "N" X-Fall ZR *********1 I I*******l 1165.562 1344.367 .806 1345.173 7.50 6.33 .62 1345.79 .05 .97 1.96 2.000 .000 .00 - - - - . -I- - -I- - - -I- -I- -I- - - - - - 2.935 .0181 .0089 .03 .86 1.44 .68 .013 .00 .00 1168.497 1344.420 .835 1345.255 7.50 6.04 .57 1345.82 .05 .97 1.97 2.000 000 .00 - - - - - -I- -I - - -I- -I- -I- -I - - - - 2.015 - .0181 .0078 .02 .88 1.34 .68 .013 .00 .00 1170.511 1344.456 .866 1345.322 7.50 5.75 .51 1345.84 .05 .97 1.98 2.000 000 - - - - - -I- - - -1- - - -I- -I- -I- -I- - 1.299 .0181 .0068 .01 .91 1.25 .68 .013 .00 1171.810 1344.480 .898 1345.378 7.50 5.49 .47 1345.85 .00 .97 1.99 2.000 .000 -I- - - - - -1 - - -I- - - -I- -I- -I- -1- .195 .0156 .0063 .00 .90 1.17 .70 .013 .00 I I I 1172.005 1344.483 .903 1345.386 7.50 5.44 .46 1345.85 .00 .97 1.99 2.000 .000 -I- - - - -1- -1 - -I -I- -I- -I- - .824 .0156 .0059 .00 .90 1.15 .70 .013 .00 I, 1172.829 1344.496 .937 1345.433 7.50 5.19 .42 1345.85 .00 .97 2.00 2.000 .000 -I- - - - - -�- - - -I- - - -�- -I- -I- .261 .0156 .0052 .00 .94 1.08 .70 .013 .00 1173.090 1344.500 .973 1345.473 7.50 4.94 .38 1345.85 .00 .97 2.00 2.000 .000 -I- - - - -I- - - -1- -I- -I- -I- -I- -1- - - WALL ENTRANCE 1173.090 1344.500 1.528 1346.028 7.50 .35 .00 1346.03 .00 .21 14.00 7.570 14.000 -I- -I- - - -I- - -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- - - - ******* No Wth Prs/Pip Type Ch 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 IPIPE .00 1 .0 I- .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 1- .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 0 .0 Ti Centerstone Tract 15961 0 T2 lateral "B" T3 File: cntrlatb SO 1001.7701343.990 1 1345.5890 R 1037.0201346.520 1 .013 .000 .000 0 WE 1037.0201346.520 2 .250 SH 1037.0201346.520 2 1346.520 CD 1 4 1 .000 2.000 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 2 2 0 .000 5.130 14.000 .000 .000 .00 Q 7.500 .0 1 011111 11111 111111 111111 11111 111E1. MIN 111111 FILE: cntrlatb.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Centerstone Tract 15961 lateral "B" File: cntrlatb PAGE Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 4:21: 0 AR Used Invert Station Elev L/Elem Ch Slope ********* 1001.770 2.241 Depth (FT) ******** 1343.990 - -l- .0718 .513 Water I Q I Vel Vel Elev 1 (CFS) 1 (FPS) Head - -I- -I- -I_ - SF Ave *********'*********I' I I 1 1344.503 7.50 11.79 2.16 - -I- -I -I- - I 1 I 1004.011 1344.151 .516 1344.667 7.50 11.67 2.12 1346.78 - -1- - -1- -l- -1- 7.450 .0718 .0484 .36 1 I I 1011.460 1344.686 .534 1345.220 7.50 11.13 1.92 1347.14 - -1- - - -I- -1- -1- - 5.303 .0718 .0423 .22 I I 1 1016.764 1345.066 .553 1345.619 7.50 10.61 1.75 1347.37 - - _I- - - -I- -1- -I- - 4.020 .0718 .0370 .15 1 I I 1020.783 1345.355 .572 1345.926 7.50 10.12 1.59 1347.52 - - -1- - - -1- -1- -I- - - 3.163 .0718 .0324 .10 I I 1023.947 1345.582 .592 1346.173 7.50 9.65 1.44 1347.62 - - -I- - - -1- -1- -1- - - - 2.548 .0718 .0284 .07 l I 1 1026.495 1345.765 .612 1346.377 7.50 9.20 1.31 1347.69 - -1- - - -1- -I- -I- 2.085 .0718 .0248 .05 I I I 1028.581 1345.914 .634 1346.548 7.50 8.77 1.19 1347.74 - - -1- - - -I- -1- -I- - - - 1.724 .0718 .0217 .04 I 1 1 1030.304 1346.038 .656 1346.694 7.50 8.36 1.09 1347.78 - - -I- -1--1- -1--1- - -I 1.432 .0718 .0191 .03 .0523 Energy Grd.E1. HF ********* 1346.66 .12 \Super Elev SE Dpth .00 .97 .51 3.44 .00 .52 .00 .53 .00 .55 .00 .57 00 .59 00 .61 .00 .63 .00 .66 CriticallFlow Top Depth 1 Width - -I- Froude NlNorm Dp ********I******** Height/Base Wt Dia.-FTIor I.D. -1 "N" I X-Fall *******I******* I I 1.75 2.000 .000 .00 _1- - -1- .48 .013 .00 .00 I l .97 1.75 2.000 .000 .00 -I- - - -1- -I- 3.39 .48 .013 .00 .00 I I I .97 1.77 2.000 .000 .00 -I- - - -I- -1- 3.18 .48 .013 .00 .00 I l I .97 1.79 2.000 .000 .00 - -I- -I- _I_ -I- 2.97 .48 .013 .00 .00 I I 1 .97 1.81 2.000 .000 .00 - I- -I- -l- -1- 2.78 .48 .013 .00 .00 1 1 1 I .97 1.83 2.000 .000 .00 - -1- -1- -I- -I- 2.60 .48 .013 .00 .00 I I I I .97 1.84 2.000 - .000 .00 -1 -I- -►- -1- 2.44 .48 .013 .00 .00 I I I I .97 1.86 2.000 .000 .00 - I- -1- -I- -1- 2.28 .48 .013 .00 .00 1 1 l .97 1.88 2.000 .000 .00 _I _I_ -I- -1- 2.13 .48 .013 .00 ZL *ZR * No Wth Prs/Pip Type Ch ******* 1 .0 P- IPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 PIPE 1 .0 .00 PIPE � FILE: cntrlatb.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Centerstone Tract 15961 lateral "B" File: cntrlatb PAGE Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 4:21: 0 AR Used I Invert Station I Elev L/Elem ICh Slope *********I 1031.736 1346.141 1.191 .0718 1 1032.927 1346.226 - I- .986 .0718 1 1033.913 1346.297 .815 .0718 1034.728 1346.355 .664 .0718 1035.392 1346.403 .531 .0718 Depth (FT) .679 Water Elev 1346.820 .704 1346.930 .729 1347.026 .755 1347.110 .782 I I 1035.923 1346.441 .810 - I- .414 .0718 1036.337 1346.471 _I_ -I- .308 .0718 1347.185 1347.252 .840 1347.311 I I 1036.644 1346.493 .871 -I- -I- .213 .0718 I 1036.857 1346.508 .903 -I- -I- .122 .0718 Q (CFS) 1347.364 _I_ 1347.411 - -I- 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave 7.97 .99 .0167 7.60 .90 -I .0146 7.25 .82 - I- . 0128 6.91 .74 . 0113 6.59 .67 .0099 6.28 .61 -I- . 0087 5.99 .56 -1 .0076 5.71 .51 - 1- .0067 5.44 .46 .0059 Energy Grd.E1. HF 1347.81 .02 1347.83 .01 1347.84 .01 1347.85 .01 1347.86 .01 1347.86 .00 1347.87 .00 1347.87 .00 1347.87 .00 Super Elev SE Dpth . 00 . 68 .00 .70 CriticallFlow Top Depth I Width Froude NlNorm Dp I******** I .97 1.89 1.99 .48 I .97 -I- 1.86 I .00 .97 -I- -�- .73 1.74 I .00 .97 .75 1.63 I . 00 .97 .78 1.52 .00 - I- .81 .00 . 84- I I .00 -1- .87 I .00 . 90 -I- 1.91 .48 1.92 .48 1.94 .48 1.95 .48 Height/ Dia.-FT 2.000 .013 2.000 Base Wt or I.D. X-Fall ******* 1 I 1 .97 1.96 2.000 -I- -1- -I- 1.42 .48 .013 I I I .97 1.97 2.000 - I- -I- -I- 1.33 .48 .013 .00 I I 1 .97 1.98 2.000 .000 -I- 1- -I- 1.24 .48 .013 .00 I I I .97 1.99 2.000 .000 - I- 1- -I- 1.15 .48 .013 .000 .00 .000 .013 .00 2.000 .000 .013 .00 2.000 .000 .013 .00 2.000 .000 .013 .00 .000 .00 .000 .00 INo Wth ZL IPrs/Pip ZR 'Type Ch I I .00 1 .0 - I_ .00 PIPE I .00 1 .0 I- .00 PIPE I .00 1 .0 1- .00 PIPE I .00 1 .0 I_ .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 IPIPE I .00 1 .0 I- .00 PIPE I .00 1 .0 .00 - IPIPE 1 .00 1 .0 I- .00 PIPE I .00 1 .0 I .00 PIPE 11111 MN M MN 11111 EN MIN OM EN UN NM FILE: cntrlatb.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Centerstone Tract 15961 lateral "B" File: cntrlatb PAGE 3 Date: 4-10-2002 Time: 4:21: 0 AR Used Station L/Elem 1036.979 .041 1037.020 Invert Elev Ch Slope 1346.517 .0718 1346.520 WALL EN- TRANCE 1037.020 1346.520 Depth (FT) .937 .973 1.528 Water Elev 1347.454 1347.493 1348.048 4 (CFS) 7.50 7.50 7.50 Vel Vel (FPS) Head - -I- SF Ave 5.19 .42 .0052 4.94 .38 Energy Grd.E1. HF ********* 1347.87 .00 1347.87 .35 .00 1348.05 Super ICriticalIFlow Top Elev I Depth I Width SE DpthlFroude NINorm Dp .00 .97 2.00 .94 1.08 .48 .00 .97 2.00 .00 .21 14.00 Height/ Dia.-FT "N" 2.000 -I- - .013 2.000 5.130 14.000 -I- -I- - Base Wt or I.D. X-Fall .000 .00 .000 ZL ZR .00 No Wth Prs/Pip Type Ch ******* 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 .00 1 .0 0 .0 T1 CENTESTONE TRACT NO. 15961 T2 LATERAL"C" _ Oi_-,s_t✓ . s� t 5. - G- T3 i'� SO 1002.5601342.220 1 1346.530 R 1116.6201342.500 1 .013 WE 1116.6201342.500 2 .250 SH 1116.6201342.500 2 1342.500 CD 1 4 1 .000 1.500 .000 .000 .000 .00 CD 2 2 0 .000 7.230 10.000 .000 .000 .00 Q 3.200 0 0 .000 .000 0 FILE: latc.WSW W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 12.5 For: Allard Engineering, Fontana, California - S/N 643 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING CENTESTONE TRACT NO. 15961 LATERAL"C" PAGE 1 Date: 2-18-2002 Time: 7:38:39 AR Used I Invert Station I Elev L/Elem ICh Slope 1002.560 1342.220 114.060 .0025 1116.620. 1342.500 -I- WALL ENTRANCE 1116.620 1342.500 Depth (FT) Water Elev 4.310 1346.530 4.136 1346.636 4.238 1346.738 Q (CFS) 3.20 . 3.20 3.20 Vel Vel (FPS) Head SF Ave 1.81 .05 .0009 1.81 .05 .08 .00 Energy I Super Grd.E1.I Elev HF ISE Dpth *********I 1346.58 .00 -I- - .11 4.31 1346.69 .00 1346.74 .00 CriticallFlow Top Depth I Width Froude NlNorm Dp . 68 .00 .00 .85 .68 .00 . 15 10.00 Height/ Dia.-FT "N" 1.500 .013 1.500 7.230 Base Wt or I.D. X-Fall .000 .00 .000 10.000 No Wth ZL Prs/Pip ZR Type Ch ***** .00 1 .0 .00 PIPE .00 1 .0 .00 0 .0 INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED CENTERSTONE COMMUNITY PLAN March 12, 1999 Prepared for: CenterStone Development Company 3500 Lake Center Drive, `B" Santa Ana, California 92704 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 340310h Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (909) 781-9310 LSA Project #CSP830 LSA Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 1-4 1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-4 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES 1-5 1.5 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 1-5 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2-1 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL/EXISTING S1'1'h CONDITIONS 3-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4-1 4.1 TECHNICAL STUDIES 4-1 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST 4-1 5.0 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM RESPONSES 5-1 5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5-1 5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5-3 5.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS 5-4 5.4 WATER 5-6 5.5 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 5-9 5.6 AIR QUALITY 5-13 5.7 NOISE 5-18 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5-19 5.9 AESTHETICS 5-21 5.10 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 5-22 5.11 RECREATION 5-24 5.12 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 5-24 5.13 HAZARDS 5-25 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 5-27 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5-28 5.16 MANDATORY SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS 5-35 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 6-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCES/PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED 7-1 7.1 LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1 7.2 REFERENCES 7-1 7.3 PERSONS CONTACTED 7-1 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECT\IS-TOC.WPD» 11 LSA Associates, Inc. LIST OF FIGURES Page 1.1. - Regional Map 1-2 1.2 - Project Site Location 1-3 2.1 - North Fontana Planned Communities 2-2 2.2 - Proposed Land Use 2-3 2.3 - Proposed Phasing 2-4 3.1 Existing Land Use 3-2 3.2 - Existing Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Facilities 3-3 5.1 - Proposed Circulation Plan 5-10 5.2 - Street Sections 5-11 5.3 Proposed Water Distribution System 5-31 5.4 - Proposed Sewer System 5-33 5.5 - Proposed Storm Drain System 5-34 LIST OF TABLES 5.A - Daily Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions 5-15 5.B - Projected Utility Consumption/Waste Generation 5-29 APPENDICES A- B- C- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJEC'1\IS-TOC.WPD» iii t 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION Background LSA Associates, Inc. The site of the proposed CenterStone Community Plan is locatedin northwestern portion of the City of Fontana (City). The City is situated in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, between the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains on the north and the Jurupa Hills on the south. The City is strategically located withinthe Inland Empire, located 9 miles west of the City of San Bernardino, immediately east of the Devore Freeway (I-15) and north and south of the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10). The City of Fontana is bounded by the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Ontario and uninccrpo- rated land in San Bernardino and Riverside counties (Figure 1.1). The proposed project consists of 76 detached, single-family dwelling units to be built on 20.00 acres (19.55 acres and 0.45 acre existing Hemlock Avenue right-of-way). The project site is located in the northwest portion of the City, 660 feet north of Baseline Avenue, east of future San Sevaine Avenue and immediately west and adjacent to Hemlock Avenue (Figure 1.2). The City is requiring the preparation of a community plan for the project. Developer/sponsor Name: CenterStone Development Company Address(s): 3500-B W. Lake Center Drive City/state: Santa Ana. CA. Zip 92704 Contact Person: Mr. Kirk Evans Phone Number: (714) 437-0800 Project Address/Location: The proposed development is located 660 feet north of Baseline Avenue. immediately west of Hemlock Avenue. The project site extends 1.320 feet west from Hemlock Avenue and measures 660 feet along its north -south axis Specifically. the project siteis located in the SE 1/4, of the SW 1/4. Section 35. Township 1N. Range 6W as shown on the USGS 7.5' Fontana Quadrangle. 3. Initial Study Completion Date: November 2. 1998 4. Brief Description of the Project: proposed development of 76 detached, single-family dwellings and associated infrastructure. on 20.00 acres in northwestern Fontana. General Plan: Planned Community - Residential Specific Plan: N/A Zoning: Single -Family Residential 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC s.IS REP —ID 3/12/99(CSP830) NTS A Not to Scale Figure 1.1 CenterStone at The Landings Regional Map BRIDLEPATH DR. DUNCAN CANYON RD. HIGHLAND AVE. PROJECT SITE VICTORIA ST. I5. — 7, TO ONTARIO CenterStone` at The Landings BAR HARBOR RD. Map Source: FMA International, 1998. uj cd u O o E LLI _< TO BARSTOW CITRUS AVE. WALNUT ST. BASEL INE AVE. SIERRA AVE. McGUIRE AVE. LIVE OAK AVE. FOOTHILL BLVD. LEGEND Existing Roadway Not to Scale Figure 1.2 CenterStone at The Landings Project Site Location LSA Associates, Inc. 1.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT The site currently consists of 20.00 acres. The total land area of the City is approxi- mately 22,874 acres, or 35.7 square miles. The City was once part of a major agricultural area where citrus, grapes, and other field crops were grown. Rapid urbanization and residential development in the City has led to a mix of old and new developments in Fontana. Generally, the City's older developments may be found in east -central Fontana. Industrial uses tend to be sited in the southwest, while vacant laid and new residential subdivisions are more likely to be located towards the northern and southern portions of the City. More than one-third of the City's land area remains undeveloped. The majority of this vacant land exists in North Fontana. North Fontana comprises approximately 11,000 acres generally located north of Baseline Avenue. Prior to 1980, the majority of this land remained vacant. In recent years the availability of this land, coupled with an increasing demand for residential units has led to significant growth. The proposed project is adjacent to or in close vicinity to a number of planned, approved, or built planned residential communities. The site is currently vacant. Disturbance to the property includes activities related to farming (plowing, discing, etc.) and possibly some leveling by bulldozer. In addition, the area appears to have been used for stockpiling construction material (gravel, rock). Structures, along with driveways may have once been present on site. Asphaltum, cement, wood, and aluminum siding are also present. 1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project would achieve the following objectives: • Develop a community with 76 detached, single-family homes on lots of 7,200 square feet and larger in order to help achieve the City's goal of providing additional larger lots in North Fontana. Provide development in conformance with municipal standards, codes and policies, thus allowing fast -track processing (via the Community Plan process) of the proposed development. • Provide quality housing for Fontana's growing population. Encourage the continued enhancement of North Fontana's upscale image. • Create a high -quality, residential neighborhood which easily integrates with surrounding development(s). • Provide for (where necessary) adequate infrastructure, and public facilities and services. • Ensure the efficient and safe interlink between interior roadways aid surround- ing streets. • Support the City in achieving its Vision Statement: "The City of Fontana is dedicated to being a safe, well -maintained, family oriented community 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC'NS REP-1» 1-4 LSA Associates, Inc. supported by a diverse, jobs -rich economy, capitalizing in the City's superior location and accessibility." • Ensure the future development is consistent with the City's General Plan and other environmental, planning, and land use regulations. • Promote development which will contribute to the economic well being of the City and the region. • Ensure that the future development is environmentally sound. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify and evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed development. The objective of this environmental document is to inform municipal authorities from the City of Fontana, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects which may be associated with the proposed project. This report describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and methods in which these impacts can be mitigated or avoided. This Initial Study has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq). This environmental document also complies with the procedures of the City of Fontana for implementing CEQA The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for this project under CEQA. In accordance with CEQA, this Initial Study will be madeavailable for public review. The document will be circulated to all responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals for a 20-day review period. Substantive comments received within the review period will be formally responded to and incorporated into the Final Initial Study. 1.5 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate by reference documents that provide relevant data. The documents listed below are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this environmental document, where information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the proposed project. These documents are on file and available for review at the City of Fontana, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California, 92335; Contact Cindy Ousley, Assistant Planner, (909) 350-6694. • City of Fontana, General Plan, Adopted May 15, 1990 • North Fontana Infrastructure Study and Plan, June 1992 • Momingside Community Plan, Adopted July 28, 1997 • SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 • CenterStone at the Landings Community Plan, February 1999. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECNS REP-1.» 1-5 LSA Associates, Inc. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION North Fontana comprises approximately 11,000 acres generally located north of Baseline Avenue. Prior to 1980, the majority of this land remained vacant. In recent years the availability of this land, coupled with an increasing demand for residential units has led to significant growth. As documented in the City's General Plan, most of the area surrounding the project site is already planned for residential development. Specific Plans have been approved or proposed for several developments in the vicinity of the CenterStone site. Recently constructed homes and/or homes in various stages of construction can be found west and east of the project site (Figure 2.1). The project proposes the construction of 76 detached, single-family dwelling units and associated infrastructure on 20.00 acres in northwestern Fontana. The project is bcated 660 feet north of Baseline Avenue, immediately west of Hemlock Avenue. Along its • east -west axis, the project site measures 1,320 feet in length. The project site measures 660 feet along its north -south axis (Figure 2.2) The proposed project may be developed in one phase with all 76 dwelling units built at one time or development may be completed in two phases with either Phase "A" or Phase `B" occurring first. If development takes place in two phases, Phase "A" shall consist of 38 dwelling units located in the northern portion of the project site. Phase "B" shall occupy the southern portion of the project site and shall consist of 38 dwelling units (Figure 2.3). 3/12/990Rf CSP830\PROJECI\IS REP-1» 2-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 CenterStone at The landings Map Source: FMA International, 1999. LEGEND: A HUNTER'S RIDGE (A) B SUMMIT HEIGHTS (A) C SIERRA LAKES (A) D WESTGATE (A) E HERITAGE (WEST END) (A) F " RANCHO FONTANA (A) G CAUFORNIA LANDINGS (A) H WALNUT VILLAGE (A) L CLUBMAN (P) NORTHGATE (A) MORNINGSIDE (A) BELGROVE (A) (NOTA PLANNED COMMUNITY) M CENTERSTONE (P) (A) APPROVED (P) PROPOSED 3/12/99(CSP830) I N Not to Scale Figure 2.1 CenterStone at The Landings North Fontana Planned Communities 1 1 I J 1 i 1 1 1 75 76 j 38 37 (.36 1 39. I • 2) 2 40 35 CenterStone at The Landings Map Source: FMA International, 1999. 2 [61t60159 [51 52• 5 f 55 54 32 '1 31 26 r `1 _ 25 I 33 1 30 27 \ r 24 f (-2; —) 34_ c_..29 28 j c_23 21 8 1-9 10 11 [:21 13 14 15 16 17 18 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Ownership Summary 20 CenterStone gross site area Land Use Summary 20.0 acres CenterStone lots 76 lots Residential - SFD, 7,200sq. ft. min., net area 14.0 acres Perimeter R.O.W. 1.2 acres Internal R.O:W. (Neighborhood Circulation) 4.8 acres Total Community Plan . • 20.0 acres Total residential - SFD acres Residential Density - 5.54 DU/Net acres - Gross site area indudes area up to centerline of perimeter R.O.W. - Perimeter R.O.W. acreage 1 /2 of R.O.W. of adjacent perimeterstreet. - Neighborhood circulation indudes both community entry streets and loci streets. NOTE: ▪ Lotting Is conceptual only. 14.0 acres 3/12/99(CSP830) IN 1LSA 0' 100' 200' Figure 2.2 CenterStone at The Landings Proposed Land Use Plan - Phasing may be completed In one phase with all 76 D.U.'s built at one time or phasing may be completed In two phases with either Phase A (38 D.U.'s) occurring first or Phase B (38 D.U.'s) occurring first (as shown). - This Phasing Plan shows conceptual construction timing for residential and roadway development. Streets and other infrastructure shall be completed In accordance with the tentative tract map Conditions of Approval. - HemlodcAve. Improvements shall be constructed by the owner during phase A - San Sevaine Ave. improvements shall be constructed by the owner during phase B. CenterStone at The landings Map Source: FMA International, 1999. 3/12/99(CSP830) 1 N LSA a 100' 200' Figure 2.3 CenterStone at The Landings Proposed Phasing LSA Associates, Inc. 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The following is a discussion of the existing environmental conditions of the study area that would either affect or be affected by project implementation. 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL/EXISTINGSITE CONDITIONS Land Use The project site is designated as R-PC (Residential - Planned Community) in the Fontana General Plan. The R-PC designation calls for detached, single-family units on lots measuring no smaller than 7,200 square feet. The proposed land use in the CenterStone Community Plan corresponds to this designation. The site is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1- 10,000). Per City Code, approval of the Community Plan will facilitate a subsequent sib development pursuant to R-1-7,200 standards. A zone change will be necessary. The site is currently vacant. As documented in the City's General Plan, most of the area surrounding the project site is already planned for residential development. Specific Plars have been approved or proposed for several developments in the vicinity of the CenterStone site. Recently constructed homes and/or homes in various stages of construction can be found west and east of the project site. Adjacent land uses include but are not limited to tle following: • North - Open grazing lands with disced fire breaks, non-native grasses, scattered trees, and one single-family dwelling (on a 2.2 acre lot). East - Detached, single-family dwellings (7,200 square foot lots) currently occupied and/or in various stages of construction. South - A single-family dwelling occupies a 4.4 acre property southof the project site. The remainder of the land south of the project site is vacant withdisced fired breaks and is vegetated with a variety of non-native grasses and scattered trees Baseline Avenue runs in an east -west direction 660 feet from the site's southern boundary. West- detached, single-family dwellings currently occupied and/or in variousstages of construction. Figure 3.1 illustrates the proposed project site's existing land use. The proposed project's lard use scheme may be reviewed by referring to Figure 2.2. The proposed project may be developed in one phase with all 76 dwelling units built at one time or development may be completed in two phases with either Phase "A" or Phase `B°' occurring first. The proposed project site is not currently connected to water, sewer, or storm drainage systems (Figure 3.2). 3-1 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC111S REP-1» S M M M N M I 1111111 M NM MO MIN INN W OM Approved Morningside Project (currently Iundeveloped adjacent to San Sevaine Ave.) �lJ iJl N5' \✓ CenterStone at The Landings Map Source: FMAInternational, 1999. Open, undeveloped land with non-native grasses and scattered trees Community Plan Boundary \----- 1365' 1360' SITE 1355' Open, undeveloped land with non-native grasses and scattered trees Open, undeveloped land with non-native grasses and scattered trees Lot lines of adjacent parcels Ranch House on2.2acre lot 1-1 WWI Ranch House on4.4acrelot Existing Belgrove Development (7,200 sq. ft. Single Family Lots). INote: The project site and all of the surrounding properties within 300 feet of the project site are designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as R-PC, Residential Planned Community. 3/12/99(CSP830) N 100' 200' Figure 3.1 CenterStone at The Landings Existing Land Use MIN r NM M MI N 11111111 RIM NM R l N N P M — f OS M LEGEND mg • ■ El Existing 16" Water line Existing Earthen Drainage Ditch 10' x 8' Reinforced Concrete Box Storm Drain Existing 12" Sewer line 625'± —MEEIMEEMIXII m =1t111111■Ets m 72 j 71 70 69 68 74 \ i 41 ` 42 43 44 45 46 47 67 661 65 64 r48 63 38 rt� t �1 37 62 61 60 .59 9 50 [5-1 52 5 32 l 31 26 `l 25 39 1 36 2 40 i 3. 4 I 5 ®11gy111112®.31111■1111111111 111•0•1111111 MN CenterStone at The landings Map Source: FMA international, 1999. 00 m ® m 6 35 • 58 / 5 33 30 27 ` 24 34J L 28� L23 I 56 r 55 .22 m m moussamatento oa!mssmo no mammas rat ustraalawara m 21 20 ( 19 Baseline Avenue E 3 1/12/99(CSP830) N LSA- 100' 200' Figure 3.2 CenterStone at The Landings Existing Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Facilities LSA Associates, Inc. Hydrology Groundwater Water supplies for the City and its sphere of influence have traditionally come from groundwater resources, and to a smaller extent, surface flows from Lytle Creek. The project site is underlain by the Chino groundwater basin. The boundaries of the Chino basin are defined by the San Jose and Red Hills faults in the north, the Rialto -Colton fault and the Jurupa mountains on the east, the Pedley Hills and fie Santa Ana River on the south, and the Chino Hills on the west. This basin provides the majority of the domestic water needs for the City of Fontana and the surrounding areas. The groundwater basin has an estimated storage capacity of 13 million acre-feet(1 acre foot equaling approximately 326,000 gallons). Available water in the basin which may be withdrawn is limited to approximately 7.5 million acre-feet. The annual safe yield of the basin (the amount that may be pumped without lowering the wtter table) is 140,000 acre feet. Current pumping rights are set to limit groundwater withdraw to this level. Groundwater flows are generally north to south, from the San Gabriel Mountains toward the valley floor. Recharge of the basin is primarily provided by rainfall and storm runoff, supplemented by imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and reclaimed water from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) (formerly Chino Basin Municipal Water District). Groundwater pumping without equivalent recharge has led to the overdrafting of water resources. IEUA has been appointed as watermaster for the basin, and it regulates the pumping of groundwater at the basin and oversees the recharge of groundwater with imported waters. Imported water is also used to supplement the domestic water supply needs on the area. A total of approximately 280,000 acre-feet of water is used for the domestic needs of the basin every year. Surface Water Surface water within the Chino Basin include Prado Basin and Reservoir, the Santa Ana River and its major tributaries, and numerous washes draining the San Gabriel Mountains. These creeks and numerous smaller washes carry flows only during and just after intermittent storms that typically occur from November through April. Year-round flow in the Santa Ana River occurs from just above the Riverside Narrows to the replenishment areas below Prado Dam. In a normal dry season, flow in the river is composed largely of wastewater effluent discharged from the IEUA regional wastewater treatment plants and the wastewater treatment plants from the cities of Riverside, Corona, Colton, Rialto, and San Bernardino. Except for intermittent, short-term ponding during heavy rainfall events, the project area contains no surface waters. Hydrology The project site is within the alluvial fan of Lytle Creek, with surface flows in a southwest direction. All areas west of Sierra Avenue, including the project site, drain 3/12/99<<R:\CSP830\PROJEC111S REP-1)) 3-4 LSA Associates, Inc. into the San Sevaine channel. San Sevaine channel runs in a south-southwest direction approximately 2.0 miles west of the site. San Sevaine channel handles stormwater runoff from the project site as well as surrounding areas and runs in a southern direction near the western boundary of the City. Major stormwater flows have led to area flooding near San Sevaine channd. The project is outside the 100-year and 500-year floods associated with the San Sevaine channel. Climate and Air Quality Climate The strength and location of a semipermanent, subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean strongly influences the area's climate. Climate is also affected by the moderating effects of differential heating between the land area of California and the adjacent Pacific Ocean. Warm- to- hot summers, mild winters, limited precipitation, moderate daytime on -shore breezes, and moderate humidities characterize local climate conditions. Although annual and seasonal fluctuations are common, the climate of the project area is generally pleasant. Average maximum temperatures range between 44 and 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in winter and 58 to 95°F in summer. Temperatures in excess of 100°F have been recorded during summer months. Precipitation is seasonally variable. Summers are often completely dry, with frequent periods of up to four or five months with no rain. In winter, an occasional storm from high latitudes may sweep across the coast, bringing rain. Annual rainfall is lowest in tle coastal plain and inland valleys, higher in the foothills, and higher in the mountains. Annual rainfall in Fontana averages 14 inches. This rainfall occurs almost exclusively from November to April. Wind patterns in Fontana are similar to those in the remainder of the basin. During the day, the on -shore flow reaches inland across the coastal plain. Winds are generally from the west and have average speeds of 13 miles per hour. During the night, surface radiation cools the air in the surrounding mountains and hills. The air then flows into the valleys and meanders to the coast producing a gentle land breeze. During summer, the nighttime land breeze nearly disappears. Conversely, the daytime sea breeze is weaker and of shorter duration in the winter. Santa Ana winds are occasional winds blowing from the northeast between the months of October and March. Air Quality The project site is located near the eastern edge of the South Coast Air Basin of California. The Basin is a 6,600-square mile area encompassing Orange and the non- desert portion of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the south and west and by the San Bernardino, San Gabriel, and San Jacinto mountains on the north and east. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJEC'NS REP-1» 3-5 LSA Associates, Inc. Biology Winds in the vicinity of the project site control both the initial dilution of locally- generated air pollutants as well as their regional distribution. A day -fine on -shore flow is generally followed by a nighttime land breeze. These conditions generally weaken in summer and winter months, respectively. Air quality readings in the Fontana area for 1992-1997 did not exceed State and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, or sulfur oxides. Between 1990 and 1995, the standards for ozone were exceeded 65 to 144 days per year. The sources of ozone include nitrogen oxide emissions from areas southwest and west of the City. Ambient levels of suspended particulates (PM,() exceeded the State standard between 56.7 to 72.9 percent of the samples in each year. A trend towards decreasing maximum concentrations has been observed. PMto emissions in the immediate project area are principally generated by the disturbance of exposed soils, grading, and excavation activities. Emissions in the immediate project area are principally from vehicles traveling on City streets and the Devore (I-15) Freeway, as well as those generated by area sources, such as adjacent industrial uses, and heavy industries and equipment. Local emissions tend to disperse towards the northeast and east during the day, and slowly drift southwest or south at night. The project site is vacant, which may contribute to paticulate emissions during periods of heavy winds. The project site contains weeds, perennial grasses, and other native and non-native vegetation. The land within the project site is not designated as a natural commmity by the City. Development of the site will result in the loss of approximanly 20.00 acres of vegetation. This vegetation type predominantly consists of introduced plant species which have established themselves following the previous clearing of native plant communities, and they are relatively common throughout the region. No endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats were observed on -site because of historic agricultural practices and recent discing. Several sensitive species were identified as having potential for presence on the site. Only two species, the San Diego horned lizard and Western burrowing owl, were identified as having a low probability of occurrence. The site does not provide suitable habitat for any other potentially occurring endangered, threatened or rare species and are considered absent. The site does not contain any wetland habitat which may be impacted by future development. The nearest intermittent stream (Old San Sevaine Channel) is located approximately 2.0 miles west of the site. No trees of local significance have been identified on site. The project site currently provides open space and could be used as a wildlife corridor. But the presence of paved roadways in the area has required animals to cross the streets to transfer between vacant areas. The project site in itself does not serve as a wildlife dispersal or migration corridor. Raptors may use the site for foraging, but suitable nesting trees are not present on site. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROIEC711S REP-1» 3-6 LSA Associates, Inc. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Circulation Soils The soils within the project area have been identified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service as Tujunga soils. Tujunga soils are somewhat excessively drained, nearly level soils that formed on alluvial fans in granitic alluvium. These soils are brown loamy sand and pale -brown coarse sand that are 60 inches deep or more. They are slightly acidic and rapidly permeable. The on -site soil is Tujunga gravelly loamy sand. This soil occurs on long, broad, smooth alluvial fans, such as the project area. This soil type consists of 15 to 30 percent gravel. Due to its gravel content, this soil has slow to very slow runoffpotential with a slight water erosion hazard. Geology and Seismicity The City of Fontana is located in the western portion of the San Bernardino Valley, south of the San Gabriel Mountains and north of the Jurupa Hills. The City is underlain by unconsolidated alluvium. Fontana's central valley area is relativelyflat. The neatest hillsides are the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains on the north and the Jurupa Hilt on the south. Average on -site elevations range from 1,357 to 1,365 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project site is underlain by alluvial deposits approximately 900 feet thick which rest on a basement of granitic rock. Like most areas of Southern California, the project site is within a seismically active region. No earthquake faults are known to cross the proposed project site. The Cucamonga, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults are located approximately 2.5 miles to the north, 4.3 miles to the northeast, and 10.5 miles northeast, respectively. These faults are credibly estimated to be capable of producing earthquakes of the following magnitudes: Cucamonga Fault - 7.00; San Jacinto - 8.00; and San Andreas - 8.50. Fontana has experienced seven earthquakes with a magnitude of 6.0 or greater within the past 150 years. These events have been attributed to the aforementioned faults. Within the next 100 years, it is expected that the most severe groundshaking at the project site would occur as a result of a large magnitude earthquake along the Cucamonga Fault. It is estimated that such an event would generate amaximum ground generation of approximately 0.47 g. Regional access to the project site is provided by the San Bernardim (I-10) and Devore (I-15) Freeways. I-10 is a major east -west route connecting the City with the Los Angeles metropolitan area and the desert areas to the east. The I-15 Freeway runs in a north -south direction, connecting San. Diego to Victorville, Barstow, Las Vegas, and points north. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECNS_REP-1» 3-7 LSA Associates, Inc. Surface roadways serving the project site include Baseline Avenue on the south and Hemlock Avenue on the east. San Sevaine Avenue will abut the western boundary of the project site. Baseline Avenue is a six -lane divided major arterial near the I-15, narrowing to become a two-lane undivided arterial approximately 0.5 mile west of the project site. This roadway carries approximately 14,000 to 15,300 vehicles per day. A full interchange with I-15 services traffic west of the project site. Hemlock Avenue is a north -south oriented roadway which has been designated as a collector road by the Circulation Element of the Fontana General Plan. "Collectors" are typically two-lane arterials that connect local streets with secondary highways. The intersection of Hemlock and Baseline Avenues is signalized. North of Baseline Avenue, this collector has not been improved to its ultimate width (minimum 60-foot right-of-way). San Sevaine Avenue has been designated as a collector road and will be con- structed/improved in accordance with provisions outlined in the Morningside Community Plan. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP-1» 3-8 LSA Associates, Inc. 1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4.1 TECHNICAL STUDIES In addition to the document(s) incorporated by reference, a biological study and a cultural resources study were prepared to assist in the environmental evaluation for this project. These studies are provided in the technical appendices to this Initial Study. r 4.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1 1 t ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST An Environmental Checklist Form (form) is used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. (The form has been prepared by the resources agency of California to assist local governmental agencies, such as the City of Fontana in complying with the requirements of the statuts and Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQAJ). The form described above has been used to assist in the review of environmental effects of the proposed project with respect to the following issue areas: Land use and planning Hazards Population and housing Noise Geologic problems Public services Water Utility service systems Air quality Aesthetics Transportation/circulation Cultural resources Biological resources Recreation Energy and mineral resources Within each of these issue areas, a series of questions is asked about the project. A brief explanation is then provided for each answer. There are four possible responses to each of the questions on the Environmental Checklist Form: 1. No Impact. This response is used when the proposed project does not have any measurable environmental impact. Less than Significant Impact. This response is used when the potential impact of the project is determined to be below known or measurable thresholds of significance and would not require mitigation. 3: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. This response is used when the project has the potential to have a significant impact that is not expected to occur because: a. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to reduce the impact to a less than significant level; or 3/12/990RACSP830\PROJECTIS REP-1)> 4-1 LSA Associates, Inc. Adherence to existing policies, regulations, and/or design standards would reduce the impact of the project to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impact. This response is used when the project has the potential to have an effect on the environment that is considered to be significant and adverse. Responses to the questions follow each set of questions. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECI\IS REP-1» 4-2 LSA Associates, Inc. Environmental Analysis Checklist Issues: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Land Use & Planning. Would the Proposal: A) Conflict with General Plan Designation or Zoning? ❑ ❑ ■ 0 B) Conflict with Applicable Environmental Plans or Policy of Agencies with Jurisdiction over the 0 0 ■ 0 Project? C) Affect Agricultural Resources or Operations (E.g., Impacts to Soil or Farmlands, or Impacts 0 0 0 ■ from Incompatible Land Uses? D) Disrupt or Divide the Physical Arrangement of an Established Community (Such as a Low- 0 0 0 ■ income or Minority Community)? E) Conflict with Adjacent, Existing or Planned, Land Uses? ❑ ❑ p ■ 2. Population & Housing. Would the Proposal: A) Cumulatively Exceed Adopted Regional or Local Population Projections? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ B) Induce Substantial Growth in an Area Directly or Indirectly Through Projects in an Undevel- 0 0 ■ ❑ oped Area or Extension of Major Infrastructure)? C) Displace Existing Housing? 3. Geological Problems. Would the Proposal Result in or Expose People to Impacts Involving: A) Local Fault, Rupture? 0 ❑ 0 ■ B) Seismic Ground Shaking? 0 0 ■ 0 C) Seismic Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction? 0 0 ■ 0 D) Seismic Seiche or Tsunami? 0 ❑ 0 ■ E) Landslides or Mudslides? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ F) Erosion, Changes in Topography or Unstable Soil Conditions from Excavation, Grading, or ❑ 0 ■ 0 Fill? G) Subsidence of the Land? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ H) Expansive Soils? 0 0 ■ 0 I) Unique Geologic or Physical Features? 0 0 0 ■ 4. Water. Would the Proposal Result In: A) Changes in Absorption Rates, Drainage Patterns, or the Rate and Amount of Surface Runoff? 0 0 ■ 0 B) Exposure of People or Property to Water Related Hazards Such as Flooding? 0 0 ■ 0 C) Discharge into Surface Water or Other Alteration of Surface Water Quality (Temperature, 0 0 ■ 0 Dissolved Oxygen or Turbidity)? D) Changes in the Amount of Surface Water in Any Water Body? ❑ 0 ■ 0 E) Changes in Currents, or the Course or Direction of Water Movements? 0 0 ■ 0 F) Change in the Quantity of Groundwater, Either Through Direct Additions or Withdrawals, or 0 0 ■ 0 Through Interception of an Aquifer by Cuts or Excavations? G) Altered Direction or Rate of Flow of Groundwater? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ H) Impacts to Groundwater Quality? 0 0 ■ 0 ' I) Substantial Reduction in the Amount of Groundwater Otherwise Available for Public Water Supplies? 0 0 0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP —ID 4-3 LSA Associates, Inc. Issues: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. Transportation/circulation. Would the Proposal Result In: A) Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion Beyond Adopted Policies And/or Forecasts? 0 0 ■ ❑ B) Safety Hazards from Design Features (E.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersections) or to 0 0 ■ Incompatible Uses (E.g., Farm Equipment)? C) Inadequate Emergency Access or Access to Nearby Uses? 0 0 0 ■ D) Insufficient Parking Capacity On -site or Off -site? 0 0 0 ■ E) Hazards or Barriers for Pedestrians or Bicyclists? 0 0 0 ■ F) Conflicts with Adopted Policies Supporting Alternative Transportation (E.g., Bus Turnouts, 0 0 0 ■ Bicycle Racks)? G) Rail, Waterborne or Air Traffic Impacts? 6. Air Quality. Would the Proposal: A) Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation? B) Expose Sensitive Population Groups to Pollutants in Excess of Acceptable Levels? C) Alter Air Movement, Moisture, or Temperature, or Cause Any Change in Climate? D) Create Objectionable Odors? 7. Noise. Would the Proposal: A) Increase Existing Noise Levels? B) Expose People to Noise Levels Exceeding Adopted City Standards? 8. Biological Resources. Would the Proposal Result in Impacts To: A) Endangered, Threatened or Rare Species or Their Habitats (Including but Not Limited to ❑ ❑ ■ 0 Plants, Fish, Insects, Animals, and Birds)? B) Locally Designated Species (E.g. Heritage Trees)? C) Locally Designated Natural Communities (E.g. Oak Forest, Coastal Habitat, Etc.)? D) Wetland Habitat (E.g. Marsh, Riparian and Vernal Pool)? E) Wildlife Dispersal or Migration Corridors? F) Adopted Conservation Plans and Policies (E.g., Resource Management Plan)? 9. Aesthetics. Would the Proposal: A) Affect a Scenic Vista or Scenic Highway? B) Have a Demonstrable Negative Aesthetic Effect? C) Create Light or Glare? 10. Cultural/Scientific Resources. Would the Proposal: A) Disturb Paleontological Resources? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ B) Disturb Archaeological Resources? ❑ 0 0 ■ C) Affect Historical Resources? 0 0 ❑ ■ D) Have the Potential to Cause a Physical Change Which Would Affect Unique Ethnic Cultural 0 ❑ 0 ■ Values? E) Restrict Existing Religious or Sacred Uses Within the Potential Impact Area? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ o o ■ o o o ❑ ■ o ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ o o IN o o ❑ ❑ 1 o o o ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑_ ❑ ❑ ■ o o o • ■ ❑ o IN o 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECTVS REP-1» 4-4 LSA Associates, Inc. Issues: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. Recreation. Would Proposal: A) Increase Demand for Neighborhood or Regional Parks or Other Recreational Facilities? 0 ❑ B) Affect Existing Recreational Opportunities? 0 0 C) Conflict with Adopted Recreational Plans and Policies? 0 0 12. Energy & Mineral Resources. Would the Proposal: A) Conflict with Adopted Energy Conservation Plans? 0 0 B) Use Non-renewable Resources in a Wasteful and Inefficient Manner? 0 0 C) Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource That Would Be of Future 0 ❑ Value to the Region and the Residents of the State? 13. Hazards. Would the Proposal Involve: A) Risk of Accidental Explosion or Release of Hazardous Substances (Including, but Not Limited 0 0 To: Oil, Pesticides, Chemical, Gas or Radiation)? B) Possible Interference with an Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan? 0 ❑ C) The Creation of Any Health Hazard or Potential Health Hazard? 0 0 D) Exposure of People to Existing Sources of Potential Health Hazards? 0 ❑ E) Increased Fire Hazard in Designated High Fire Hazard Areas (E.g. Flammable Brush, Grass, ❑ 0 or Trees)? 14. Public Services. Would the Proposal Have an Effect Upon, or Result in a Need for New or Altered Government Services in Any of the Following Areas: A) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ B) Police Protection? ❑ 0 C) Schools? (1) 0 0 D) Maintenance of Public Facilities, Including Roads? 0 0 E) Other Governmental Services? 0 0 15. Utilities & Service Systems. Would the Proposal Result in a Need for New Systems or Supplies, or Substantial Alterations to the Following Utilities: A) Power or Natural Gas? 0 0 B) Communications Systems? ❑ 0 C) Local or Regional Water Treatment or Distribution Facilities? ❑ ❑ D) Sewer or Septic Tanks? 0 0 E) Solid Waste Disposal? 0 0 F) Storm Water Drainage? ❑ 0 G) Local or Regional Water Supplies? 0 0 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Potential to Degrade: Does the Project Have the Potential to Degrac1 the Quality of the Environment, 0 0 Substantially Reduce the Habitat of a Fish or Wildlife Species, Cause aFish or Wildlife Population to Drop below Self-sustaining Levels, Threaten to Eliminate a Plant or Animal Community, Reduce the Number or Restrict the Range of a Rare or EndangeredPlant or Animal, or Eliminate Important Examples of the Major Periods of Califomia History or Prehistory? B. Short -tern Does the Project Have the Potential to Achbve Short-term, to the Disadvantage of Long- ❑ ❑ 0 term, Environmental Goals? • 0 • 0 ❑ ■ ■ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ■ • ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ • ❑ • ❑ • ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ • ❑ • ❑ ■ ❑ • ❑ ■ ❑ 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP-d» 4-5 LSA Associates, Inc. Issues: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Continued) C. Cumulative Imoacts Does the Project Have Impacts That Are Individually Limiter( but Cumulatively ❑ ❑ Considerable? ("Cumulatively Considerable" Means That the Incremental Effects of a Project Are Considerable When Viewed in Connection with the Effects of past Projects, the Effects of Other Current Projects, and the Effects of Probable Future Projects.) D. Adverse impacts on Humans: Does the Project Have Environmental Effects Which Will Cause ❑ 0 ❑ Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings, Either Directly or Indirectly? 18. Earlier Analyses Earlier Analyses May Be Used Where, Pursuant to the Tiering, Program EIR, or Other CEQA Process, One or More Effects Have Been Adequately Analyzed in an Earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) ■ ❑ 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROIECT'dS REP —ID 4-6 t 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 5.0 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM RESPONSES 5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would The Proposal: A. Conflict with General Plan Designation or Zoning? Less than Significant Impact. Residential development will occur on 14.0 acres with an overall density of 5.43 dwelling units per acre. The project site is designated asR-PC (Residential - Planned Community) in the Fontana General Plan. The R-PC designation calls for detached, single-family units on lots measuring no smaller than 7,200 square feet. This proposed land use in the CenterStone Community Plan is consistent with this designation. The site is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1-10, 000). Per City Code, approval of the Community Plan will facilitate a subsequent site development pursuant to R-1- 7,200 standards. A zone change application and approval are necessary. The proposed zoning designation will be consistent with adjacent designations and conforms with the Fontana General Plan and the City's Zoning and Development Code. No significant effects related to consistency with the City's General Plan, Zoning, and Development Code are anticipated. B. Conflict with Applicable Environmental Plans or Policy of Agencies withfurisdiction Over the Project? Less than Significant Impact. The site is within the North Fontana Redevelopment Project Area. Redevelopment of the area is intended to alleviate any blighted conditions as they might presently exist and to improve the condition and setting of existing development. The proposed project will not conflict with the stated goals of the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed project will comply with pertinent provisions, standards and regulations of local and/or regional plans which deal with environmental concerns including, but not limited to; SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional Mobility Plan, the Regional Water Quality Management Plan, the North Fontana Area Water Management Plan, the San Bernardino County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Plan, the North Fontana Infrastructure Study, Caltrans State Route 30 Project, and the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan. As noted in Section 5.6 of this document, the proposed project will contribute additional albeit insignificant, quantities of pollutalts into the airshed. The project's adherence to the Fontana General Plan coupled with compliance with mitigation stated in &ction 5.6 shall reduce effects of the proposed project on all air quality related and/or driven policy plans to less than significant levels. No significant conflicts are anticipated. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC'NS REP-1» 5-1 LSA Associates, Inc. • Affect Agricultural Resources or Operations (e.g., Impacts to Soil or Farmlands, or Impacts from Incompatible Land Uses)? No Impact. The City has approximately 840 acres of agricultural land, consisting mostly of unproductive vineyards. As stated in the City's General Plan, none of this acreage is considered prime agricultural property. The project site is not currently used for agricultural production and does not otherwise contribute to the agricultural productivity of the immediate area, city, region or the state. Development on the site does not involve the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. The proposed project would be expected to have a negligible impact on either agricultural production and resources. D. Disrupt or Divide the Physical Arrangement of an Established Community (Such as a Low - Income or Minority Community)? No Impact. As documented in the City's General Plan, most of the area sur ouncng the project site is already approved and/or planned for residential development. Recently constructed homes and/or homes in various stages of construction can be found west and east of the project site. Two single-family dwellings (one located north, one located south of the proposed project) are located in the vicinity of the project site. No potentid disruption or physical division of an established community exists. No impact is anticipated. Conflict with Adjacent, Existing or Planned, Land Uses? No Impact. The site is currently vacant. Adjacent land uses include but are not limited to the following: North - Open grazing lands with disced fire breaks, non-native grasses, scattered trees, and one single-family dwelling (on a 2.2 acre lot). East - Detached, single-family dwellings (7,200-square-foot lots) currently occupied and/or in various stages of construction. South - A single-family dwelling occupies a 4.4-acre property south of the project site. The remainder of the land south of the project site is vacant with disced fired breaks and is vegetated with a variety of non-native grasses and scattered trees. Baseline Avenue runs in an east -west direction 660 feet from the site's southern boundary. • West - detached, single-family dwellings currently occupied and/or in various stages of construction (Morningside Community Plan). The City's General Plan designates the land surrounding the proposed projectas Planned Community Residential (R-PC). Several approved or proposed Specific Plans have are located in the general vicinity of the project site. Any land use incompatibilities are expected to be nominal. No significant impacts are predicted. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECTs,IS REP--1» 5-2 LSA Associates, Inc. 5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal: A. Cumulatively Exceed Adopted Regional or Local Population Projections? Less than Significant Impact. Based on the City's 1997 average household size of 3.48 persons per housing unit, the 76-unit CenterStone development could increase the City population by 264 persons. Fontana's 1997 population has been estimated at 104,201 residents. Southern California Association ofGovernment (SCAG) projections estimate a population of 167,052 by the year 2010. The City's population at build out is predicted to be 175,080. The proposed project would represent 0.16 percent and 0.15 percent of Fontana's population in the year 2010 and at build out, respectively. The proposed development would represent substantially less than 1 percent ofany future population, and would not result in population increases that exceed either Fontana's of SCAG's projections. No impact related to local or regional population projections is anticipated. B. Induce Substantial Growth in an Area Directly or Indirectly Through Projects in an Undeveloped Area or Extension of Major Infrastructure? Less than Significant Impact. Population growth in the City has been approximately 4 percent annually, while the increase in housing stock grew at 2.4 percent per year. The proposed project is expected to increase the City's 1997 population (104,201) by 0.25 percent. In 1997, the City's housing stock totaled 33,398 units. The increases resulting from the proposed construction of 76 units represents an increase of 0.23 percent in Fontana's housing stock. These increases are not considered substantial. Existing development is located west and east of the proposed development as well as throughout North Fontana. Several residential subdivisions areplanned in the area. The CenterStone development is substantially smaller than other developments in the area. There is no commercial or industrial component to the CenterStone development. The proposed project is not expected to induce the development of other community plans in the surrounding area. The project will require a minimal amount of roadway and utility improvements in the area. These infrastructure improvements will be paid for on a fair -share basis by the new development which benefits from these facilities. The installation of new roadways and utility linesis not expected to serve as an inducement for new residential development in the area. Since most of the adja ent properties have been planned for urban development under various specific plans, the CenterStone development is not expected to significantly promote additional residential development Displace Existing Housing, Especially Affordable Housing? No Impact. The site is currently vacant. No structures will be displaced by the construction of the planned 76 dwelling units. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. 3/12/990R\CSP830\PROJECI\IS_REP-1» 5-3 LSA Associates, Inc. 5.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the Proposal Result in or Expose People to Impacts Involving: A. Local Fault Rupture? No Impact. No faults are known to pass through the site. The proposed development is not within an earthquake fault zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Geobgic Hazard Zones Act of 1972. Thus, on -site fault rupture hazards are unlikely to occur. B. Seismic Ground Shaking? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within a seismically active region. Potential sources of groundshaking hazards include the Red Hill, Rialto -Colton Cucamonga, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults as well as an unnamed fault which runs through Fontana. Each of these faults may generate a seismic event large enough to cause significant damage in the area. The severity of an earthquake is dependent upon numerous factors including earthquake intensity, distance from the epicenter, soil type, moisture content of the soil, and the manner of development in the affected area. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Cucamonga fault would generate ground generations of 0.47 g on site. Earthquakes originating on more distant faults would produce lower ground accelerations. The proposed development will increase the number of persons who will be exposed to seismic hazards associated with the project site. The wood -frame construction that will be used in residential structures on site generally performs well during earthquakes. Split level and irregular floor plans are more susceptible to damage. Earthquake damage to wood -frame, single -family residential structures from near -field sourceswill be slight to moderate, and limited to walls thrown out of plumb, fallen chimneys, and the distortion of foundations and wall elements. Other groundshaking hazards include damage to utility lines, which may result in fires, gas leaks, explosions, hazardous material spills, interruption of utility service, damage to infrastructure. Compliance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zone 4 building construction standards is expected to reduce on -site groundshaking hazards to acceptable levels. Based on this compliance, no significant groundshaking hazards are anticipated with the proposed project. C. Seismic Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The primary potential hazard, in the event of a major earthquake, would be ground motion. Fracturing, cracking, and fissuring of the ground on site during an earthquake are not expected due to the absence of any known earthquake faults or steep slopes in the vicinity of the proposed project. Sediment that are susceptible to liquefaction are generally water -saturated, medium -dense to loose cohesionless soil materials within 50 feet of the surface, with groundwater at similar depths. Groundwater beneath the site is expected to be between 400 and 500 feet below the ground surface. Thus, the site has a low liquefaction potential. Potential geologic 3/12/991<R:\CSP830\PROJECTt S REP--1» 5-4 LSA Associates, Inc. and seismic hazards associated with project implementation would be reduced by designing the project to comply with the City's most recent seismic design standards. D. Seismic Seiche, Tsunami or Volcanic Hazard? No Impact. The geographic location and elevation of the project site precludes effects from tsunamis. No existing reservoirs or bodies of water are present near the site. The nature (residential development) of the proposed project precludes construction of reservoirs or other water storage facilities. Therefore, seismically induced seiches are not a concern within the boundaries of the project site. The proposed development is not located near a volcano. Thus, no hazard from volcanic activity is anticipated. E. Landslides or Mudslides? No Impact. The site is relatively flat, with slopes of less than 2 percent. The nearest hillside areas are the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 5.7 miles north. Further, the general site vicinity is not subject to any known mudflow hazards. No landslide or mudflow hazards are anticipated. • Erosion, Changes in Topography or Unstable Soil Conditions from Excavation, Grading or Fill? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is relatively flat. Construction of the proposed project would involve a limited amount of earth moving activities. Grading to accommodate the project would not be expected to substantially modify the general topography of the site. The absence of existing or proposed steep slopes would substantially limit any water erosion hazards. Unconsolidated alluvial soils found on site have a moderate to high wind erosion potential. Strong winds on site may erode exposed on -site soils. This action would generate fugitive dust and PM10. The implementation of erosion control measures such as watering, the use of soil binders, soil covering, or revegetation would reduce the wind erosion potential to a less than significant level. G. Subsidence of the Land? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in an area of known subsidence. Such a hazard is typically the result of fluids extractionbeneath surface features which in part, are dependent upon these fluids for support and stability. The project area has not been subjected to oil drilling activities. The project will not be pumping groundwater. Groundwater levels have remained relatively stable over the last 16 to17 years. No impacts related to subsidence are expected. 3/12/99«R\CSP830\PROJEC US REP-1» 5-5 LSA Associates, Inc. H. Expansive Soils? Less Than Significant Impact. Tujunga soils are not subject to excessive expansive hazards. In accordance with standard practice, testing during grading activities will be performed to ensure the absence of expansive soils. Grading criteria, general earthwork and grading specifications associated with the project will be required to ensure that compressible/collapsible and/or expansive soil materials will be excavated and removed, or recompacted to prevent ground settlement or expansion. Engineering and construc- tion methods, including reinforced foundations, could be applied to prevent any significant expansive soils hazards exposure. A less than significant impact is anticipated in relation to expansive soils. I. Unique Geologic or Physical Features? No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and does not contain any unique geologic feature. The nearest geologic feature are the San Gabriel Mountains, located 5.7 miles to the north, the Jurupa Hills, located 6 miles to the south, and Lytle Creek, located6 miles to the east/northeast. Because the site's topography will change little and no unique geologic feature will be disturbed, no impact is anticipated. 5.4 WATER. Would the Proposal Result In: A. Changes in Absorption Rates, Drainage Patterns, or the Rate and Amount of Surface Runoff? Less than Significant Impact. Currently, drainage occurs as surface flows move across the site in a southwest direction. The proposed project will involve paving and construction on a vacant site. These activities would result in a slight increase in the amount of surface runoff due to an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on site. The proposed project will lead to the controlled diversion of surface runoff towards on -site curbs and gutters. The runoff caused by an increase in impervious surfaces is not anticipated to result in a significant impact since the increase in imperviots surfaces over that which presently exists is minor. The ground absorption area in the Chino Basin exceeds 192,000 acres. The loss of permeable surfaces is minor when compared to the Basin's total available ground absorption area. The additional runoff anticipated is minor compared to the capacity of the San Sevaine Channel, which drains the majority of the City of Fontana: Based on aforementioned conditions, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on groundwater resources, on- and off- site drainage patterns, or surface runoff. B. Exposure of People or Property to Water Related Hazards Such as Flooding? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is outside any identified 100-year and 500-year flood plain as identified in Fontana's General Plan. There are no flood hazards 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECT11S REP--1» 5-6 LSA Associates, Inc. on site. Overflow of the San Sevaine Channel has led to localized flooding near the western edge of the City, but has not affected the project site (approximately 2.0 miles to the east). There are no nearby bodies of water or dams which pose an inundation hazard. No significant flood exposure is anticipated for future residents of the proposal development. C. Discharge into Surface Water or Other Alteration of Surface Water Quality (Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen or Turbidity)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to cause changes in the quality of surface water. Construction of the proposed development will require grading and excavation activities which may allow eroded soils and other pollutants to enter the storm drain system. Storm runoff from roadway surfaces tainted by sediment, petroleum products, commonly utilized construction materials and to a lesser extent, trace metals such as zinc, copper, lead, cadmium and iron, may lead to the degradation of stormwater in San Sevaine Creek and downstream channels. In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and as monitored by the Fontana Public Services Department, the developer shall comply with NPDES requirements regarding the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Thus, no impacts to surface water quality is anticipated. D. Changes in the Amount of Surface Water in Any Water Body? Less than Significant Impact. The San Sevaine Channel drains an area of several thousand acres. The runoff from the proposed project will eventually be conveyed to this watercourse. The proposed project will increase the amount of surface runoff due to paving and construction on land that is currently vacant. The increase in impervious surface area is relatively minor when compared to the watershed and capacity of the Sal Sevaine Channel. For this reason, any increased runoff resulting from the proposed development is not anticipated to create a significant impact. E. Changes in Currents, or the Course or Direction of Water Movements? Less than Significant Impact. Lytle Creek is located approximately 6 miles north/northeast of the project site and San Sevaine Channel is located approximately 2 miles to the west. Runoff from the project site will beminimal and would be incapable of measurably changing the current, course, or direction of the waters in either of these drainages. No significant effect is expected in regard to the curent, course or direction of water movements. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC"I11S REP-1» 5-7 LSA Associates, Inc. F. Change in the Quantity of Groundwater, Either Through Direct Additions or Withdrawals, through Interception of an Aquifer by Cuts or Excavations or through Substantial Loss of Groundwater Recharge Capability? Less than Significant Impact. No on -site wells are planned. The proposed project does not involve the direct addition or withdrawal of groundwater resources. On -site excavation activities are not expected to exceed 10 feet below the surface. Since groundwater beneath the project site has been measured between 400 to 500 below the surface, construction activity associated with the proposed development will not intercept the groundwater table. Areawide, groundwater recharge in the Chino Basin is made through the San Sevaine and Rich recharge basins, as well as alluvial fans near Lytle Creek at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The ground absorption area in the Chino Basin exceeds 192,000 acres. The loss of permeable surfaces resulting from the proposed project represents a minor loss of recharge area. This loss of groundwater recharge capability is not anticipated to create a significant impact. G. Altered Direction or Rate of Flow of Groundwater? No Impact. No on -site wells are planned. On -site excavation activities are not expected to exceed 10 feet below the surface. Since groundwater beneath the project site has been measured between 400 to 500 below the surface, construction activity associated with the proposed development will not intercept the groundwater table. The Chino Basin Watermaster adjudicates the use of water resources in the basin and, in order to prevent overdrafting, ensures that the amount of water pumped from the basin is replenished by rainfall and/or imported water. The proposed project's total daily water requirement is estimated at 43,700 gallons. Water service will be provided bythe Fontana Water Company (FWC), which obtains its supply from groundwater wells in the area and surface water from Lytle Creek. The FWC has indicated that the projects's water demand can be met by the Company's supply. The proposed project is not expected to create water demands that could alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. No impact is anticipated. H. Impacts to Groundwater Quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the paving of currently vacant land. Storm runoff from roadway surfaces tainted by sediment, petroleum products, commonly utilized construction materials and to a lesser extent, trace metals such as zinc, copper, lead, cadmium and iron, via infiltration into aquifers, have the potential to cause changes in the quality of groundwater. Substances utilized for landscaping purposes (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) could contribute to groundwater pollution. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECIMS REP-1)) 5-8 LSA Associates, Inc. The amount of contaminants reaching groundwater is expected to be minimal over existing conditions in the project area. Any concentration of contaminates would be highly diluted. Adherence to NPDES requirements will significantly reduce any groundwater contamhation hazard resulting from surface runoff. In addition, landscaping products are expected to be primarily absorbed by plant material. Trace amounts of these substances may not be absorbed but are not expected to reach the groundwater water, 400 to 500 feet below the gourd surface. Thus, no substantial impacts to groundwater quality or its beneficial uses are expected. Substantial Reduction in the Amount of Groundwater Otherwise Available for Public Wale. Supplies? No Impact. The proposed project is estimated to require approximately 43,700, gallons of water per day for domestic use and landscape irrigation. This water demand is minimal what compared to the amount of water pumped from the Chino Basin each day (383.56 acre/feet per day; 1 acre foot is equivalent to approximately 326,000 gallons). The proposed project would not contribute to a decrease in the amount of groundwater available for public water supplies. No adverse impact is anticipated. 5.5 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the Proposal Result In: A. Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion Beyond Adopted Policies And/or Forecasts? Less than Significant Impact. Based on trip generation factors published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (Trip Generation.6th Edition), the proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 718 daily vehicle trips. Approximaaly 56 vehicle trips are expected during the A.M. peak hour and 76 during the P.M. peak hour. The slight increase in vehicle trips resulting from the proposed development is below the threshold established by the City requiring additional traffic studies. Figure 5.1 illustrates the project's proposed circulation plan. The developer shall participate in the City's circulation fee program through tle payment of appropriate fees or construction in lieu of fees. Thus, significant impacts related to roadway congestion or vehicular trips is not anticipated. B. Safety Hazards from Design Features (E.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., Farm Equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project will feature internal streets with a minimum 50-foot right- of-way. Project roadways will reflect designs and standards in full compliance will applicable City requirements (Figure 5.2). The Community Plan developers will construct half street improvements for both the perimeter roadways and full street improvements fcr internal roadway. Hemlock Avenue improvements shall be constructed by the developer during Phase "A." The developer will improve San Sevaine Avenue during Phase "B." The stated roadway improvements shall be completed if the proposed project is developed in one phase with, all 76 dwelling units built at one time. The proposed project does not include commercial, industrial, recreational or agricultural components. No sharp turns ordangerous corners will be constructed on site. Impacts resulting from conflicts with incompatible uses are not expected. 3/12/99<<R:\CSP830\PROJEC \IS REP-1» 5-9 74 72 71 70 r t 75 2 43 44L546 47 148 LJ50 51 52 f53 I 69j 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 .61. 60 1 ! 54 38 , 37 32 31 26 rh' 25 -- .11 os 39 •i 36 33 i 30 27 'i ( 24 I %22 __-� I 'l 40 � 35 34 J � 29. 28 J � 23 I `21 st -J... Ji 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 I13 I14 I15 LEGEND imagnictsawasn Collector Street Primary & Secondary Community Entry Street 64' Entry Road -'Collector' Local Residential Street 54' Long Local Road "Community Through Street" Local Residential Street 50' Short Loral Road CenterStone at Th Landings Map Source: FMA International, 1999. 16 17 20 Notes: - Local road locations are conceptual only. Exact locations will be determined via the tentative tract maps(s). (see Figure 5.2 "Street Sections") 3/12/99(CSP830) 100' 200' Figure 5.1 CenterStone at The Landings Proposed Circulation Plan 1 11111 11111 1 ! 111111 101111 1 1111 1 111111 1111111 1 11111 1 S'MUG UTILITY EASEMENT (P.IM) S PRIMARY COMMUNITY ENTRY STREET - HEMLOCK AVE. COLLECTOR 'EAST ENTRY' EASEMENT (P E. S_3/SWALK 1 I2PARKWAY rPUBLIC IT UrY EASE 1ENr(P.U.EI ram17I I vruaucur nYEASEMENT (RUA) 20 IYP rWAAIYSIS 1 1 R.O.W. SECONDARY COMMUNITY ENTRY STREET - SAN SEVAINE AVE. COLLECTOR 'WEST ENTRY' CenterStone at The Iandinsi Map Source: FMA International, 1999. CENTERSTONE MEANOFNNc WALK MEANDERING 'WALK ,s� �i ,' T. �. L ,sue 21' PARKWAY ~`SO1AXl _ S( mix)'� 21' PARKWAY 41 4sr CZNT RSTONE a! �pYWAtL MEANDERING WNJC$Ii EwAY Ir (MIN.) IP(MAX) r 21' PARKWAY 41' COLLECTOR (SAN SEVAINE AVE.) SEE COMMUNITY WALL PLAN, EXHIBIT 18 FOR WALL TYPES (MAX) 20 2v compluirrWALL MEANDERING -. WALK/BIKEWAY 21' PARKWAY II' COLLECTOR (HEMLOCK AVE.) SEE COMMUNITY WALL PLAN, EXHIBIT 18 FOR WALL TYPES SIDE YARD FRONT YARD • PUBLIC UTILITtS EASEMENTL) I`1 WAL r SO' OR Sit I.O.W. wax PUBLIC Im .rry I EASEMENT (P.U.L) r LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET 50' SHORT LOCAL STREET 54'LONG rnaoU 3/12/99(CSP830) LSA Figure 5.2 CenterStone at The Landings Street Sections LSA Associates, Inc. C. Inadequate Emergency Access or Access to Nearby Uses? No Impact. The proposed development does not serve as an emergency route to nearby uses. Primary access to the proposed development will be via Hemlock Avenue. This roadway is designated as a "collector" by the Fontana General Plan with a 68-foot right- of-way. Secondary access will be via San Sevaine Avenue, which is designated as a "collector" with a 68-foot right-of-way. A temporary street access may be built as a secondary access at Hemlock Avenue if San Sevaine Avenue is not yet constructed at the time of the first phase of development. Adjacent uses are primarily vacant and have direct access to local streets. Approval of the site plan by the San Bernardino County Fire Department will ensure that the emergency access to on -site structures is adequate. No significant impacts as they relate to emergency access are anticipated. D. Insufficient Parking Capacity On Site or Off Site? No Impact. The proposed project will provide on -site parking garages for individual dwelling units. Additional on -street parking shall be allowed within residential streets. No commercial or industrial uses are included in the proposed project. The stated parking provisions are adequate to serve the needs of the development. No significant parking -related impacts associated with the proposed project are anticipated. E. Hazards or Barriers for Pedestrians or Bicyclists? No Impact. The introduction of pedestrians and bicyclists to the area may increase the potential for accidents between motor vehicles, pedestrians and/or bicyclists. A bikeway link will be provided to the Citywide system. Bike lane sigiage and crosswalks will be provided at street intersections to allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. Brsed on the foregoing, no significant hazards or barriers are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. • Conflicts with Adopted Policies Supporting Alternative Transportation (e.g., Bus Turnouts, Bicycle Racks)? No Impact. Public transportation in Fontana is provided by Omnitrans and Metrolink. Omnitrans functions as a joint powers agency supported by the County of San Bernardino and all the cities in the east and west San Bernardino Valley. Bus routes run through areas east, west, and south of the site. Metrolink provides commuter rail service between various cities throughout Southern California. A Metrolink station is located approximately 3 miles southeast of the proposed development. A bikeway link will be provided to the Citywide system. Bus turnouts and bus stop locations shall be incorporated into the proposed project. The proposed project does not contradict or conflict with alternative transportation practices and/or policies as stated in the City's General Plan. No adverse impacts are expected. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJEC US REP—i» 5-12 LSA Associates, Inc. G. Rail, Waterborne or Air Traffic Impacts? No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of 76 detached, single- family dwelling units and the installation of necessary infrastructure. No structure will exceed City height standards. The nearest air facility is Rialto Municipal Airport (approximately 4 miles to the east). Ontario International Airport is located approxi- mately 14 miles to the scuthwest. The proposed project would not hamper operations at these or any other air traffic facility. The nearest railroad is the Southern Pacific Railroad, located approximately 0.7 mile south of the site. Metrolink provides commuter rail service between various cities throughout Southern California. A Metrolink station is located approximately 3 miles southeast of the proposed development. The slight increase in population generated by the proposed project may increase the number of persons utilizing Metrolink facilities. Any such increase is expected to be insignificant. The proposed development will not produce significant impacts as they relate to rail traffic. No waterborne traffic takes place in the vicinity of the proposed improvements. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with this issue. 5.6 AIR QUALITY. Would the Proposal: A. Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute to an Existing or Projected Air Quality violation? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is below SCAQMD thresholds for operational and construction emissions. Operational Emissions The proposed project calls for the construction on 76 detached, single-family homes. Air quality emissions associated with these homes will include both mobile (vehicle trips) and stationary (emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption, barbeques and fireplaces, etc.) sources. SCAQMD guidelines state that residential developments of less that 166 dwelling units fall beneath the threshold of significance as related to air quality. Thus, the proposed development is beneath the threshold of significance as established by SCAQMD. No air quality study is required. Construction Emissions Air pollutants would be generated during project construction, primarily from grading and excavation of the site. These activities will lead to fugitive dust caused by earth disturbance, PM10, and pollutants from construction equipment, construction crew vehicle trips, and truck trips during construction. It is estimated that 100 pounds of fugitive dust per acre per day and 26.4 pounds of PM10 per acre disturbed per day may be generated during grading and excavation activities. Soil erosion may increase during 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECNS REP-1» 5-13 LSA Associates, Inc. periods of intense Santa Ana wind activity. The project will require thegrading of 20.00 acres. The proposed project does not exceed SCAQMD's thresholds of significance (1.3 million square feet of residential floor area and/or 177 acres of grading). Construction emissions are expected to be typical of a project of this type and are not anticipated to be generated in amounts that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. No air quality study is required. Standard Conditions. There are standard requirements with which all development projects in the Basin are required to comply. The following summarizes these standard requirements applicable to the proposed project. The project would be required by law to comply with regional rules 403 and 402, which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property lire of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. These dust suppression techniques are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques, as required by the SCAQMD, can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PMio component) by 50 to 75 percent. Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. • Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a perbd of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown. All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph during construction. • All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 episodes. All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC7\1S REP-1» 5-14 LSA Associates, Inc. Equipment Exhausts Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and firm the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment for the project would result in localized exhaust emissions. Based on analysis of similar projects, construction emissions associated with the proposed project have been estimated and are shown in Table 5.A. As shown, when properly coordinated, construction equipment emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds for the criteria pollutants of NOx, ROC, CO, SOx, and PM10. Table 5.A - Daily Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions Number and No. of Hours in Pollutants (Lbs/day) Equipment Type' Operation CO ROC NO. SOx PM10 1 - Off -Hwy Trucks 4 10.8 1.2 25.0 2.7 1.5 2 - Motor Graders 6 1.8 0.5 8.6 1.0 0.7 1- Scrapers 4 5.1 1.2 15.4 1.9 1.6 2 - Tracked Loaders 4 1.6 0.8 6.6 0.6 0.5 1- Wheeled Dozers 6 10.8 1.2 25.0 2.7 1.0 2 - Tracked Tractors 4 2.8 1.0 10.0 1.2 1.0 TOTAL 33 6 91 10 6 Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 Significant? NO NO NO NO NO Note: ' Emission factors provided in EPA, AP-42, Volume II. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1998. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing, exposure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity and construction crew may be exposed to blowing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. 'A near balance of project related soil is anticipated. Therefore, a limited amount of debris would be imported or exported from the project site, minimizing the exhaua emissions from haul trucks and dust from soil transfer. Based on a method developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), each acre of graded surface creates about 26.4 pounds (12 kilograms) of 3/12/99«R\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP-1» 5-15 LSA Associates. Inc. PM10 per workday during the construction phase of the project and 21.8 pounds (9.9 kilograms) of PM10 per hour from dirt/debris pushed per dozer. The rules addressing the regulation and mitigation measures for fugitive dust emissions shall be adhered to during the construction process. Asphalt Paving Emissions Implementation of the proposed project would involve the pavement of the improved roadways with asphalt. There would be VOC emissions associated with asphalt pavirg process. The rules that address the regulation and mitigation measures for asphalt paving during road development shall be adhered to during the construction process. Mitigation Measures Adherence to existing policies, regulations, and/or design standards would reduce the impact of the project to a less than significant level. The following standard measures shall be implemented. The following measures are provided to reduce air pollutants generated by vehicle and equipment exhaust during the project construction phase: • The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used onsit based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. • The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel -powered equipment in lieu of gasoline -powered engines where feasible. • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities soas to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall beretained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharingand transit incentives for the construction crew. • Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site and keep to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. 3/12/990R\CSP830\PROJECTUS REP-1)> 5-16 LSA Associates, Inc. a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. B. Expose Sensitive Population Groups to Pollutants in Excess of Acceptable Levels? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development would create short-term and long-term air quality impacts which may affect sensitive receptors. Short -Term (Construction Related) During construction, fugitive dust and PM10 emissions may affect adjacent residences at Rancho Fontana and Momingside. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 will reduce the effect of these pollutants. No additional adverse impacts regarding short-term air impact are anticipated. Long -Term (Operations Related) The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is CO. CO is a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely lmited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentra- tions proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentration, modeling of CO concentrations is recommended in determining a project's effect on local CO levels. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECTNIS REP-1» 5-17 LSA Associates, Inc. Most intersections in the vicinity of theproposed project, including Baseline, Cherry and Hemlock avenues operate at LOS D or better. This level of service is noted for "tolerable delays." No nearby sensitive receptors would be significantly affected by any project related local air quality impact. No adverse impacts are anticipated. The project would not have a long-term impact on air quality because emissions generated would be less than the threshold established by AQMD (please see response to question 5.6-A above). C. Alter Air Movement, Moisture, or Temperature, or Cause Any Change in Climate? No Impact. The proposed project will feature detached, single-family homes, typical of homes found in nearby developments. Construction of the proposed development would not affect existing local air movement patterns, alter temperatures in the area or affect other climatic conditions in the project study area. Thus the proposed project has no impact on these conditions. D. Create Objectionable Odors? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate new odors, in and of itself; however, short-term odor impacts (i.e., diesel fumes, asphalt paving) associated with project construction may occur during construction. These fumes would dissipate quickly, and do not pose a potentially significant odor impact. The proposed development will consist of detached, single-family residences, which are not expected to create objectionable odors. 5.7 NOISE. Would the Proposal: A. Increase Existing Noise Levels? Less than Significant Impact. Noise is generally referred to as unwanted sound. The annoyance produced by noise depends on its duration, loudness time of day, impulse characteristics, tonal content, variability and, season of the year, and the auditory sensitivity of the recipient. While the individual response to noise in variable, it is generally accepted that noise is any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation and sleep. The major source of noise in the area surrounding the proposed development would be vehicular noise. Development of the proposed project will result in an increase in vehicles on local street and corresponding increase in noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project. The Noise Element of the Fontana General Plan has established the acceptable range of ambient noise levels for various land uses in the City. Interior noise levels shall be kept at 45 dB CNEL or lower for residential uses and exterior noise levels at 65 dB CNEL for all uses. The Fontana Noise Ordinance limits construction and demolition activities to weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Noise from stationary sources is also regulated to prevent public nuisance. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP-d» 5-18 LSA Associates. Inc. As stated in the Morningside Community Plan (approved July 28, 1997), the 65 dB CNEL extends approximately 88 feet from the centerline of Baseline Avenue (year 1997). Future noise of this level would extend approximately 130 feet from the roadway centerline in the year 2015. The 60 dB CNEL extends about 276 feet (year 1997) and 399 feet (year 2015) from the centerline of Baseline Avenue. The southern boundary of the proposed project is positioned 660 feet north of Baseline Avenue. The proposed project is located beyond both the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours. Therefore, no significant adverse impact from noise increases in excess of the City's standards is expected. Upon completion, the proposed project would generate a slight increase in the number of new traffic trips to, from or through the project site. Such an increase is not expectd to add a significant new noise source along the surrounding roadways. Other than residential units located west and east of the proposed project, there are no existing noise sensitive uses in the project vicinity that would be significantly disturbed by the construction noise or vehicular traffic. No significant impacts related to the increase in noise levels is forecast. B. Expose People to Noise Levels Exceeding Adopted City Standards? Less than Significant Impact. Certain activities are particularly sensitiveto noise. These include sleeping, studying, reading, leisure, and other activities requiring intense concentration and/or relaxation. Residential units are considered exceptionally noise- sensitive, especially during nighttime hours. In addition, churches, schools, libraries, hospitals, and convalescent homes are sensitive to elevated noise levels. During construction activities, nearby land uses may be exposed to periodic short-term noise levels in excess of the City of Fontana's threshold levels. East and west of theproposed project, residential development units have been constructed or are in the varbus stages of construction. Vacant lots currently occupy land north and south of the site. No land use other than residential dwelling units have beenrecognized in the immediate area of the proposed project. Due to the short-term nature of on -site construction activities, the absence of sensitive receptors adjacent to the project, and the restrictions on nighttime and weekend work (as imposed by the City of Fontana Noise Ordinance), potential noise impacts are considered less than significant. [Proper sound attenuation will be provides by a combination of building setback, sound wall construction, and building type location. The four corner lots at the San Sevaine Avenue and Hemlock Avenue entries will be built with single story homes.] No long-term adverse impacts as they relate to noise level are anticipated. 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal Result in Impacts To: [Responses to the following questions are based on a biological survey conducted on September 14, 1998 and biological report located in Appendix A.] 3/12/990R\CSP830\PROJECTMS REP-1» 5-19 LSA Associates, Inc. A. Endangered, Threatened or Rare Species or Their Habitats (Including but Not Limited to Plants, Fish, Insects, Animals, and Birds)? Less than Significant impact. No endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats were observed on -site because of historic agricultural practices and recent discing. Several sensitive species were identified as havingpotential for presence on the site. Only two species, the San Diego horned lizard and Western burrowing owl, were identified as having a low probability of occurrence. The site does not provide suitable habitat for any other potentially occurring endangered, threatened or rare species and ate considered absent. No state- or federal -listed plant or wildlife species were observed or are expected to occur on the proposed development site. No adverse impacts related to endangered, threatened or rare species is forecast. B. Locally Designated Species (e.g., Heritage Trees) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Fontana has an adopted Tree Preservation Ordinance which designates eucalyptus windrows, the European olive tree, and protected and/or endangered tree, and any other trees of historical or cultural value as heritage trees. In addition, a variety of other trees are considered to be significant trees. These include trees 20 feet or higher with a 6-inch diameter, and coast live oak, engleman oak, southern California black walnut, fan palm, deodar cedar, California sycamore, and London plane trees. If disturbed or removed due to development, applicable trees require replacement or relocation in accordance with the City's Preservation of Heritage and Significant Trees Ordinance, Chapter 28, Article III. Payment of a fee is also acceptable. No trees of local significance were identified on site. As part of the landscaping plan for the project, a large variety and number of trees will be planted on -site. These trees may also serve as nesting habitats for birds in the area. No impact is anticipated. C. Locally Designated Natural Communities (E.g. Oak Forests, Coastal Habitats, etc.) No Impact. The project site contains weeds, perennial grasses and other native and non- native vegetation. The land within the project site is not designated as a natural community by the City. Development of the site will result in the loss of approximaely 20.00 acres of vegetation. This vegetation type predominantly consists of introduced plant species which have established themselves following the previous clearing of native plant communities, and they are relatively common throughout the region. Therefore, the loss of existing vegetation from the site will not adversely impact natural communities. The removal of vegetation will, in turn, result inthe loss of habitat and wildlife currently occupying the site. Wildlife use of the site was observed and is expected to be limited to relatively few species that can adapt to altered habitat conditions. These wildlife species are characteristic of rural and suburban habitats, and are common in the region. As a result, impacts to habitats and wildlife in general will 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP-1» 5-20 LSA Associates, Inc. not be significantly adverse. Given the foregoing, no further assessment of this issue is warranted. • Wetland Habitats (e.g. Marsh, Riparian and Vernal Pool)? No Impact. The site does not contain any wetland habitat which may be impacted by future development. The nearest intermittent stream (Old San Sevaine Channel) is located approximately 2.0 miles west of the site. The proposed project will have no impact on wetland habitat, and as a result, no further assessment of this issue is warranted. E. Wildlife Dispersal or Migration Corridors? No Impact. The project site currently provides open space and could be used as a wildlife corridor. But the presence of paved roadways in the area has required animals to cross the streets to transfer between vacant areas. The project site in itself does not serve as a wildlife dispersal or migration corridor. Raptors may use the site for foraging, but suitable nesting trees are not present on -site. Thus, construction of the proposed project will not obstruct wildlife migration. Since no sensitive species are known to inhabit the area, this impact is not considered significant, and no further assessment of the issue is warranted. ▪ Adopted Conservation Plans and Policies (e.g., Resource Management Plan)? No Impact. The proposed project will comply with all applicable conservation plans established by City of Fontana and other state and federal entities. No significant impact is anticipated. 5.9 AESTHETICS. Would the Proposal? A. Affect a Scenic Vista or Scenic Highway? No Impact. The project site consists of vacant land. Surrounding uses include low - density, single-family residences, open space, distribution/warehouse type operations (southwest of the site, across Baseline Avenue), scattered trees, and utility lines. Eucalyptus windrows may be seen southeast of the site, along Baseline Avenue. To the north, views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are possible. Mount San Gorgonio and Mount San Bernardino can be viewed to the east. The proposed development consists of detached, single-family dwelling units. While neighborhoods south of the proposed development may have their northern views disturbed, these areas will maintain their views to the south and east. The proposed project is substantially removed from any roadway upon which aesthetic controls have been placed. Views along roadways and setbacks will continue to allow for views in 3/12/99((R:\CSP830\PROJEC111S REP-1» 5-21 LSA Associates. Inc. each direction. No significant impacts upon scenic vistas or highways attributable to tle proposed project are anticipated. B. Have a Demonstrable Negative Aesthetic Effect? No Impact. The proposed development will result in the construction of 76 detached, single-family homes on 20.00 acres of previously vacant land. Components of the Community Plan address project landscaping, walls, and entry treatments. The project will be required to be designed and constructed in full compliance with the design guidelines of the proposed Community Plan, the Community Design Element of the Fontana General Plan, as well as pertinent regulations in the City's Zoning and Development Code. These provisions, as well as review by the City's Planning Commission will ensure that the physical and visual qualities of the proposed developments are compatible with adjacent developments. No significant impacts are forecast. C. Create Light or Glare? Less than Significant Impact. Street light are found along the north side of Baseline Avenue and are planned to be installed on the median when this roadway is constructed to its ultimate width. As previously stated, the proposed project will lead to the construction of 76 dwelling units on 20.00 acres. Light poles, streetlights, and interior lighting shall be required to ensure a safe and secure nighttime environment. Additional light sources will be generated from the entry and exit of vehicles into and from the proposed project. These new light sources may impact neighboring uses. Review of proposed project's lighting plan, through the use ofpole design, lights shields, intensity control, and other features and policies, is expected to reduce the potential for adverse light and glare impacts. Such a review shall be required prior to obtainingdevelopment review approval. Compliance with the City's Zoning and Development Code as it relates to lighting will further reduce any potential impacts. Based on these criteria, no significant impacts pertaining to light or glare attributable to light and/or glare is anticipated. 5.10 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES. Would the Proposal: [Responses to the following questions are based on a cultural resources survey conducted on September 14, 1998 and information contained in the Cultural Resources Survey Report in Appendix B.] A. Disturb Paleontological Resources? No Impact. The project area may have been disturbed during past agricultural activities and urban development. Although the project area's soils consist of Pleistocene or olds alluvium (of the San Timoteo Formation), which are highly sensitive for paleontological 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECTIS REP-1» 5-22 LSA Associates, Inc. resources, the archeological study for the site indicates that there is limited potential for any on -site paleontological resources. No significant impact is anticipated. B. Disturb Archaeological Resources? No Impact. The project area is considered to be the territory of the Gabrielino or Serrano Indians. Based on research and field studies, no prehistoric or historical archeological resources are present in the project area. None were found as a result of the archeological survey nor had any been previously recorded within the project area. Past activities are believed to have been disturbed or damaged any in situ archeological resources. As a precaution, the following measures will be implemented to assure the protection of potential sub -surface cultural resources. • In the event any paleontological, archeological or historical resource is uncovered during the course of the project, ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find would be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If human remains are encountered during construction, State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The San Bemardino County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours. If the coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric , the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involved with the disposition of the burial following scientific analysis. C. Affect Historical Resources? No Impact. There are no structures on site which may be considered historic. The proposed project is 660 feet north of Baseline Avenue, which is designated as a California Point of Historic Interest. No impact on this roadway is anticipated. D. Have the Potential to Cause a Physical Change Which WouldAffect Unique Ethnic Cultural Values? No Impact. The project area consists of vacant land. There are no unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the site. No impact as it relates to these values is expected. E. Restrict Existing Religious or Sacred Uses Within the Potential Impact Area? No Impact. There are no religious or sacred uses on site which may be affected by the proposed development. Churches located on Highland Avenue (approximately 2 miles to northeast) and Citrus Avenue (approximately 3 miles east) will not be affecbd by the 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP-1» 5-23 LSA Associates, Inc. proposed development. No significant impact on religious/sacred uses attributable to the proposed project are expected. 5.11 RECREATION. Would the Proposal: A. Increase Demand for Neighborhood or Regional Parks or Other Recreational Facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development consists of 76 detached, single-family dwellings. Based on the 1997 household size of 3.48 persons per household, the proposed project will increase the City's populationby up to 264 persons. Based on Fontana's parkland requirement of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents, the proposed development will require 1.32 acres of parkland to meet the City's standard. No parkland component is included in the proposed project. Therefore, the developer shall, at the City's direction, pay fees under Resolution 1061 (Parks and Bikeways) to serve the proposed development. No significant impact is anticipated. B. Affect Existing Recreational Opportunities? Less than Significant Impact. The site is currently vacant. No recreational facilities are located on site. The nearest park is McDermott Park, located approximately 1.0 mile west of the project site. Other nearby recreational facilities include Koehler Park, Norh Heritage Park, and the North Heritage Pool Complex. The proposed development will result in a negligible increase in recreational demand at these facilities. No adverse impacts are foreseen. C. Conflict with Adopted Recreational Plans and Policies? No Impact. The proposed project would comply with City of Fontana adopted plans and policies relevant to recreation issues. Therefore, no impact relative to adopted recreational plans and policies is expected. 5.12 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Proposal: A. Conflict with Adopted Energy Conservation Plans? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will consume approximately 1,172 kilowatt hours of electricity per day. This is not a significant amount of the electrical energy when compared to the amount of electricity supplied daily by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) or of the energy consumption in the City. The proposed development will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan by the City of Fontana or the SCE. As a result, no further assessment of this issue is warranted. 3/12/99«R\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP--1)> 5-24 LSA Associates, Inc. B. Would the Project Use Non Renewable Resources in a Wasteful and Inefficienttifanner? Less than Significant Impact. Due to the relatively small scale of the project, construction of the proposed improvements would not require use of large or wasteful amounts of fuel or energy. The proposed project will utilize construction materials such as gravel, sand, wood, asphalt cement, steel bars, etc., for the residential and commercial structures proposed on site. Energy in the form of fossil fuels and electricity will also be utilized by construction vehicles and light poles during construction, use and occupancy of these structures. The use of energy to construct the project would be an irrevocable commitment of fossil fuel resources. The project will comply with the City§ policies relevant to energy conservation, and would incorporate designs that include energy conservation features consistent with Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards and State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code). The proposed development is not expected to use construction materials or energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner. As a result, no further assessment of this issue is warranted. C. Would the Project Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource that Wouk be of Future Value to the Region and the Residents of the State? No Impact. While the project site is designated as a regionally significant source of aggregate resources, the site does not support ongoing sand or gravel extraction activities. The City has designated these areas for urban development and does not encourage their use for mining activities. Also, minhg activities at the site could create impacts to nearby uses (such as dust, noise, truck traffic, etc.) which may affect nearby residents. The Fontana General Plan allows mineral extraction activities only when all public health and safety hazards can be eliminated. Adjacent urban development would require substantial mitigation to allow the use of the site for mineral extraction. In addition, the loss of 20 acres is not considered significant in the face of 5.8 million acre of designated regionally significant resource areas in San Bernardino County, of which 29,605 acres are considered by the Division of Mines and Geology as worthy of preservation. Given the foregoing, no further assessment of this issue is warranted. 5.13 HAZARDS. Would the Proposal Involve: A. A Risk of Accidental Explosion or Release of Hazardous Substances (Including, but Not Limited to: Oil, Pesticides, Chemical, Gas or Radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will consist of 76 dwelling units. No on -site land use will generate or use hazardous materials in quantities which could pose a public health hazard. No adverse impact is anticipated. The transportation of hazardous' wastes/materials on freeways and major arterial roadways in the City poses flash point (fire) and explosive potential. In addition, trucks using these roadways may transport solid, liquid, and/or gaseous material of varying toxicity. Restrictions placed on the transport of hazardous waste/materials include the avoidance (unless no other satisfactory route exists) of heavily populated areas, 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECTUS REP-1» 5-25 LSA Associates, Inc. limitations on access to bridges and tunnels, and a 1-mile wide zone limitations along freeways for access to fuel and services. Regulations governing vehicular weight precludes the travel of trucks on some roadways. Baseline, Cherry, and Highland avenues are designated truck routes. These roadways have the potential for accidental spills of hazardous materials. The proposed development will not increase the number of trucks carrying materials on these roadways. The risk to the project site is not significant, since the closest of these roadways (Baseline Avenue) is 660 feet south of the project site. The transportation of hazardous materials is generally regulated by the issuance of permits. Law enforcement agencies are empowered to strictly enforce regulations regarding the inspection of vehicles and the training and licensing of transportation personnel. The transportation of hazardous materials on interstate freeways is controlled by vehicle safety inspections. The Southern Pacific Railroad is located approximately 0.7 mile south of the project site. Hazardous materials are controlled within the train car. There are no controls regarding train routes. No adverse impacts in regards to accidental release of hazardous materials is anticipated. B. Possible Interference with an Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not contain a roadway designated as an emergency route. The proposed development will not obstruct Baseline or Hemlock avenues, which may serve as emergency evacuation routes for the area. The proposed development will be bounded by San Sevaine Avenue on the west and Hemlock Avenue on the east. Internal roadways will service individual lots. Compliance with emergency access requirements of the San Bernardino County Fire Department and the Fontana Police Department will ensure that emergency response to the site will not be hampered. Construction operations may temporarily block traffic during development of the project. Detours and lane closures, if required, would be provided to maintain adequate access during any construction activities including notification of lane restrictions and detours to adjacent users. Given these factors, no significant impact is anticipated. C. The Creation of Any Health Hazard or Potential Health Hazard? No Impact. A short-term increase in dust and construction emission pollutants is anticipated during the construction phase of the proposed project. Air pollutant issues have been discussed previously in this document. The proposed development will not create any additional health hazards to residents of the project or nearby areas. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJEC7\IS REP-1» 5-26 LSA Associates, Inc. 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would The Proposal Have an Effect Upon or Result in a Need for New or Altered Government Services in Any of the Following Areas? A. Fire Protection? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development will increase slightly the demand for fire protection services in the area. The San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) provides fire protection services to the City. Fire stations that would provide primary response to the project site include Station 78 (approximately 2 miles northeast of the site) and Station 73 (approximately 2 miles southwest ofthe site). Both stations are equipped with one pumper truck and one water tender and staffed by three firefighters at all times. The averageresponse time citywide is from 4 to 5 minutes SBCk') has indicated the proposed development would not have a significant impact on their current and projected level of service. In accordance with SBCFD requirements, the project will provide on -site and fire hydrants, as well as adequate emergency access to each residential unit. Prior to issuance of building pernits, the developer shall obtain site plan approval from the SBCFI) regarding the provision of all fire district requirements. In order to reduce fire protection service demand, the project will comply with perfnent provisions in the Uniform Fire Code regarding building construction and design, and with any existing requirements for all new construction to provide fire sprinlder systems If required, the developer shall pay fees under Resolution 92-161 for additional fire protection services to serve the proposed development. Based on the foregoing, no significant impacts upon fire protection services are anticipated. B. Police Services? Less than Signiftcant Impact. The Fontana Police Department provides law enforcement and police protection service to the City. The Police Station is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the project area. The Police Department currently has 116 (although the Department is budgeted for 126) sworn police officers. Based on the 1997 average household size of 3.48 persons per household, as many as 264 persons could reside in the proposed development. The Police Citizen's Committee has recommended (November 1994) a standard of 1.5 sworn officers and 0.6 (support) personnel per 1,000 residents. This panel has suggested a higher officer/resident ration than the Fontana General Plan (1.5 officers/1,000 residents versus 1.4 officers/1,000 residents). Based on this higher standard, the proposed project's estimated population of 260 residents would not generate the need for an additional sworn police officer (0.40) or support staff (0.16). Although the Committee's standard is slightly higher than that stated in the Fontana General Plan, no significant impact was recognized. Based on this standard, no significant law enforcement impacts attributable to the proposed project are expected. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECNS REP-1» 5-27 LSA Associates, Inc. Schools? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is within the service boundaries of the Etiwanda Unified and Chaffey Joint Union High School Districts. East Heritage Elementary School and Etiwanda Intermediate School of the Etiwanda Unified School District (EUSD) will provide the project with elementary and junior high school services. Etiwanda High School of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD) will provide high school services. Student generation factors (0.4343 elementary students/units, and 0.1934 junior high students/unit, and 0.2 high school students/unit) indicate that the proposed development could generate approximately 33 new elementary school students, 15 new junior high school students, and 15 new high school students. According to district officials, East Heritage Elementary School and Etiwanda Junior High School (components of the EUSD), are currently at capacity. The student population at Etiwanda High School (within CJUHSD) currently exceeds capacity. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any residence, the developer shall pay school fees pursuant to Government Code 65995. Based on the foregoing, no significant school impacts attributable to the proposed project are expected. D. Maintenance of Public Facilities, Including Roads? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed community plan shall be required to provide roadways to serve the needs of the residents. Such roadways will be con- structed/improved prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. Public rights -of - way will be dedicated to and maintained by the City. The increase in the amount of roadways is not expected to represent a significant increase over that already maintained by the City. No significant impacts upon government services or maintenance of public facilities attributable to the proposed projects are expected. Other Governmental Services? No Impact. The proposed improvements would not contribute to an increased need for government services beyond those referenced in Paragraphs A, B, C, and D above. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. 5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Proposal Result in a Need for New Systems or Supplies, or Substantial Alteration to the Following Utilities: A. Power or Natural Gas? Less than Significant Impact. Power service in Fontana is provided by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and natural gas service by The Gas Company. Overhead (66KV) power lines and 12 KV underground lines are found along the southern side of Baseline Avenue. A 12 KV overhead line runs along Cherry Avenue. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECTUS REP-1» 5-28 LSA Associates, Inc. 8-inch gas lines are undergrounded along Baseline and Cherry avenues. Street lights are located along the northern side of Baseline Avenue. The proposed project will create a demand for power and natural gas services, consuming an estimated 16,885 cubic feet (cf) of natural gas and 1,172 kwH of electricity per day (Table 5.B). In order to service the proposed residential units, power and natural gas lines will need to be extended. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit plans showing the incorporation of energy conservation measures into the project in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the developer shall extend existing power and gas lines into the site in coordination with SCE and The Gas Company, and in accordance with Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulations. Upon compliance with these requirements, no significant impacts are further anticipated. Table - 5.B Projected Utility Consumption/Waste Generation Utility Units/residents Generation Factors Daily Total Sewer 264 residents' 90 gal/resident /day2 23,760 gal/day Solid Waste 264 residents' 3.25 lbs/resident/day' 858 lbs/day Water 76 units 575 gal/unit/days 43,700 gal/day Natural Gas 76 units 222.17 cf/unit/days 16,885 cf/day Electricity 76 units 15.42 kWH/unit/days 1,172 kWH/day cf cubic feet; gal - gallon; kWH kilowatt hour; lbs - pounds Notes: 1) Based on 3.48 persons per household, 1997 Economic and Community Profile, City of Fontana, 1997. 2) North Fontana Infrastructure Study E1R. 3) Morningside Community Plan, June 1997. 4) Fontana Water Company, 1998. 5) SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. B. Communications Systems? No Impact. Pacific Bell Telephone Company will provide telephone services to the proposed development, Comcast Cable Company will provide cable television service to the site. These companies provide service on demand. Coordination with these companies will ensure timely service. No impact is anticipated. Local or Regional Water Treatment or Distribution Facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The development of the planned community area will require the installation of worker lines to serve the residential areas and landscaped areas. The Fontana Water Company (FWC) provides water service to the area through groundwater wells and surface water from Lytle Creek. A treatment plant processes surface water prior to its distribution for domestic use. Based on a consumption factor 3/12/990R\CSP830\PROJECT11S REP-1» 5-29 LSA Associates, Inc. supplied by the Fontana Water Company', the proposed project's total daily water requirement is estimated at 43,700 gallons. The FWC has indicated that the project's water demand can be met by the Company's supply. The FWC has indicated that it willbe able to serve the proposed project with no adverse impact on existing services or facilities. A 16-inch water line exists in Baseline Avenue. The FWC will provide the fmal design of on -site and off -site water systems. The design and location of fire hydrants will be based on the fire flow requirements for the residential proposed, as required by the SBCFD. The proposed project will be subject to the following: Prior to the issuance of building permits, water system plans shall be designed by the FWC. • Water system improvements shall be constructed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy as required by the City and SBCFD. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the developer shall submit plans showing the implementation of water conservation measures such as automatic irrigation valves/controllers and site -appropriate drought -tolerant plant materials. • Compliance with Title 25 of the California Administrative Code regarding water -efficient appliances. Figure 5.3 displays the project's proposed water distribution system. When the above stated measures are adhered to, no significant impacts as they relate to water distribution are anticipated. D. Sewer or Septic Tanks? Less than Significant Impact. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) provides municipal wastewater treatment services for Fontana and surrounding entities. Wastewater generated within the City is conveyed to and treated at IEUA Regional Plant Number 1 (RP-1), located south of the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), between Vineyard and Archibald avenues. The plant provides primary, secondary and tertiary treatment of reclaimable water. This facility has a design capacity of 40 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes (on average) 36.5 mgd. Improvements of this facility, to be completed late Spring/early Summer 1999, will increase capacity to 44 mgd. A 12-inch sewer line exists within the Baseline Avenue right-of-way. Sewage from the surrounding area enters City of Fontana sewer mains and is conveyed through IEUA interceptors to the IEUA RP-1 in Ontario. Sewer service to the project site will be Based on consumption factor of 2,300 cubic feet/unit/month provided by Fontana Water Company. Consumption factor equals 575 gallons/unit/day based on conversion standards. Per conversation with Fontana Water Company, October 5, 1998. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC US REP-1» 5-30 MN NM INN MIN OM IMO NM Mil MN MIN 1111111 NM M MN MIN 111111 in I NM ao a CenterStone at the Landings Map Source: FMA international, 1999. 74 75 I 3 2 j 71 70 41 42 r3 38 39 �40 - 5 6 •7 65 64 63 EEJEII 59 44 f 45 1 1461 47 148 49 50 ! 1 37 32 ( 1 36 33 I 30 27 \ i 24 1\_35 34 J • c_29 -_. 28 j L-- 3j 31 L------- L --- 11 112 NNE ass NMI aav a a_aNNI INN a aaa. a _.wa. LEGEND ®IM2S1 Existing I b" Water Line Proposed 8" Water Line Note; Streets and other infrastructure shall be completed in accordance with the tentative tract map conditions of approval. 26 PIJIEF / 25 13FFFF 56 55 I 54 22 Th 21 18 1 19 20 INN MINI - 3/12/99(CSP830) N�-y -y.L�7A a 100' 200' Figure 5.3 CenterStone at The Landings Proposed Water Distribution System. LSA Associates, Inc. provided by the City of Fontana. IEUA is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the wastewater treatment facilities and sewer interceptor lines serving the area. The proposed project will require the installation of a sewer system as indicated in Figure 5.4. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the collection system within City limits. The proposed project will generate 23,760 gallons of wastewater per day. On -site sewalp flows will be collected and conveyed through 8-inch lines to San Sevaine Avenue, then b Baseline Avenue. All sewage generated on site will be ultimately conveyedto RP-1. This facility currently enjoys 3.5 mgd capacity surplus. The volume of wastewater generated by the proposed project is equivalent to less than 1 percent of this surplus capacity. RP-1 adequately designed to accept the volume of sewage generated by the proposed project Therefore, no impacts as they relate to sewer services are anticipated. E. Solid Waste Disposal? Less than Significant Impact The proposed development will generate solid waste from use and occupancy of the on -site residential units. Based on solid waste generation raes outlined in Table 5.B, approximately 888 pounds of solid waste is expected to be generated by the project every day. Fontana Rubbish Collectors will provide waste collection and disposal services to the site The residents -of the development will be allowed to participate in the voluntary curbsid; recycling program provided by Fontana Rubbish Collectors, as well as other source reductim and recycling programs in the city. The Mid -Valley Landfill (Rialto) will accept the solii waste generated on site. Mid -Valley Landfill currently accepts an average of 800tons of solid waste a day and has permits that would allow it to accept as much as 3,900 tons. As tle amount of solid waste generated by theproposed project amounts to less than one ton a day, the landfill has enough surplus daily capacity (over 3,100 tons) and surplus ultimate (2.67 million tons) to adequately serve the project without significant adverse impacts. F. Storm Water Drainage? Less than Significant Impact. Local drainage systems are the responsibility of the City of Fontana. The proposed drainage system for the project is part of the North Fontana Master Storm Drain Plan, as modified by the "Project Report for the Baseline Storm Drain," dated April 1995, by Allard Engineering (Figure 5.5). The BaselineRoad storm drain system will be constructed as a 10-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box , approximately 625 feet west of the intersection of Baseline Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. At present, an earthen drainage ditch north of the existing edge of pavement conveys undeveloped flow rates from the intersection of Baseline Avenue and San Sevaine Avenue to the existing double box culvert. Ultimately, a 10-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box will be constructed along Baseline Avenue and San Sevaine Avenue from funds contributed by the City of 3/12/99<<R:\CSP830\PROJECTIS REP—])) 5-32 NEM M IIIIIN 1 M IIIIIII M N M 11111111 MN MI NM M IMO M M M CenterStone at The landings Map Source: FMA International, 1999. Existing 12" Sewer Line Proposed 8` Sewer Line 461 47 48 49 50 51 Note: Streets and other infrastructure shall be completed in accordance with the tentative tract map conditions of approval. 3/12/99(CSP830) N�-y .L�A 100' 200' Figure 5.4 CenterStone at The Landings Proposed Sewer System u on g a gm am in mg MN MN M— P M MN N MN r M Ji ■ 1 ✓ ✓ 1111111111111411111“111 MN CenterStone at The landings Map Source: FMAlntemational, 1999. r11=11..1 73 74 75 76 3 2 71 41 70i+JEIEEJEEEIEi. 60 38 '1 37 32 39 ( 36 33 I ao j JFrr I 35 34 r i 48 49 50 51 59 52 f 53 31 26 ;' ,l 25 30 27 � c_( 24 � 22 1 , 29 28 23� 21 i 58 / 5 56 55 .54 9 10 11 12 f3 14 1-15-1-1-61-7 18 19 20 Baseline Avenue LEGEND moo so mom Proposed 10' x 8' Reinforced Concrete Box (by others) Proposed 39* Reinforced Concrete Pipe Note: Streets and other infrastructure shall be completed in accordance with the tentative tract map conditions of approval. d 2 3/12/99(CSP830) N ISA: 100' 200' Figure 5.5 CenterStone at The Landings Proposed Storm Drain System LSA Associates, Inc. Fontana and/or developer contributions. In the event that the street improvements commence prior to the completion of the City's extension of the box culvert from the existing terminus to San Sevaine Avenue, the City and Developer may agree on the implementation of an interim detention basin or other interim drainage method. Any costs of construction of drainage facilities exceeds the I-l0North drainage fee obligation will require a reimbursement agreement between the City of Fontana and the CenterStone Development Company. The on -site residential storm runoff will be handled by the roadways and an on -site storm drain system. Final determination of storm system design and financing will be determined by the final engineering plans. With these conditions, no significant storm drainage impacts attributable to the proposes project are anticipated. G. Local or Regional Water Supplies? Less than Significant Impact. The Fontana Water Company and the City of Fontana haw indicated that, considering existing and planned supplies, the water consumption of t1E proposed development is within the capacity to provide. The estimated water consumption represents a fraction of one percent to the water resources used in the Chino Basin or the supplies of the Fontana Water Company and the City ofFontana. The Company will design on- and off- site water system improvements to ensure that they comply with the Company's standards and/or requirements. No significant impacts related to regional water supplies are anticipated. 5.16 MANDATORYFINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A. Potential to Degrade: Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlifi population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminat important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is planned on a site which had been extensively modified by human activity. The design, construction and installation of dwelling units and associated infrastructure will be carried out in a manner which will limit any potential adverse impacts on any local resource. In the event adverse impacts are recognird, mitigation measures have been developed to alleviate any potentialimpact. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJEC'NS REP-1)> 5-35 LSA Associates, Inc. B. Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? No Impact. As previously mentioned, the proposed project will occupy currently \acant land which has been modified by past human activity. With the implementation of tie recommended mitigation, the proposed communityplan will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals at the expense of long-term environmental goals. Cumulative Impacts: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means thatthe incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connedion with the effects of past projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less than Significant Impact. When in compliance with the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed community plan will not produce any, environmental impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. D. Adverse Impacts on Humans: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. With adherence to the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed community plan will not have environmental effects that will, either directly or indirectly, have an adverse impact on humans. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECT 1S REP-1» 5-36 LSA Associates, Inc. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ The City finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. III The City finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ The City fmds the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significantimpact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ The City fmds that only minor additions or changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to the previous ElR and changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the project is being undertaken will require revisions to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Thus, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR to the Final EIR shall be prepared. O The City finds that the significant effects that would result from the proposed project have been addressed in an earlier EIR, and that none of the determinations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 can be established. Thus, an Addendum to the EIR shall be prepared. Project Location: City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Project Sponsor's Name: CenterStone Development Company 3500-B W. Lake Center Drive Santa Ana, California 92704 Contact Person: Kirk Evans (714) 437-0800 3/12/99KR:\CSP830\PROJEC VS REP-1» 6-1 LSA Associates, Inc. Lead Agency: City of Fontana Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 92335 Contact Person: Cindy Ousley, Assistant Planner (909) 350-6994 Signature Date City of Fontana. CA. Printed Name For 3/12/990R\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP-1)> 6-2 LSA Associates, Inc. 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCES/PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED 7.1 LIST OF PREPARERS This document was prepared under the direct management of the City of Fontana as Lead Agency for the proposed project and reflects the independent judgement and position regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Lead Agency was assisted by the following outside consultant(s): Lead Consultant LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) Environmental/Planning Consultants Lynn Calvert -Hayes, MCP, Project Manager Dee Schroth, Ph.D., Cultural Resources Analyst Denise Woodard, Biological Analyst Carl Winter, Assistant Planner Jennifer Schuk, Graphics Technician Elsa Brewer, Word Processor 7.2 REFERENCES City of Fontana General Plan, 1990 Economic and Community Profile, City of Fontana Housing and Economic Department, 1998 Morningside Community Plan, 1997 North Fontana Infrastructure Study, 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 CenterStone Community Plan, February 1999. 7.3 PERSONS CONTACTED Bob Crawford, San Bernardino County Fire Department John Goldwin, Assistant Superintendent, Etiwanda Unified School District Jeannie Hawley, City of Fontana Planning Division Marshall Locke, Chief Operator, IEUA Regional Plant No. 1 Norma Manning, Fontana Water Company Jody Morris, Chaffey Joint Union High School District Pam Stewart, Fontana Police Department 3/12/990R\CSP830\PROJECT\IS REP--1» 7-1 LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT, 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECNS-TOC. WPD» BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CENTERSTONE COMMUNITY PLAN October 9, 1998 Prepared for: CenterStone Development Company 151 Kalmus Drive, SuiteJ-6 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (909) 781-9310 LSA Project #CSP830 LSA Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 1 RESULTS 1 SITE CONDITIONS AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1 CONCLUSION 5 REFERENCES 6 ATTACHMENTS A- B Species List Sensitive Species List LIST OF FIGURES 1 Regional Location 2 - Project Location 10i9i98«R:\CSP830\BIO\BIORPT.TOCH ii LSA Associates, Inc. INTRODUCTION LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted a biological assessment for CenterStone Development Company to address biological resources on the 19.55-acre project site. The site is located in Section 35, T1N, R6W, in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is situated in the northwest portion of the City, 660 feet north of Baseline Avenue, east of the future San Sevaine Avenue and immediately west of Hemlock Avenue. The proposed project consists of 75 detached, single-family dwelling units to be built on 19.55 acres. METHODS A general reconnaissance level field survey was conducted on September 14, 1998. This survey was conducted by Denise Woodard, staff biologist with LSA and Adella Schroth, staff archaeologist with LSA. Notes were taken on general site conditions, vegetation, and suitability for various sensitive elements. All plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected were noted. A complete species list is presented in Attachment A. Additional information was gathered from published sources, the California Natural Diversity Data Base, and the California Native Plant Society's rare plant inventory. RESULTS SITE CONDITIONS AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Site Conditions The site is situated approximately 2.5 miles south of the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The topography is relatively flat and ranges in elevation from 1,340 to 1,360 feet above sea level. The site is bounded on the north, south, and west by vacant land, and on the east by HemlockAvenue and residential development. The site is characterized by historic agricultural practices and by recent discing. The vegetation on site consists predominantly of non-native grassland species. Olive tree (Olea europeae) rows were found on the northern, southern, and western site boundaries. The majority of the soils on site are mapped as Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes. A thin strip on the eastern project boundary is mapped as Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes. These soils are associated with broad long alluvial fans (Soil Conservation Service, 1980). The soils presently appear gravelly to loamy and have a high organic content as a result of past agricultural practices. 10/9/98KR:\CSP830\13IO\13IO.RP'I>> NMI r 1111111 /I — r I— O r INN — Or r r M—— M Source: TOPOI ®1997 Wildflower Productions. Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Surrounding Recreational Areas. 10/5/98(CSP830\Init Stdy\Bio) N LSAo 10 20 Kilometers 10 20 Miles Figure 1 Regional Location •• 4 LANE-. _ Jta•� 1.aitl r7'a," 3n. r. • Trailer • } s.....»� Park• : es• ,1 � ) Jl>—� •_ —•�' Trade::' .. ••. Parks .a , •..a-�l Source: TOPO! 01997 Wildflower Productions. USGS 7 5 Min. Quads , Fontana, Devote, • CAS.. 1 10/5/98(CSP830Unit Stdy\Bio) N SSA 00 500 1,000 Meters 1,000' 2,000' Fcet, • • • .. . V i0►1 • peel l • • Figure 2 Project Location ISA Associates, Inc. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat The vegetation community present on site is of the Califor- nia annual grassland series (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolfe, 1995. The grassland series is composed predominantly of non-native grass species. The dominant grassland species identified include slender wild oat (Avena barbata), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), short - podded mustard (Hireshfeldia incana), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), mare's tails (Conyza canadensis), ragweed (Ambro- sia acanthacarpa), and knotweed (Polygonum arenastrum). Olive tree rows were present on the northern, southern, and western site boundaries. Other trees identified near the adjacent housing on the northeastern and southeastern site boundaries were eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) and Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle). This habitat does not support many native plants and animals, except those that are well adapted to areas disturbed by humans. Attachment A contains a list of the plant and animal species identified on site. Site photo facing west showing non-native grasslands. Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife Movement Wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation are important issues in assessing impacts to wildlife. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a proposed action results in a single, unified habitat area being divided into two or more areas, such that the division isolates the two new areas from each other. Isolation of habitats occurs when wildlife cannot move freely from one portion of the habitat to another, or from one habitat type to another. One example is the fragmentation of habitats within and around clustered residential development. Habitat fragmentation can also occur when a portion of one or more habitats is converted into another habitat, as when scrub habitats are converted into annual grassland habitat because of too frequent burning. The wildlife movement on the project site is mainly limited to localized and daily movements because of the relatively uniform topography of the project site and because linkages to adjacent habitat are limited by existing roadway and residential development barriers. Sensitive Species Several sensitive species were identified as having potential for occurrence on the project site. These species were found either to be absent or have a low potential for occurrence on site because of the lack of suitable habitat. Attachment B describes in detail the potential for occurrence of these species. 10/9/98«R:\CSP830\BIO\BIO.RPT» 4 LSA Associates, Inc. CONCLUSION Because no sensitive biological resources were identified as occurring on the 19.55-acre project site, no effects to sensitive biological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 10/9/98KR:\CSP830\BIO\BIO.RP1» ISA Associates, Inc. REFERENCES Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. 1400 pp. Holland R. F., 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 156 pp. Skinner, M.W. and Pavlik, B.M, 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered • Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Spec. Pub. No. 1 (5th edition), Berkeley, California. 338 pp. Sawyer, J. O. And Keeler -Wolf, T, 1995. A Manuel of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. 471 pp. Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California. 10/9/98KR:\CSP830\33IO\BIO.RPT> LSA Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT A - SPECIES LIST 10/9/98KR:\CSP830\BIO\BIORPT.TOC>> LSA Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT A - SPECIES LIST PLANTAE PLANTS ASTERACEAE Ambrosia acanthicarpa Conyza canadensis Heterotheca grandiilora ANARCARDIACEAE Schimus molle BRASSICACEAE *Hilschfeldia incana CHENOPODIACEAE *Salsola tragus EUPHORBIACEAE Eremocarpus setigerus OLEACEA Olea europaea POLYGONACEAE *Polygonum arenastrum POACEAE *Avena barbata SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ragweed Mare's tails Telegraph weed SUMAC FAMILY Pervian pepper MUSTARD FAMILY Short -podded mustard SALTBUSH FAMILY Russian thistle SPURGE FAMILY Doveweed OLIVE FAMILY Europeanoline BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Common knotweed GRASS FAMILY Slender wild oats LEPIDOPTERA BUTTERFLIES PIERIDAE Pontia protodice FAMILY HESPERIIDAE Atalopedes campestris SULPHERS AND WHITES Checkered white SKIPPERS Field skipper AVES BIRDS COLUMBIDAE *Columba livia CoRVIDAE Corvus brachyrhynchos EMBERIZIDAE Sturnella neglecta Chondestes gammacus PIGEONS AND DOVES Rock dove CROWS AND RAVENS American crow WARBLERS, SPARROWS, ETC. Western meadowlark Lark sparrow MAMMALIA MAMMALS SCIURIDAE Spermophilus beecheyi GEOMYIDAE Thomomys bottae 10/9,984(RACSP830\BIO'SPCLST-1.WPD» SQUIRRELS California ground squirrel POCKET GOPHERS Botta's pocket gopher Al LSA Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT B SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST 10/9/98«R:\CSP830\BIO\BIORPT.TOC» LSA Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT B - SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST Sensitive species are those plants and animals occurring or potentially occurring on the project site that are endangered or rare, as those terms are used by CEQA and its Guidelines, or are of current local, regional or State concern. Plant communities are considered to be sensitive biological resources based on 1) federal, State or local laws regulating their development, 2) limited distributions, and/or 3) the habitat requirements of sensitive plants or animals occurring on the site. Legal protection for sensitive species varies widely, from the relatively comprehensive protection extended to listed threatened/endangered species to no legal status at present. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), local agencies, and special interest groups such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) publish watch lists of declining species; these lists often describe the general nature and perceived severity of the decline. In addition, recently published findings and preliminary results of ongoing research provide a basis for consideration of species that are candi- dates for State and/or federal listing. Finally, species that are clearly not rare or threatened statewide or regionally, but whose local populations are sparse, rapidly dwindling or otherwise unstable, may be considered to be of "local interest." The table below provides a summary of information regarding the species identified from literature sources as occurring in the project vicinity. SPECIES ACTIVITY STATUS HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION PERIOD DESIGNATION OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY PLANTS Plummer's mariposa lily Calocbortus plummerae Dry, rocky places, often in brush, below 5000 feet elevation. Usu- ally on granitic soils. Found in grassland, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, yellow pine forest. Santa Monica Mts to San Jacinto Mts. Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Ventura Cos. May -July US: * CA: CSC CNPS: List 1B Absent: Suitable habitat is not present on site for this species because of current discing and historic agricultural practices. Slender - horned spineflower Dodecabema leptoceras Sandy and gravelly soils on allu- April - vial fans and old floodplains; 500 June to 2,000 feet elevation. Los An- geles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. US: END CA: END CNPS: List 1B Absent: Suitable habitat (alluvial fans and old lloodplains) is not present on -site for this species. Parry's spineflower Cborizantbe partyi var. paw Sandy openings in coastal sage April -June scrub and chaparral, 900 to 3,500 feet elevation; east Los Angeles County to San Gorgonio Pass and west Riverside County. US: * CA: ND CNPS: List 3 Absent: Suitable habitat is not present on site for this species because of current discing and historic agricultural practices. Santa Ana River woolly star Eriastrum densifolium var. sanctorum Perennial sub -shrub found in allu- Year round vial fan sage scrub and coastal sage scrub habitats on alluvial deposits along the Santa Ana River, San Bernardino County. US: END CA: END CNPS: List 1B Absent: Suitable habitat (alluvial fan sage scrub and coastal sage scrub) is not present on site for this species. 10/9/98«R:\CSP830\BIO\SNSPPA-1.WPDM B-1 LSA Associates, Inc. SPECIES HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY STATUS PERIOD DESIGNATION OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY Lemon lily Lilium partyi Meadows and streams of montane July - Au - coniferous forests; Transverse and gust Peninsular ranges of souther California; also known from Ari- zona; 4,000 to 7,500 feet eleva- tion US: * CA: ND CNPS: List 1B Absent: Suitable habitat (mead- ows and streams) is not present on site for this species. Pringle's monardella Monardella pringlei Known habitat requirements are described as sandy places or sandy in coastal sage scrub in San Bernardino County. Little else is known about this plant species. May -June US: * CA: ND CNPS: List IA Absent. Suitable habitat (coastal sage scrub) is not present on the site for this species. REPTILE San Diego horned lizard Pbtynosoma coronatum blainvillei Wide variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, grassland, ri- parian woodland; typically on or. near loose sandy soils; coastal and inland areas from Ventura County to Baja California. Apt -July with re- duced activity Au- gust - Octo- ber US: * CA: CSC Absent. Suitable habitat is not present on site for this species because of past agricultural prac- tices and recent discing. Orange - throated whiptail Cnemidophorus bypertbrus beldingi Floodplains and terraces with pe- rennial plants and open areas nearby; sea level to 3,000 feet ele- vation; inland and coastal valleys of Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties to Baja California. March - US: * July with CA: CSC reduced activity Au- gust - Octo- ber Absent. Suitable habitat is not present on site for this species because of past agricultural prac- tices and recent discing. BIRDS Western bur- rowing owl Atbene cunicularia hypugea Grasslands and rangelands, usu- Year round US: ND ally occupying ground squirrel burrows. Resident over most of Southern California. Found in agricultural crop land areas. CA: CSC Low. Habitat is marginal on site for this species because of be- cause of past agricultural prac- tices and recent discing. California gnatcatcher Polioptila cal fornica californica Coastal sage scrub; occurs only cismontane southwestern Califor- nia and Baja California in low-ly- ing foothills and valleys. Year round US: THR CA: CSC Absent. Suitable habitat (coastal sage scrub) is not present on site for this species. MAMMA'S San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus Sandy loam substrates, character- Year round US: END istic of early and intermediate CA: CSC stage alluvial fans and floodplains. Historically known from San Bernardino Valley in San Bernardino County to Menifee Valley in western Riverside County. Absent. Suitable habitat (allu- vial fans and floodplains) is not present on site for this species 10/9/98KR:\CSP830\BIO'SNSPPA-1.WPD» B-2 LSA Associates, Inc. SPECIES ACTIVITY STATUS HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION PERIOD DESIGNATION OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY INVERTEBRATES Delhi sands flower -loving fly Rbaphiomtdas terminatus abdominalis Legend : Limited information suggests this species is found on "fine, sandy soils, often with wholly or par- tially consolidated dunes. These soil types are generally classified as the "Delhi" series (primarily Delhi fine sand)" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). Restricted to western Riverside and San Bernardino counties. US: Federal Classifications Above ground emergence August and Sep. Not visible dur- ing the rest of the year END Taxa listed as Endangered. THR Taxa listed as Threatened. Prop END Taxa proposed to be listed as Endangered. Prop THR Taxa proposed to be listed as Threatened. C Candidate for listing. Refers to taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient informa- tion to support a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened, issuance of the proposal(s) is anticipated but, pre- cluded at this time. * Formerly designated as "Category 2 Can didate for listing." The U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service has officially discontinued the multi -tiered candidate designations in favor of the single "Candidate for listing" designation (see following definition) and, as a result, eliminated these species from candidate status. However, some Fish and Wildlife Service offices are using the unofficial designation "species of con- cern" for former Category 2 Candidates. Not designated as a sensitive species ND 10/9/98«R:\CSP830\BIO\SNSPPA- 1.WPD» US: END CA: ND Absent: Suitable habitat (Delhi soil) is not present on site for this species. CA: State Classifications END THR CE CT CSC SA ND Taxa State -listed as Endangered. Taxa State -listed as Threatened. State candidate (Endangered). State candidate (Threatened). California Species of Special Concern. Refers to taxa with populations declining seriously or that are otherwise highly vul- nerable to human developments. Special Animal. Refers to taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regard- less of their legal or protection status. Not designated as a sensitive species. CNPS: California Native Plant Society Classifications 1B List of plants considered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California and else- where. 2 List of plants considered by CNPS to be rare, threatened or endangered in Califor- nia, but which are more common else- where. 3 Review list of plants suggested by CNPS for consideration as endangered but about which more information is needed. Watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored. LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX B - CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJEC'111S-TOC.WPDD CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE CENTERSTONE COMMUNITY PLAN October 9, 1998 Prepared for: CenterStone Development Company 151 Kalmus Drive, SuiteJ-6 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Prepared by: Adella B. Schroth, Ph.D. LSA Associates, Inc. 340310`b Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (909) 781-9310 LSA Project #CSP830 National Archaeological Data Base Information Type of Study: Survey USGS Quadrangle: Fontana 7.5' Acreage: 19+ acres Sites Recorded: None Key Words: Base Line Road, Negative Survey LSA Associates, Inc. ABSTRACT This project provides a archaeological site inventory for 19± acres termed the "CenterStone Development," located in northwest Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The inventory was conducted by LSA Associates, Inc., at the request of the CenterStone Development Company. This study was conducted to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is part of the community plan for the project, as required by the City of Fontana. The purpose of this study was to provide an inventory of archaeological resources within the project area. This inventory included a literature review, record search, and review of early maps for historic resources for the 19 acres. According to the records search, the study area had not been previously surveyed and, therefore, a survey of the area was completed on September 14, 1998 by Adella Schroth, project archaeologist, and Denise Woodard. One-half person day was involved in the field survey. No archaeological sites are present in the project area. None were found as a result of the survey, and none had been previously recorded within the project area. No impacts to cultural resources will occur as a result of this project. No further archaeological research is necessary; however, if artifactual material is uncovered during project -related earth -moving activities, construction activities in the vicinity should be temporarily diverted until a qualified archaeologist can determine the importance/significance of the find. If human remains are encountered during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the find. lithe remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified for a determination of Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD will be given the opportunity to become involved with final disposition of the remains following scientific analysis. 9R8/98KR:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULTRP-1.WPD» LSA Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 REPORT FORMAT 1 BACKGROUND AND RECORDS SEARCH 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PREHISTORY 5 ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW 10 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 11 REGIONAL PREHISTORIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS 11 SITE DEFINITIONS 15 RECORDS SEARCH 16 SUMMARY 18 METHODS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS 19 FIELD METHODS 19 SURVEY RESULTS 19 RECOMMENDATIONS 19 REFERENCES 20 LIST OF FIGURES 1- Regional Location 2 2 - Project Location 3 LIST OF TABLES A - Terminology for Temporal Phases in Southern Coastal California 7 B - Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the Project Area 18 928/980R:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULTRP-1.WPD» ii ISA Associates, Inc. INTRODUCTION This project provides a archaeological site inventory for 19± acres termed the "CenterStone Development," located in northwest Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). The inventory was conducted by LSA Associates, Inc., (LSA) at the request of the CenterStone Development Company. Specifi- cally, the project area is in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 35, Township 1N., Range 6W, as shown on the USGS 7.5' Fontana Quadrangle (Figure 2). This study was conducted to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is part of the community plan for the project, as required by the City of Fontana. The purpose of this study was to provide an inventory of archaeological resources within the project area. This inventory included a literature review, record search, and review of early maps for historic resources for the 19 acres. According to the records search, the study area had not been previously surveyed, and therefore, a survey of the area was completed on September 14, 1998 by Adella Schroth, project archaeologist, and Denise Woodward. One-half person day was involved in the field survey. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is located approximately 660 feet north of Base Line Road and west of Hemlock Avenue. It consists of 19.55 acres of a rectangular section of undeveloped land. The proposed development of the property will consist of 75 single family residences with streets and support utility lines. REPORT FORMAT The following sections present the results of the records search and field work, describe the resources, and summarize what is currently known about sites within the study area. The background information induding the environmental setting of the study area, the regional prehistory, ethnography, and history is summarized; and regional research questions defined as important to investiga- tions in southern California are reviewed. It also includes the resources consulted for the historic properties records search and previous surveys within the region. Field methods used in the investigation are discussed along with the findings and conclusions for each site within or contiguous to the study area as well as a summary of the known site condition and previous research. Recommendations are summarized in the final section. The report follows the format recommended by Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR) guidelines (California Office of Historic Preserva- tion 1989). The report contains those elements necessary for evaluating the impacts to the project area under CEQA criteria. 10,9/98KR:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» MI M NM IINil MN P IN UM N M in M MN M M MN— —7 a .'®'e1Hni Source: TOPOI 01997 Wildflower Productions. Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Surrounding Recreational Areas. 5/8/98(DEV832) N ' LSA 10 20 Kilometers 10 20 Miles 1 Figure 1 Regional Location a 27 • •i�,1' •.• • • railee 1 • • • Trailer Park 1 : s •r s .Nebo a ••r •• •i _ u Source: TOPO! © 1997 Wildflower Productions. USGS 7 5 Min. Quads , Fontana, Devore, CA_'_ • 1574 ;Nell M • • r 9/17/98(CSP830) ISA 500 1,000 Meters 1,000' 2,000' Feet Figure 2 Project Location LSA Associates, Inc. BACKGROUND AND RECORDS SEARCH This section provides a description of the environmental setting of the proposed project, summarizes the prehistory and history of the region, and presents the results of the records search and historic map review. Research questions and objectives considered of importance to southern California prehistory are reviewed and site definitions presented. The environmental setting is essential for understanding land use patterns of prehistoric populations who depended upon the natural environment for subsistence. Research questions are important in determining the potential significance of archaeological sites. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is located in the southern erosional fans of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 4 km (2.5 miles) from the bottom of the slope of San Gabriel Mountain. The project area is fairly level, with elevations between 1,340 and 1,360 feet above mean sea level. It is covered with alluvium interspersed with cobbles that range from large (over 20 cm diameter) to small gravel. No major land forms occur on the property, and no dark soil that could be indicative of long-term prehistoric habitation is present. Disturbance to the property includes activities related to farming (plowing, discing, etc.) and possibly some leveling by bulldozer. In addition, the area appears to have been used for stockpiling construction material (gravel, rock). Some buildings may have been present along with driveways; asphaltum, cement, wood, and aluminum siding are present. Lithic Resources The project area lacks bedded lithics, but contains numerous cobbles that could have been exploited for stone tools and implements. Cobbles were commonly used for grinding implements such as manos and metates. In addition, the advanced core technology of the southern California natives allowed for the production of most stone tools from the cobble raw material. Plant and Animal Resources The project area today does not appear to contain the original native vegetation. At one time, it probably supported coastal sage community. Plants that may have been present and used by the prehistoric inhabitants include white sage (Salvia apiana), scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), buckwheat (Erigonum sp.), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), croton (Croton californicus), beavertail (Opuntia basilaris) and native grasses (Hickman 1993). Native animal species that would have been supported by the plant community are no longer present. Those that would have been present and of major importance as food for the natives included several species of rodents and reptiles, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audobonii). 10/9/98KR:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» LSA Associates, Inc. The nearest source of year-round water was probably Lytle Creek, located 5.6 km (3.5 miles) to the northeast. An ephemeral stream bed leading south from San Savaine Canyon in the San Gabriel Mounts was located 0.8 km (0.5 mile) to the east and may have been a source of potable water during the wet season. The stream and creek beds may have supported desert riparian ecosystems. Plants from the desert riparian community, used by the prehistoric natives, would have included mesquite (Prosopis glandosa), a legume which produces a bean that could be stored for several months. In addition, the flowers were eaten raw and fermented for a drink. The wood was used for implements including mortars and bows, and for frameworks for houses (Schroth 1988). Other species used for food include pickleweed (Salicornia bigelovi:), saltbush (Atriplex sp.), and rabbitbush (Chrysothamnus sp.). Desert willow (Chilopsis linearis) and catclaw (Acacia greggi:) provided material for baskets and wooden implements, and arrow weed (Pluchea sericea) was used extensively for the production of arrows (Bean and Saubel 1972). SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL PREHISTORY The prehistory of southern California has yet to be clearly organized. Radiocarbon dates for the region span the last 10,000 years (Breschini and Haversat 1988). History of Coastal Chronology Syntheses Syntheses that have been presented for the prehistory of Southern California have been presented by D. Rogers (1929), M. Rogers (1929, 1945, 1966), Wallace (1955), Warren (1968), Koerper and Drover (1983), and Moratto (1984). In the San Diego subregion, Malcolm Rogers (1929) determined the temporal order of the assemblages he found on surveys during the first decades of the century, basing his chronology on the occurrence of specific artifact types such as discoidals, cogged stones, point types, ceramics, and a few tool types. M. Rogers separated the occupation of coastal San Diego into Early Man, Littoral I and II, and Late Period. These were later separated into complexes related to other regions of southern California (M. Rogers 1966). According to his interpretation, the earliest sites, San Dieguito (or Early Man), reflected an occupation that relied heavily on hunting and did not exploit shellfish. Rogers separated the San Dieguito Complex into three phases, I, II, and III. San Dieguito I sites were located only in the Colorado and Mojave desert regions to the east. San Dieguito II and III sites were located in the desert, foothills, and coast. San Dieguito III was differentiated from I and II by having pressure -flaked artifacts induding slender blades, crescentics, and leaf -shaped points. According to M. Rogers (1966), San Dieguito occupants were replaced by inhabitants whose primary resources were shellfish and seeds, i.e., the Littoral groups or La Jollan occupants. Eventually, the shellfish gatherers were replaced by Shoshonean and Yuman groups, i.e., the ancestors of present day Luiseiio and Dieguefio. 10/9/98KR:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» ISA Associates, Inc. During the period when Rogers was developing his chronology of southern California, a geologist, Antevs, published a desert climatic overview. Antevs (1948) postulated periods of wetter and dryer climatic regimes with cultural groups migrating from the desert to other regions during the especially dry periods, ca. 12,000 - 10,000 B.C. and 6000 - 3000 B.C. These ideas corresponded with the changes in the artifactual assemblages and the purported increases in population observed by M. Rogers (1966). The concept that changes in artifactual assemblages and subsistence strategies were attributable toan influx of populations that persisted in the coastal region of southern California and, although still in use today, has recently been questioned (Gallegos 1987). Wallace (1955) was the second to present a synthesis of chronology for the southern California region. Wallace presented his chronology as a series of horizons, with "horizon" defined as an assemblage which predominates in a region for a period of time and is eventually replaced by another, generally attributed to an influx of a new population. Horizons were placed in relative positions to each other, with different regions possibly changing at different times, but following the same general order. Wallace separated the span of occupation into I: Early Man; II: Milling Stone; III: Intermediate; and IV: Late Period. Wallace's chronology was replaced a decade later by a synthesis presented by Warren (1968). Warren based his synthesis on traditions, delineated by specific subsistence -settlement patterns. The patterns were defined by the subsistence - related artifacts found in an assemblage and the distribution of sites on the landscape. By selecting those traditions that best represented a particular period, Warren (1968) attempted to integrate cultural ecology into a chronological framework. Warren separated the various traditions into "San Dieguito" after Rogers' and comparable to Wallace's Early Man; "Encinitas" similar to Rogers' La Jollan and Wallace's Milling Stone Horizon; and, using Meighan's (1954) terminology, "San Luis Rey I and II" for the Late Period occupation. Warren (1968) perceived a period comparable to Wallace's Intermediate only along the Santa BarbaraNentura coast which he called the "Campbell Tradition." In that region, the Campbell Tradition was followed by the Chumash Tradition which led to the protohistoric Chumash occupation. As with Wallace, however, Warren suggested that each change in subsistence - resource emphasis was attributed to the migration of different populations into the region. Later chronologies attempted to build upon these early endeavors by using the same terminology and relative positions, but changing the temporal period. In particular, True (1980) and Warren et al. (1961) suggested a Pauma Complex, comparable in time to the La Jollan Complex, but located farther inland in the foothills and valleys away from the coast. Kowta (1969) used this inland complex definition to discuss the Sayles site, located in Cajon Pass. 10/9/98«R:\CSP830AARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» LSA Associates, Inc. Chronology Overview The following sections summarize the known prehistory of southern coastal California. In order to alleviate the confusion due to multiple names for the same time frames, the prehistory has been separated into periods and discussed in chronological order from the oldest to the youngest (Table A). In general, the prehistory can be separated into four periods, beginning with a controversial Late Pleistocene occupation, followed by the Early and Middle Holocene and ending with the Late Holocene occupation. These periods are also based on the assumed hunting system in use at the time. The first period, Late Pleistocene, is heralded as a "pre -projectile" phase. The second, Early Holocene, is that period of time when the thrusting spear was the primary weapon. The third period, Middle Holocene, is the Archaic period during which the atlatl-and-dart was used for hunting. During the last period, Late Holocene, the bow -and -arrow replaced the atlatl-and-dart as the primary hunting weapon. Table A - Terminology for Temporal Phases in Southern Coastal California Prehistoric Period Hunting system Late Pleistocene Early Holocene Spear Middle Holocene Dart-and-atlatl Late Holocene Other Names "Early, early" man Pre -projectile Cobble Tool Tradition San Dieguito Western Pluvial Lakes Trad- ition Western Lithic Co -tradition Early Man (Wallace) La Jolla Complex Encinitas Tradition Horizon II: Millingstone Pauma Complex Archaic Period Campbell Tradition Horizon III: Intermediate Canalino People Middle Canalino Hunting People San Luis Rey I and II Cuyamaca Late Period Chumash Tradition Late Mainland Period Late Canalino Time Period Years Before Present 40,000-10,000 10,000-7500 7500-1300 1300-contact Diagnostic Artifacts absence of points tools made from cobbles crescents, eccentrics, lanceolate and leaf -shaped points, leaf -shaped knives discoidals, cogged stones, plummet stones, leaf -shaped points corner -notched and stemmed points small disc shell and steatite beads, small triangular and side -notched points, ceramics Bow -and -arrow 10/9/984R:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» ISA Associates, Inc. Late Pleistocene ca. 40,000-10,000 RYBP Some researchers (cf., Carter 1957; Moriarty and Minshell 1972) place the first occupation of southern California at about 40,000 years ago; however, evidence in support of the claim is nebulous. The occupation is often called the "Pre - projectile" period, because projectile points are conspicuously absent from "sites" of this period. The locales purported to be occupation sites from this period generally are cobble layers, and the "artifacts" ascribed in the assemblages are "core" or "cobble" tools. Sites believed to date to this phase include the Calico Early Man site (Simpson 1980; Budinger 1981), the Texas Street site (Carter 1957), the Buchanon Canyon site (Moriarty and Minshell 1972), and the Brown site (Moriarty 1987). No indisputable archaeometric dates for the "sites" have been obtained, and the cultural nature of the assemblages has been questioned. Early Holocene ca. 10,000-7500 RYBP The Early Holocene period is the earliest reliably dated occupation of the region. Radiocarbon dates attributed to this period suggest a span from about 7500 to 10,000 years ago. (Breschini and Haversat 1988). Important sites dated to this period include CA ORA 64 with radiocarbon dates from 5,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years before present (RYBP), the Harris site with dates from 8490 to 9030 RYBP, and the Great Western Site A dated around 8000 RYBP (Kaldenberg 1982). The phase was called "Early Man" by Wallace (1955) and "San Dieguito" by M. Rogers (1966) and Warren (1966, 1967, 1968). Wallace's Horizon I: Early Man was defined as those sites with assemblages that included "numerous scrapers and scraper planes, choppers, small chipped and notched crescents, large blades and points" (Wallace 1955:190). Milling equipment was noticeably absent, with a heavy reliance on hunting. Wallace attributed the population to an influx from the desert corresponding to the dissection of the lakes at the end of the Pleistocene, as suggested by Antevs (1948). M. Rogers' (1966) first tradition, San Dieguito, was similar to Wallace's Early Man. It was defined by Warren (1968) as a hunting tradition, because of the purported absence of milling implements. Artifacts in the assemblage included "a wide range of scraper types made on side -struck flakes and finished by well -controlled percussion flaking, leaf -shaped knives or large points of several varieties, leaf - shaped, lanceolate and slightly shoulder points, and chipped stone crescents" (Warren 1968:1). Davis et al. (1969) incorporated this tradition into the Western Lithic Co -Tradition, and Bedwell (1970) presented it as a coastal manifestation of the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition. Recent research along the coast and inland valleys of southern California has determined that these assemblages are more complex than previously believed. At Agua Hedionda, located in northern coastal San Diego County, artifact assemblages have been found that are composed of biface points and knives including Silver Lake points, crescents, cobble tools, milling equipment, a variety of flake tools, and bone tools (cf., Gallegos 1991; Koerper et al. 1991; Moriarty 10/9/98KR:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» LSA Associates, Inc. 1967). The subsistence included shellfish, birds, and both land and ocean mammals and the sites are radiocarbon dated from ca. 7000 to 9000 RYBP. It has been suggested that the sites used by early researchers to define this phase are special purpose sites where biface/core production was emphasized (cf. Vaughan 1982), and that the phase has many attributes in common with later occupations (Gallegos 1987). Occupation may have been continuous with a slow but gradual change in resource procurement emphasis, possibly related to environmental change and innovation rather than population movement. Middle Holocene ca. 7500-1300 RYBP An increase in the number of sites with assemblages attributed to the Middle Holocene has led researchers to suggest that an influx of population into the area occurred around 8,000 years ago. Kowta (1969) working in Cajon Pass at the Sayles site, postulated that the occupation of the area was the result of a shift in population into the area from the desert, following needed vegetal resources. According to M. Rogers (1966), this marked the beginning of the exploitation of shellfish along the coast and included the occupations attributed to the "Littoral" people. Various titles used for this phase include: Hunting Period, Campbell Tradition, Milling Stone (Wallace 1955), Encinitas (Warren 1968), Encinitas I and II (Rice and Cottrell 1976), La Jolla for the coastal region, and Pauma (True 1958, 1980) for inland regions (Moratto 1984). Wallace's (1955) Horizon II: Milling Stone Assemblages were defined as those which were composed primarily of the milling implements, manos and metates. Other notable items that were present but scarce include discoidals, leaf -shaped points, corner -notched and stemmed points, bone awls, and shell ornaments. Wallace also defined a late Middle Holocene assemblage, Horizon III: Intermediate Cultures, which contained elements of the Milling Stone Assemblages but included mortars and pestles with an increase in ornamental objects. The use of acorns was said to have its beginnings in the Intermediate Period. In Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, the Intermediate Period separated the Milling Stone from the Late Period. Warren (1968) defined the Middle Holocene as one continuous occupation with little or no change in the artifactual assemblage, termed by Warren as "the Encinitas Tradition." The assemblage was composed primarily of crude tools for scraping and cutting, hammer stones, manos, and metates. Temporally diagnostic artifacts included large projectile points, doughnut stones, cogged stones, discoidals, and plummet stones. The occurrence of tarring pebbles and basketry impressions in asphaltum documented the use of baskets. Warren (1968) maintained that the subsistence practice was based on collecting seeds and shellfish, and that hunting and fishing were minimal. Warren (1967) originally suggested an influx of people from the desert to the coastal foothills and valleys for the population attributed to the Encinitas Tradition; however, more recently he advocated an incursion of populations moving south along the. coast from the north (Warren 1987). Warren (1967) perceived little or no change during the period, but Rice and Cottrell (1976) working in Orange County, postulated an Encinitas II comparable to Wallace's Intermediate Period 10/9/980R:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» ISA Associates, Inc. with the inclusion of mortars and pestles as well as a change to arrow points by the end of the period. Gallegos (1987) has suggested that the sites previously separated into San Dieguito, La Jolla, and Pauma complexes were all occupied by the same population. Site differences were explained by site location, the exploitation of different resources, and village vs. camp sites. The changes in subsistence/settlement between the early and middle Holocene were viewed as changes in resource exploitation, influence, innovation, and adaptation over time, rather than to changes in population. Late Holocene ca. 1300-200 RYBP Occupation of southern California during the Late Holocene has been explained as an occupation by populations migrating from the desert to the coast, an incursion called "the Shoshonean Wedge" and based on the research of Kroeber (1925). This new population occupied the area now known as southwestern San Bernardino County, western Riverside County, northern San Diego County, Orange County, and Los Angeles County and separated the Yuman populations into a northern branch, the Chumash, and a southern branch, the Diegueno. Sites related to this occupation were called by Wallace (1955), Horizon IV: Late Prehistoric Cultures. The artifact assemblage included ceramics, arrow points, bedrock mortars, milling equipment, and numerous shell and bone ornaments and tools. ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The region that includes the project area was populated by Native Americans called the "Gabrielino," an Anglo name given to those native populations associated with Mission San Gabriel. The native language of the Gabrielino is part of the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily, a member of the Uto-Aztecan family (Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrielino territory included Los Angeles County, the islands of Santa Catalina and San Clemente, northern Orange County, and western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996). They were considered to be the wealthiest and most influential group in southern California with the possible exception of the Chumash (Blackburn 1963; McCawley 1996). As part of the Uto-Aztecan stock and based on linguistic evidence, the Takic group purportedly first entered the region approximately 2,000 years ago. This was viewed as a gradual intrusion during which the prehistoric populations of the Hokan language stock were gradually split and forced to the north and south. Not enough archaeological evidence has, as yet, been gathered to support this hypothesis (Koerper 1979). Prior to disruption by the Spanish, the Gabrielino settlement pattern included villages with between 50 to 200 persons. None of these villages are located near the project area. Crespi, an early Spanish missionary, reported 200 people at Yangna and at least 60 persons at Encino (Forbes 1966). Permanent villages are 10,9/98KR:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 10 LSA Associates, Inc. believed to have been established as early as A.D. 500 and the total population at the time of contact was estimated to be approximately 5,000 (Bean and Smith 1978). For more detailed ethnographic information, consult Bean and Smith (1978), Johnston (1962), Heizer (1968), Engelhardt (1908-1915), Drucker (1937), Harrington (1933, 1942), Kroeber (1925), Blackburn (1963) and McCawley (1996). HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Although the project area does not appear to have had been used historically, the general area has numerous historic resources related to the region. Base Line Road, located 660 feet south of the project area, was surveyed in 1853 by Col. Henry Washington, Deputy Surveyor. A monument marking the line was erected on Mount San Bernardino with true east and west lines run from the monument. This became the third base meridian to be surveyed in California, and is still used by the USGS as the San Bernardino Base Meridian. It was the base marker for land titles established by California courts. It also served as a major route joining the town of San Bernardino with the communities located along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains (Holt 1960). The historic Cajon Road also ran near, but not through, the project area. Within the general region, the route of the Cajon Road has been obliterated by more recent development. Other historical properties in the region include structures and buildings from ranching and farming of the area. The majority of these date to the 1920s and 1930s. More in depth discussions of the history of the region can be found in Belden (1961), Smith (1961), Mason (1985),California Portland Cement Company (1991), Foster et al. (1991), and Alexandrowicz et al. (1992). REGIONAL PREHISTORIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS Chronology Research objectives delineated as important to the regional prehistory of southern California include the following five general subjects: Chronology, Subsistence, Settlement, Trade and Travel, and Technology. Although surveys rarely engender enough data to address these objectives, these topics are presented herein to guide future research should cultural resources be identified within the project area. • When was the area occupied? Is there patterning to Native American occupation by temporal period of occupation and, if so, has this patterning changed through time? 10/9/98«R:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» LSA Associates, Inc. Subsistence Determining the period of occupation of a site or a region can be accomplished by the use of archaeometric methods or by relative dating. This data is retrieved, generally at the test or data recovery level of investigation although some temporally diagnostic artifacts can be found during survey. Archaeometric methods depend upon retrieval of material amenable to scientific analyses, and, for this region, these include radiocarbon dating and obsidian hydration rind readings. It is necessary, therefore, that charcoal, shell, or bone be retrieved during excavations for radiocarbon dating and subsurface obsidian for hydration rind readings. The alternate dating method, relative dating, depends upon the recovery of specific artifacts that are stylistically unique and that have associated radiocarbon dates at other sites in the region. Within the region, numerous temporally diagnostic artifacts are recognized. These include eccentric crescents and spear - points, which date to the Early Holocene, ca. 10,000-8,000 years ago. Occupation of a region during the Middle Holocene is documented by the occurrence of dart points for use with the dart-and-atlatl, cogged stones, and discoidals. The Late Holocene occupation is placed in the temporal scale by the occurrence of Native American ceramics, small arrow points, and pictographs. These may be located during surveys. What subsistence practices are present and has this pattern changed over time? What influenced the changes: environmental changes, new populations, new technologies, or combinations of these? Kowta (1969) postulated a middle Holocene shift to the Cajon Pass region as resources failed in the Mojave Desert, and Wilke (1974) suggested that the failure of resources along Lake Cahuilla led to an influx of populations toward the coast during the late Holocene. Several researchers have suggested an influx of people from the desert to the coastal foothills and valleys with the desiccation of the desert lakes and failure of desert resources during the early Holocene (Wallace 1954; Warren 1967). Very little research based on land mammals in terms of shifts through time has taken place. Grizzly bears at one time occupied the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Mountains, antelope were present as far south as the Mexico border, and big horn sheep may have been present in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. Grizzly bears were still present when the Spanish arrived but other species were extinct in these regions. No research has taken place to determine whether the changes were due to over -exploitation, environmental changes, or some other factors. 10/9/984(R:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 12 LSA Associates, Inc. Settlement Patterns • What form of settlement pattern is observable in the archaeological record for the region? Did the pattern change over time and, if so, in what manner? The Native American occupation of western San Bernardino County is poorly documented. Too few sites have been placed in time for the question to be addressed. Tested and/or excavated prehistoric sites within the region that may be related to the project area include CA-SBR-1576 (Peter et al. 1988); the Elderberry Site - CA RW-674 (Atkinson 1974); Nibbled Rock Ridge Site - CA RIV 502 (King 1972); the Chaffey Hillside site, CA-SBR-895; and CA SBR 1573 and SBR-1574 (Smith 1942). These sites, however, date from early Holocene (CA SBR 1573 and SBR 1574) to late Holocene (CA-RW-674). In the San Gabriel Valley, excavations to be considered include CA-LAN-1066 (Schroth 1980), the Mesarica site (Eberhart 1962), CA -LAN 339 (Eberhart and Wasson 1975), and CA LAN-518 (Wasson et al. 1978). Based on these excavations, Wasson et al. (1978:16) suggested that the valley was occupied seasonally with the most probable period of occupation occurring in the late summer or fall. This interpretation was supported by Macko and Weil (1989) and by Brock (1988) with more recent excavations within the Chino Hills. The small sample, however, and the lack of temporal control for the early excavations leaves the interpretation subject to question. In the inland coastal valleys, occupations of regions at various times has been attributed to an influx of people from the desert (Kowta 1969; Wilke 1973), based on environmental factors. Kowta (1969) perceived a movement from the Mojave Desert toward the Cajon Pass and the San Bernardino Valley, following an extended drying phase in the desert region. Wilke (1973) postulated a movement westward from Lake Cahuilla, when the lake became too saline to support plants and animals. Environmental change for coastal' southern California has been related to changes in the sea level. Sea levels rose during the Early to Middle Holocene flooding coastal valleys and creating lagoons. About 3,500 years ago, the sea level stabilized and siltation overtook the rise in sea level, thereby degrading the lagoons during the Late Holocene (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1985; Glassow 1991). As populations shifted along the coast, this engendered further shifts inland. The patterning that resulted from these shifts is not clearly understood (Hudson 1971). Trade and Travel • What materials were traded? In what direction did the material move? And did this pattern change through time? Several lithic materials (e.g., steatite, obsidian, fused shale, and other exotic lithics) as well as shell beads have been identified as trade items. Their occurrence in a site assemblage aids in delineating routes of travel and trade. The Cajon Pass (possibly the route of Cajon Road) was a major trade route between the desert regions to the north and east and the San Gabriel Valley located west 10/9/98<<R:\CSP830\MCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 13 LSA Associates, Inc. Technology of the project area and the Santa Ana flood plain, located south of the project area. This material would be expected to be located in excavations and is rarely found on survey. What technological trajectories were used by the prehistoric inhabitants? What subsistence practices were these related to? And did these change through time? Several flake -tool reduction strategies have been identified for the southern California region. These include biface reduction, split -cobble core reduction, small blade core reduction, bipolar core reduction, and cobble reduction. The decision to use one or the other of these techniques was dependent on several factors, but the most important were the type of material being worked, the morphology of the parent material, and the intended tool. Some lithic material such as fused shale, Monterey chert, and Piedra de Lumbre chert are more easily worked, and with heat -treatment, become some of the best knappable material in the western United States. Problems exist, however, in the form of the material in its raw state. The Piedra de Lumbre chert (from the Camp Pendleton area of northern San Diego County) and fused shale (from near Ventura) generally occur in small pieces; thus they were used more extensively in the Late Holocene for small arrow points (Demcak 1981; Pigniolo 1992). Monterey chert (found along the coast) occurs in small cobbles and in layers. For the small cobble materials, bipolar reduction would be the most efficient method of producing usable flakes. For the layered Monterey chert and fused shale, biface reduction was the most expedient method of producing tools, in that many of the layers were already thin and only the outer perimeter needed to be worked (Cooley 1982). Iarge biface production and reduction requires pieces of material large enough to be reduced and homogenous enough to produce a workable item. Monterey chert in layered form (Cooley 1982), the Santiago Peak volcanics (used also at the Harris site; Vaughan 1982), and the Bedford Canyon metasediments (found along the Santa Ana Mountains) have been used extensively for the production of bifaces. The use of layered material from these formations may be an Early and/or Middle Holocene marker, as the larger spear and dart points would have necessitated the use of larger blocks of parent material. Cobble core reduction includes numerous techniques such as the pyramidal - shaped split cobble core (used to produce thick contracting flakes for flake tools), Teshoa flakes for very large flake tools, and cobble/core tools where the parent material rather than the removed flakes became the tool. The cobble layers along the lower reaches of the river valleys and stream beds would have provided material for these reduction sequences. It has been assumed that ceramics were a very late addition to the assemblages for southern California; however, this assumption has yet to be tested with radiocarbon dates. In addition, the question of why ceramics replaced baskets for storage has not been addressed. In most places, ceramics became a viable 10/9/98«R:\CSP830WRCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 14 ISA Associates, Inc substitute for basketry when habitation became permanent; as they are impractical for people who are constantly moving over the landscape. Does the occurrence of ceramics in some sites in the region correspond with permanent settlements and villages? What vessel types were made and for what use(s)? These research questions have been identified as important to understanding the prehistory of southern California and should be taken into consideration for studies within the region. Significance and importance of specific sites will rest on the occurrence of material within the site that can be used to address these questions. SITE DEFINITIONS An examination of the spatial distribution of known sites and site types in southern California suggests that the pattern of land use is far from uniform and is dependent upon the relationship of several environmental factors. Viewed as a whole, the vast number of recorded prehistoric sites presents a complex array of site types. For preliminary allocations based on survey data, sites are divided into the eight types defined below, taken in part from Schroth et al. (1996). This simplistic approach is necessary because most site descriptions are dependent upon surface manifestations. As research in the region expands to include more test and data recovery excavations, definitions will need to be amplified to deal with more complex site types based on a valid sample for assemblage definition. Artifact Scatter: Artifact scatters are composed of a scatter of cultural material, such as cores, debitage, bifaces, ground stone implements, and Native American ceramics. Fire -altered rocks may also be present. The presence of ground stone implements and/or Native American ceramics differentiates this category from a Flaked Stone Concentration, and the lack of variability in the assemblage distinguishes it from a major habitation site. This site type may or may not contain a subsurface deposit. It generally represents a short-term campsite, and excavations may be necessary to differentiate it from a major habitation site. Bedrock Milling Stations: These are procurement sites composed of non - movable features on large boulders or bedrock outcrops. The milling elements include bedrock mortars, bedrock basined-metates, or bedrock milling slicks. A bedrock milling station may contain a small, sparse amount of artifacts and fire - altered rocks, and a sparse subsurface deposit may be present. This site type represents a special task activity area that may have involved short-term habitation and was probably used primarily for processing plant material. Special task activity sites may be part of a village catchment system and, as such, should be viewed as part of a settlement or village complex. Flaked Tool Concentration: A flaked tool concentration contains only flaked stone tools, such as cores, debitage, and bifaces. Generally, this type of site does not contain a subsurface deposit. It represents a special task activity area, such as a hunting camp or tool -production area that may have involved short-term habitation. When concentrated into one small area with only one type of stone present, it is termed a "flaking station" denoting a one-time activity occurrence. 10i9/98«R:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 15 LSA Associates, Inc. Habitation: Habitation sites contain subsurface deposits and have a variety of artifact types in the assemblage suggesting multiple activities (food processing and procurement, social, religious). Rock features, such as rock -art panels, bedrock milling, or rock circles may be present. The variety of tool types present document the various and numerous activities that were conducted at the site. Habitation campsites may have been occupied for a short period of time (minor habitation sites) or seasonally over hundreds of years (major habitation site). A village site occupied throughout most of the year is considered a major habitation site. Quarry: This is a locality where the principal activity consists of procuring rock for flaked lithic tools or ground stone implements. Quarry sites may be extensive and involve actual mining of lithic material, or they may be areas where cobbles from outcrops are tested for suitability. Quarry sites do not usually contain . pottery, bedrock milling tools/features, or faunal material, but may have a nearby short-term support camp. Rock Feature: Rock features include rock rings, rock alignments, and rock cairns. They rarely have associated midden, and for most, the purpose of the feature remains a mystery. Rockshelter: Rockshelters are small caves or overhangs that were used prehistorically for protection from inclement weather. They usually contain a cultural deposit and sometimes have rock art in the form of pictographs (rock paintings) and petroglyphs (rock carvings). 'When rock art is present, the rockshelter may represent a special activity area where ceremonies were practiced or solstice observations were undertaken. Ecofact Concentration: Ecofact concentrations are areas where bone or shell concentrations are present with a few associated artifacts. These represent a special task site where the primary activity was collecting and processing shellfish or game. Like bedrock milling sites, the primary objective was subsistence oriented. RECORDS SEARCH Literature information and site records for recorded cultural resources within a 1-mile radius of the project area were obtained from the Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum. In addition to the centers files, the following were consulted: Survey of Surveys: A Summary of California's Historical and Architectural Resource Surveys; Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California; California Historic Landmarks; California Points of Interest (State of California 1986, 1988, 1992, 1997) and the Historical Landmarks of San Bernardino County (San Bernadino County Museum 1980). In addition, the National Register of Historic Places .and annual updates were consulted (Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 26, February 6, 1979). No sites in the 10/9/984R:\CSP830WRCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 16 LSA Associates, Inc. project area or within 1 mile of the project area have been placed on the National Register. The California Inventory of Historic Resources indicated that no resources have been identified in the project area or within 1 mile of the project area (State of California 1976). No prehistoric or historic sites are known to exist in the project area. Within 1 mile of the project area are one prehistoric sites, three historic sites, six pending historic structures, at least three possible historic locales based on historic maps, and one California Point of Historic Interest. No Cultural Landscapes or ethnic resources are known to exist either in the project area or within 1 mile of the project area. The point of interest is Base Line Road, which runs from Highland to Claremont. The road was constructed on the USGS southern California baseline (San Bernardino Base Meridian) which was surveyed by Col. Henry Washington in 1853 and served as the baseline for surveys necessary for land titles throughout the region. For many years, this county road was used as a route joining the city of San Bernardino with communities along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. No indication of the original road remains, but historic trash dumps may be present along the road. The road itself has been completely updated with asphaltum, signal lights, islands, and four lanes. Previous Surveys and Sites Within the Project Area No previous surveys for cultural resources have been conducted within the project area. In 1985, one linear survey along Hemlock Avenue was conducted for a pipeline (Mason 1985). The survey paralleled the eastern property boundary. No archaeological sites have been previously recorded in the project area. Sites Within 1 Mile of the Project Area According to the records search, historic properties located within 1 mile of the project area include one prehistoric site, three historic sites, six pending historic structures, at least three possible historic locales based on historic maps, and one California Point of Historic Interest (Table B). Historic Map Review Historic maps consulted as part of the records search include the 1901 USGS San Bernardino 15 Quadrangle, the 1927 USGS DeVore 7.5' Quadrangle, and the 1942 USGS San Bernardino 15' Quadrangle. Although numerous buildings, railroad lines, and roads are found within 1 mile of the project area, none are within the proposed development. 10/9/98«R:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 17 LSA Associates, Inc. Site Number CPH1-12 P-10-72-93-H P-10-73-4-H P-10-73-5-H P-10-73-8-H P-10-73-9-H PSBR-50-H CA-SBR-9364-H CA-SBR-9365/H CA-SBR-9366-H Historic Table B - Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the Project Area Type Description Historic Baseline Road Historic Gilfillan Airfield, Highland Avenue Historic Housesite Remains Historic Brick house w/3 wooden outbuildings Historic Ranch cluster with mortar & stone structures Historic Housesite w/ Ranch cluster Historic Area of Multiple Historic Structures Historic Biocima property Prehistoric Prehistoric jasper and and ground stone scatter/ Historic Otteson Property w/ structures, rock walls, and storage shed Cajon Road Age 1852 Unknown Filed by: Year filed: Pt of Interest No. SBr-012 Unknown Unknown 1920s SRS 1981 Unknown SRS 1981 Unknown SRS 1981 1920s SRS 1981 Unknown Unknown Unknown ca. 1932-36 McKenna 1997 Unknown pre- McKenna 1997 historic age; ca. 1936 historic age 1891 McKenna 1997 SUMMARY The records search indicated that no cultural resources have been identified within the project area and only one prehistoric site is within one mile of the project area. This appears to be a campsite; therefore, the probability of prehistoric sites within the project area is moderate. Although the historic map review indicated that no historic properties were located within the project area, numerous historic sites are present within one mile. Thus, the possibility of historic sites within the project area is high. 10/9/98<<R:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD» 18 ISA Associates, Inc. METHODS, RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section details the field methods and discusses the results of the survey. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS Indications of prehistoric sites in this region include, but are not limited to, the occurrence of surface artifacts including ground stone implements such as manos, metates, pestles, and bowls; core/cobble tools such as scraper planes, hammer stones, picks, and axes; and manufacturing debris such as cores, core fragments, and debitage. Other less likely materials indicative of prehistoric occupation include Native American ceramics, imported lithic materials (steatite, fused shale, etc.), or dark brown to black oily midden soil. Historic sites within this region are identified by structures, buildings, and/or debris concentrations (trash dumps of historic materials). FIELD METHODS During the field survey, the area was traversed in east/west parallel transects placed at 20 m intervals. Ground visibility was poor with about 90 percent of the surface covered by non-native grasses and grains. SURVEY RESULTS No archaeological sites are present in the project area. None were found as a result of the survey, and none had been previously recorded within the project area. RECOMMENDATIONS No impacts to known cultural resources will occur as a result of this project. No further archaeological research is necessary; however, if artifactual material is uncovered during the development, earth -moving activities in the vicinity should be temporarily detoured around the area until a qualified archaeologist can determine the importance/significance of the find. If human remains are encountered during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the find. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified for a determination of Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD will be given the opportunity to become involved with final disposition of the remains following scientific analysis. 10i'9/98KR:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT_RPT.WPD» 19 LSA Associates, Inc. REFERENCES Alexandrowicz, J. Steven, Anne Q. Duffield -Stoll, Jeanette A. McKenna, Susan R. Alexandrowicz, Arthur A. Kuhner, and Eric Scott 1992 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigations within the North Fontana Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Report on file at the Archaeological Inventory, San Bernardino County Museum. Allen, Larry P. 1982 The ChaffeyHillside Site, CA SBr-895: Report of the Cultural Mitigation Program. Report on file at the Archaeological Inventory, San Bernardino County Museum. Antevs, Ernst 1948 Climatic Changes and Pre -White Man. Bulletin of the University of Utah 38(20):168-191. Atkinson, Howard C. 1974 The Elderberry Site. Prehistoric California Shoshonean in Economic Distress. JurupaMountains Cultural Center Report 10(1). Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine S. Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning. Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bedwell, S.F. 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area of South Central Oregon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Belden, L. Burr 1961 Aqua Mansa. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 21(1&2):4-5. Blackburn, Thomas 1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 5:1-50. Breschini, Gary S., and Trudy Haversat 1988 Analysis of California Radiocarbon Dates. In: California Radiocarbon Dates, Fifth Edition, edited by G. S. Breschini, T. Haversat, and J. Erlandson, pp. 67-88. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA. Brock, James 1988 Test Excavations at CA SBR 5694, Laband Ranch, Chino Hills, San Ber- nardino County, California. Report on file at On file at the Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum. Budinger, Fred E. 1981 Evidence for Pleistocene Man in America: The Calico Early Man Site. Occasional Paper No. 2 of the Friends of the Calico Early Man Site, pp. 10-19. California Office of Historic Preservation 1989 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 5/14i98(R:\CSP830MRCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD) 20 I SAAssociates, Inc. California Portland Cement Company 1991 Quality Unsurpassed, 1891-1991: A Century of California Portland Cement Company. California Portland Cement Company, Glendora, CA. Carter, George F. 1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Cooley, Theodore G. 1982 Analysis and Interpretation of CA-LAn-844: A Prehistoric Quarry Workshop and Factory in the Upper Palos Verde Hills, Los Angeles County, California. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles. Davis, E. L., C. W. Brott, and D. L. Weide 1969 The Western Lithic Co -tradition. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 6. San Diego, California. Demcak, Carol R. 1981 Fused Shale as a Time Marker in Southern California: Review and Hypothesis. Master's thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach Drucker, Phillip 1937 Culture Element Distributions V: Southern California. University of California Anthropological Records 1(1). Eberhart, Hal 1962 Mesarica: A San Gabriel Valley Site. The Masterkey 36:69-76. Eberhart, Hal and Warren Wasson 1975 The Sassone Site (LAn-339): A Milling Stone Horizon Station in the San Gabriel Valley, California. California Anthropologist 5:9-45. Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1908-1915 The Missions and Missionaries of California. 4 Vols. James H. Barry, San Francisco. Forbes, Jack D. 1966 The Tongva of Tujunga o 1801. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Reports 8:137-150. Foster, John, James J. Schmidt, Carmen A. Weber, Gwendolyn r. Romani, and Roberta S. Greenwood 1991 Cultural Resource Investigation: Inland Feeder Project, MWD of Southern California. On file at the Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum. Gallegos, Dennis 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In: San Dieguito-LaJolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper 1:23-34. 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In: Hunter -Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colton, pp. 19-42. Perspectives in California Prehistory, Vol. 1, University of California, Los Angeles. Glassow, Michael A. 1991 Early Holocene Adaptations on Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County. In: Hunter -Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colton, pp. 101-112. 5/14/98(R:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD) 21 LSA Associates, Inc. Perspectives in California Prehistory, vol. 1, University of California, Los Angeles. Harrington, J. P. 1933 Chinigchinich. Reprinted 1978 by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California. 1942 Cultural Element Distribution XIX: Southern California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7(1):1-46. Heizer, Robert F. 1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852. Southwest Museum Papers No. 21. Hickman, James C., editor 1993 The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Holt, Raymond M. 1960 Baseline: Where Property Rights Begin. Westways 52(12):30-31. Hudson, D. Travis 1971 Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 7(2):49-76. Johnston, Bernice Eastman 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. King, Thomas F. 1972 Nibbled Rock Ridge: A Prehistoric Milling Station in the Jurupa Mountains, Riverside County, California. Society of California Archaeology Robert E. Schenk Archives of California Archaeology No. 35. Koerper, Henry C. 1979 On the Question of the Chronological Placement of Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3):69-94. Koerper, Henry C. and Christopher E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA- ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1-34. Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter, and Adella Schroth 1991 Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In: Early Holocene Adaptations Along the Southern California Coast, edited by J. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 43-62. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. I, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kowta, Mark 1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Reprinted in 1970. Marko, Michael E. and Edward B. Weil 5/14/98(R:\CSP830WtCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD) 22 LSA Associates, Inc. 1989 ORA 614, SBR-3690, and SBR-4032: A Reassessment of the Encinitas Tradition in the Chino Hills. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 25(2):1-21. Mason, Roger D. 1985 Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Etiwanda Pipeline and Power Plant EIR. Report on file at the Archaeological Inventory, San Bernardino County Museum McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press, Banning, CA. Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227. Miller, Jacqueline N. 1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of California, San Diego, California. Moriarty, James R. III 1967 Transitional Pre -Desert Phase in San Diego County. Science 155(3762):553-55. 1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In: San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper 1:49-60 Moriarty, James R. III, and Herbert Minshell 1972 A New Pre -Desert Site Discovered Near Texas Street. The AnthropologicalJournal of Canada 10(3):10-13. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Peter, Kevin J., James Rudolph, Tony Morgan, Jean Hudson, and Craig F. Woodman 1988 Archaeological Test Investigation and Evaluation of CA SBR-1576, San Bernardino County, California. On file at the Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum. Pigniolo, Andrew 1992 Distribution of Piedra de Lumbra "Chert" and Hunter/Gatherer Mobility and Exchange in Southern California. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. Rice, Glenn and Marie Cottrell 1976 Report of Excavations at CA ORA-111, Locus II. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 12 (3) :7-66. Rogers, David B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Special Publications No. 1 Rogers, Malcolm 1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist 31(3):454-467. 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 1(1):167-198. 5/14/98(R:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD) 23 ISA Associates, Inc. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. San Diego: The Union -Tribune Publishing Company. Schroth, Adella 1980 Archaeological Investigations and Salvage of CA LAN-1066. Report on file at the Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. 1988 The Use of Mesquite in the Great Basin. In: Papers on the Archaeology of the Mojave Desert, M. Q. Sutton, ed., pp. 53-78. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory, Salinas. Schroth, Adella B., Roxana Philips and Dennis Gallegos 1996 Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Subarea V Future Urbanizing Area, San Diego, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Simpson, Ruth D. 1980 The Calico Mountains Site (Oldest Known Early Man Site in America). Archaeological Survey AssociationJournal 4(2):8-25. Smith, Gerald A. 1942 Traces of Early Man at Bloomington, California. The Masterkey 16(4):124-127. 1961 Aqua Mansa, Home of Prehistoric Indians. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 21(1&2):21-28. True, Delbert L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity. 23(3): 225-63. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4). Vaughan, Sheila 1982 A Replicative Systems Analysis of the San Dieguito Component at the C. W. Harris Site. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. SouthwesternJournal for Anthropology 11:214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum of Man Paper No. 6, San Diego, California. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168-85. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast, In: Arcbaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin Williams. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1-14. 1987 San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In: San Dieguito - La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. Warren, Claude N., D. L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey 5/14/98(R:\CSP830\ARCHAEO\CULT RPT.WPD) 24 LSA Associates, Inc. 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961, pp. 1- 106,. Wasson, Warren, Dana Bleitz-Sanberg, Delmer Sanberg, Jr., Ralph Marshall, Robert Fondren, and Ron Amerine 1978 The Wilson Site (CA LAN-518). Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 14(2):1-18. Wilke, Philip Joel 1974 Settlement and Subsistence at Perris Reservoir: A Summary of Archeological Investigations. In Perris Reservoir Archeology, edited by J. F. O'Connell et al., pp. 20-29. State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation 14, Sacramento. 5/14/98(R:\CSP830WRCRAEO\CULT RPT.WPD) 25 LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX C - MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECIIIS-TOC.WPD» LSA Associates, Inc. APPENDIX C MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN This mitigation monitoring plan has been prepared for use in implementing mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the CenterStone at the Landings project. This program has been prepared in compliance with the State law to ensure compliance with mitigation measures adopted for the project by the City of Fontana. Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code, Paragraph 201081.6), effective January 1, 1989, requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those conditions of approval placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment. The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be de- signed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The monitoring program contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some in- stances, one action, such as plan review, may be used to verify implementation of several conditions of approval. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based on recommenda- tions by those responsible for the program. If changes are made, new monitor- ing compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJEC ITMON.FIN» C-1 ■N — A ■e M W s MN l— --— MN I M ■A MN INN MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CENTERSTONE AT THE LANDINGS Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Responsible Party Initials Date Remarks AIR QUALITY 1. The Construction Contractor shall select the construc- Applicant shall submit Prior to issuance of Building & tion equipment used onsite based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in - eluded in the construe - grading permits. Safety Dept. statement that all construction equipment will be tuned tion documents with the Applicant shall and maintained in accordance.with the manufacturer's specifications. developer's contractor. pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. 2. The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or Applicant shall submit Prior to issuance of Building & diesel -powered equipment in lieu of gasoline -powered to the City proof that the grading permits. Safety Dept. engines where feasible. mitigation listed is in- cluded in the construe- tion documents with the developer's contractor. ' Applicant shall pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. 3. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that con- Applicant shall submit Prior to issuance of Building & struction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in - grading permits. Safety Dept. smog season (May through October), the overall length of cluded in the construc- Applicant the construction period should be extended, thereby de- creasing the size of the area prepared each day, to mini- mize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. tion documents with the developer's contractor. shall payfor mitigation monitor hired by City. 4. The Construction Contractor shall time the construc- Applicant shall submit Prior to issuance of Building & tion activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in- grading permits. Safety Dept. to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to cluded in the construc- Applicant shall maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. tion documents with the developer's contractor. pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. 3/12/99«R:\CSP830\PROJECIVETMON.FIN» C-2 IIIIIII MIN M M N 1 MI E M M IIIIIII IIMII N MI 111111 Mill ' N Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Responsible Party Initials Date Remarks 5. The Construction Contractor shall support and encour- age ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 6. Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site and keep to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler sys- tems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle move- ment damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind ex- ceeds 15 miles per hour. c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be cov- ered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to pre- vent dust generation. Applicant shall submit to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in- cluded in the construc- tion documents with the developer's contractor. Applicant shall submit to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in - cluded in the construc- tion documents with the developer's contractor. Applicant shall submit to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in- cluded in the construc- tion documents with the developer's contractor. Applicant shall submit to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in - cluded in the construc- tion documents with the developer's contractor. Applicant shall submit to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in- cluded in the construc- tion documents with the developer's contractor. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Field inspections during grading. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Field inspections during grading. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Field inspections during grading. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Field inspections during grading. Building & Safety Dept. Applicant shall pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. Building & Safety Dept. Applicant shall pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. Building & Safety Dept. Applicant shall pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. Building & Safety Dept. Applicant shall pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. Building & Safety Dept. Applicant shall pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. • 3/12/990R:\CSP830\PROJECI.IITMON.FINN C-3 - 11111 EN EN UN MIN - 1111 - 1• -NMI ES NEI EN EN EMI - - Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Responsible Party Initials Date Remarks e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. Applicant shall submit to the City proof that the mitigation listed is in- cluded in the construc- tion documents with the developer's contractor. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Field inspections during grading. Building & Safety Dept. Applicant shall pay for mitiga- tion monitor hired by City. . 3/12/994<R:\CSP830\PROJECIW!TMON.FIN» C-4