Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix K - Preliminary WQMPPRELIMINARY Water Quality Management Plan For: Tract No. 20565 (E/O LIVE OAK AVENUE, S/O VILLAGE DRIVE) APN: 0237-411-13, 0237-411-14 WQMP 23-000007 Prepared for: NH Southridge LLC 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92600 PH: (949) 344-2705 Prepared by: United Civil, Inc. 30141 Agoura Road, Suite 215 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 PH: (818) 707-8648 Submittal Date: 06/17/2022 Revision Date: 03/20/2023 Preliminary for Entitlements Complete Date:_____________________ Construction WQMP Complete Date:_____________________ Final WQMP Approved Date:_____________________ Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Owner’s Certification Project Owner’s Certification This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for New Bridge Homes by United Civil, Inc.. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of a WQMP. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with San Bernardino County’s Municipal Storm Water Management Program and the intent of the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors in interest and the city/county shall be notified of the transfer. The new owner will be informed of its responsibility under this WQMP. A copy of the approved WQMP shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. “I certify under a penalty of law that the provisions (implementation, operation, maintenance, and funding) of the WQMP have been accepted and that the plan will be transferred to future successors.” . Project Data Permit/Application Number(s): WQMP 23-000007 Grading Permit Number(s): Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): Tract No. 20565 Building Permit Number(s): CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN: 0237-411-13, 0237-411-14 Owner’s Signature Owner Name: NH Southridge LLC Title Bryan Avilla Company Newbridge Homes LLC Address 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Email bavilla@newbridgehomes.com Telephone # (949) 344-2705 Signature Date Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents Preparer’s Certification Project Data Permit/Application Number(s): WQMP 23-000007 Grading Permit Number(s): Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): Tract No. 20565 Building Permit Number(s): CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN: 0237-411-13, 0237- 411-14 “The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control measures in this plan were prepared under my oversight and meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036.” Engineer: John Luong PE Stamp Below Title Principle Engineer Company United Civil, Inc. Address 30141 Agoura Road, Suite 215 Email john@uc-la.com Telephone # (626) 575-9999 ext. 202 Signature Date 03-22-2023 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents ii Table of Contents Section 1 Discretionary Permits ......................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Project Description ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Information ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Property Ownership / Management .............................................................. 2-2 2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants ................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Water Quality Credits ........ ……………………………………………………………………………. 2-4 Section 3 Site and Watershed Description ......................................................................... 3-1 Section 4 Best Management Practices ................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Source Control BMP ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Pollution Prevention ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices ....................................................... 4-6 4.2 Project Performance Criteria......................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis ....................................................................... 4-12 4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP .............................................. 4-14 4.3.2 Infiltration BMP .......................................................................................... 4-16 4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP .................................................................................. 4-18 4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP....................................................................................... 4.19 4.3.5 Conformance Summary ............................................................................... 4-23 4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP ............................................................... 4-24 4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable) ................................................. 4-25 Section 5 Inspection & Maintenance Responsibility Post Construction BMPs ................. 5-1 Section 6 Site Plan and Drainage Plan ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan.......................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Electronic Data Submittal ............................................................................. 6-1 Forms Form 1-1 Project Information ............................................................................................... 1-1 Form 2.1-1 Description of Proposed Project ......................................................................... 2-1 Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management ..................................................................... 2-2 Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern ......................................................................................... 2-3 Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits ......................................................................................... 2-4 Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features ................................................................. 3-1 Form 3-2 Hydrologic Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-2 Form 3-3 Watershed Description .......................................................................................... 3-3 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMP ................................................................... 4-2 Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMP .......................................................................... 4-4 Form 4.1-3 Site Design Practices Checklist ........................................................................... 4-6 Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume ............................. 4-7 Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment .......................................................................... 4-8 Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume ............................................................... 4-9 Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration .................................................. 4-10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents iii Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff .................................................................... 4-11 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility ................................................................................ 4-13 Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP ..................................................... 4-14 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP ........................................................................................... 4-17 Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMP ......................................................................................... 4-18 Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP ................................................ 4-19 Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment – Bioretention and Planter Boxes w/Underdrains 4-20 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment- Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention 4-21 Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment ................................................................................... 4-22 Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative Compliance Volume Estimate .......... 4-23 Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMP ..................................................................... 4-24 Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5-1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 1-1 Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s) Form 1-1 Project Information Project Name Southridge, Tract No. 20565 Project Owner Contact Name: Bryan Avilla Mailing Address: 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 E-mail Address: Bavilla@newbridgehomes.com Telephone: (949) 344-2705 Permit/Application Number(s): WQMP 23-000007 Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): Tract No. 20565 Additional Information/ Comments: This residential project is in Parcel 1. Parcel 2, a future public park, and Parcel 3, a future public trail, are not a part of this study. Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 will be transferred to the City of Fontana. Description of Project: This project is proposing 32.7 acres of detached residential units comprising of townhome/condo style development. The project consists of 255 units in a private, gated community and common open space area with amenities. An HOA will be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the community elements and WQMP BMPs for the development. The proposed project site is in the City of Fontana. Currently, the site consists of 2 existing lots, 1 lot belongs to the City of Fontana. The two lots mainly consists of undeveloped land with some vegetation and trees and is bounded by Southridge Park and Live Oak Avenue to the west, Village Drive to the North, and single-family homes to the South. The future public park is not a part of this WQMP study. The proposed drainage pattern is consistent with the existing drainage pattern in which the runoff drains from north to south and the easterly portion of the hill will drain northerly to Village Drive and to Live Oak. The proposed drainage divides the project site into two drainage areas where the northerly portion drains to an underground infiltration trench (3,294sf, 8’ depth of gravel) and the southerly portion drains to an above ground infiltration basin located near the Southridge Park entry street. Overflow from the open basin will split into two outlets: a pipe outlet connecting to the existing catch basin on Live Oak Ave. and a parkway drain outlet structure that drains overflow to the park parking lot. Street Improvements are exempt from treatment per the Transportation Projects TGD. Provide summary of Conceptual WQMP conditions (if previously submitted and approved). Attach complete copy. DMA-1 & DMA-2: DMA-1 drains to an above ground WQMP/Retention Basin. DMA-2 drains to an underground infiltration trench. The onsite private street flow will be intercepted by proposed catch basins and conveyed to proposed basin/trench via storm drain pipes. The pretreatment will be through the CDS units prior to discharge to the WQMP basins & trench for infiltration. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-1 Section 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Information This section of the WQMP should provide the information listed below. The information provided for Conceptual/ Preliminary WQMP should give sufficient detail to identify the major proposed site design and LID BMPs and other anticipated water quality features that impact site planning. Final Project WQMP must specifically identify all BMP incorporated into the final site design and provide other detailed information as described herein. The purpose of this information is to help determine the applicable development category, pollutants of concern, watershed description, and long term maintenance responsibilities for the project, and any applicable water quality credits. This information will be used in conjunction with the information in Section 3, Site Description, to establish the performance criteria and to select the LID BMP or other BMP for the project or other alternative programs that the project will participate in, which are described in Section 4. Form 2.1-1 Description of Proposed Project 1 Development Category (Select all that apply): Significant re-development involving the addition or replacement of 5,000 ft2 or more of impervious surface on an already developed site New development involving the creation of 10,000 ft2 or more of impervious surface collectively over entire site Automotive repair shops with standard industrial classification (SIC) codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, 7536-7539 Restaurants (with SIC code 5812) where the land area of development is 5,000 ft2 or more Hillside developments of 5,000 ft2 or more which are located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where the natural slope is 25 percent or more Developments of 2,500 ft2 of impervious surface or more adjacent to (within 200 ft) or discharging directly into environmentally sensitive areas or waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Parking lots of 5,000 ft2 or more exposed to storm water Retail gasoline outlets that are either 5,000 ft2 or more, or have a projected average daily traffic of 100 or more vehicles per day Non-Priority / Non-Category Project May require source control LID BMPs and other LIP requirements. Please consult with local jurisdiction on specific requirements. 2 Project Area (ac): 32.7 Acres 3 Number of Dwelling Units: 255 4 SIC Code: 6552 5 Is Project going to be phased? Yes No If yes, ensure that the WQMP evaluates each phase as a distinct DA, requiring LID BMPs to address runoff at time of completion. 6 Does Project include roads? Yes No If yes, ensure that applicable requirements for transportation projects are addressed (see Appendix A of TGD for WQMP) Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-2 2.2 Property Ownership/Management Describe the ownership/management of all portions of the project and site. State whether any infrastructure will transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caltrans, etc.) after project completion. State if a homeowners or property owners association will be formed and be responsible for the long-term maintenance of project stormwater facilities. Describe any lot-level stormwater features that will be the responsibility of individual property owners. Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management Describe property ownership/management responsible for long-term maintenance of WQMP stormwater facilities: The property owner, NH Southridge LLC, is responsible for implementation of each applicable non-structural BMP as well as scheduling cleaning and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP (including treatment control) facilities. An HOA will be responsible for inspection and maintenance activities in the common area and landscape area. Debris and other pollutants will be controlled, contained, and disposed of in a proper manner by the HOA. The open basin will be transferred to the City of Fontana for maintenance. Owner: NH Southridge LLC Contact: Bryan Avilla Bavilla@newbridgehomes.com (949) 344-2705 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-3 2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants Determine and describe expected stormwater pollutants of concern based on land uses and site activities (refer to Table 3-3 in the TGD for WQMP). Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Please check: E=Expected, N=Not Expected Additional Information and Comments Pathogens (Bacterial / Virus) E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 affected by pathogens. Nutrients - Phosphorous E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Nutrients - Nitrogen E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Noxious Aquatic Plants E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Sediment/Total Suspended Solids/ pH E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Metals E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 affected by metals. Oil and Grease E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Trash/Debris E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Pesticides / Herbicides E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Organic Compounds E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Other: Oxygen Demanding Compounds E N Santa Ana River Reach 3 not affected Other: E N Other: E N Other: E N Other: E N Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-4 2.4 Water Quality Credits A water quality credit program is applicable for certain types of development projects if it is not feasible to meet the requirements for on-site LID. Proponents for eligible projects, as described below, can apply for water quality credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMP or participating in other alternative compliance programs. Refer to Section 6.2 in the TGD for WQMP to determine if water quality credits are applicable for the project. Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits 1 Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits: Select all that apply Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. [Credit = % impervious reduced] Higher density development projects Vertical density [20%] 7 units/ acre [5%] Mixed use development, (combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that demonstrate environmental benefits not realized through single use projects) [20%] Brownfield redevelopment (redevelop real property complicated by presence or potential of hazardous contaminants) [25%] Redevelopment projects in established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant core city center areas [10%] Transit-oriented developments (mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation) [20%] In-fill projects (conversion of empty lots & other underused spaces < 5 acres, substantially surrounded by urban land uses, into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas) [10%] Live-Work developments (variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs) [20%] 2 Total Credit % 0 (Total all credit percentages up to a maximum allowable credit of 50 percent) Description of Water Quality Credit Eligibility (if applicable) N/A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-1 Section 3 Site and Watershed Description Describe the project site conditions that will facilitate the selection of BMP through an analysis of the physical conditions and limitations of the site and its receiving waters. Identify distinct drainage areas (DA) that collect flow from a portion of the site and describe how runoff from each DA (and sub-watershed DMAs) is conveyed to the site outlet(s). Refer to Section 3.2 in the TGD for WQMP. The form below is provided as an example. Then complete Forms 3.2 and 3.3 for each DA on the project site. If the project has more than one drainage area for stormwater management, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet. Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features Site coordinates take GPS measurement at approximate center of site Latitude 34.040781 Longitude -117.48266 Thomas Bros Map page Page 644 Grid D3/D4 (2006) 1 San Bernardino County climatic region: Valley Mountain 2 Does the site have more than one drainage area (DA): Yes No If no, proceed to Form 3-2. If yes, then use this form to show a conceptual schematic describing DMAs and hydrologic feature connecting DMAs to the site outlet(s). An example is provided below that can be modified for proposed project or a drawing clearly showing DMA and flow routing may be attached Conveyance Briefly describe on-site drainage features to convey runoff that is not retained within a DMA DA-1 DA-1: Runoff will be conveyed by onsite private storm drain pipes to the above ground WQMP/Retention basin. The onsite private street flow will be intercepted by proposed catch basins. The pretreatment will be through the CDS units prior to discharge to the basin. Overflow will outlet onto the neighbouring public park parking lot via parkway drain outlet structure. DA-2 DA-2: Runoff will be conveyed by onsite private storm drain pipes to an underground infiltration trench (3,294 sf, 8’ depth of gravel). The onsite private street flow will be intercepted by proposed catch basins. The pretreatment will be through the CDS units prior to discharge to the trench. The overflow will outlet into existing 42” RCP storm drain pipe in Live Oak Avenue. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-2 Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Areas (DA-1 to DA-2) For Drainage Area 1’s sub-watershed DMA, provide the following characteristics DA 1 DA 2 - - 1 DMA drainage area (acres) 28.05 Acres 4.69 Acres 2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 0 SF 0 SF 3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert areas, use http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2 0100412_map.pdf III III 4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ A/B A/B 5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 1600 ft 1800 ft 6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) 3.3% 3.1% 7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3 of Hydrology Manual Undeveloped - Open Brush Undeveloped - Open Brush 8 Pre-developed pervious area condition: Based on the extent of wet season vegetated cover good >75%; Fair 50-75%; Poor <50% Attach photos of site to support rating 100% 100% Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-3 Form 3-3 Watershed Description for Drainage Area Receiving waters Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ See ‘Drainage Facilities” link at this website 42” RCP city master storm drain in Live Oak Avenue Declez Channel, San Sevaine Channel, Santa Ana River Reach 3, Prado Basin, Santa Ana River Reach 2, Santa Ana River Reach 1, Pacific Ocean Applicable TMDLs Refer to Local Implementation Plan Santa Ana River Reach 3 – Nitrate & Pathogens Prado Basin – Pathogens 303(d) listed impairments Refer to Local Implementation Plan and Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ and State Water Resources Control Board website – http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_iss ues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml Santa Ana River Reach 3 – Copper, Indicator Bacteria, Lead Prado Basin – pH Santa Ana River Reach 2 – Indicator Bacteria Santa Ana River Reach 1 – Fecal Coliform Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ Within 200’ from project site – Coastal California Gnatcatcher Unlined Downstream Water Bodies Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ Parts of Santa Ana River Reach 2 & 1, Prado Basin, Declez Basin/Channel Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Yes Complete Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Assessment. Include Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 and Hydromodification BMP Form 4.3-10 in submittal No Watershed–based BMP included in a RWQCB approved WAP Yes Attach verification of regional BMP evaluation criteria in WAP • More Effective than On-site LID • Remaining Capacity for Project DCV • Upstream of any Water of the US • Operational at Project Completion • Long-Term Maintenance Plan No Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-1 Section 4 Best Management Practices (BMP) 4.1 Source Control BMP 4.1.1 Pollution Prevention Non-structural and structural source control BMP are required to be incorporated into all new development and significant redevelopment projects. Form 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 are used to describe specific source control BMPs used in the WQMP or to explain why a certain BMP is not applicable. Table 7-3 of the TGD for WQMP provides a list of applicable source control BMP for projects with specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities. The source control BMP in this table must be implemented for projects with these specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities. The preparers of this WQMP have reviewed the source control BMP requirements for new development and significant redevelopment projects. The preparers have also reviewed the specific BMP required for project as specified in Forms 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. All applicable non-structural and structural source control BMP shall be implemented in the project. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-2 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, if not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable N1 Education of Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants on Stormwater BMPs Educational materials included in WQMP, HOA will provide educational materials and train employees. HOA is required to research updated educational materials annually. N2 Activity Restrictions Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) will be prepared by the HOA to communicate restrictions of activities for the purpose of surface water quality protection, such as no car washing in the parking lot. Any activity specifically not allowed for by this WQMP is restricted. N3 Landscape Management BMPs (CASQA SC-73) Landscaping planning consistent with city guidelines to be implemented to reduce groundwater and storm water contamination thru infiltration basins and landscape areas. This will include control of fertilizers and/or pesticides, and periodic lawn mowing. N4 BMP Maintenance HOA will provide new employees with educational materials, educate on activity restrictions and train them in maintenance of BMP's. HOA will maintain all on-site BMP's per the schedule provided in this WQMP. N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) The proposed development will not generate waste subject to Title 22 CCR Compliance. N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances None N7 Spill Contingency Plan (CASQA SC-11) Not for residential project N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance Underground Storage Tank will be maintained by HOA in accordance with State regulations and County Environmental Health Services guidelines. N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Not for residential project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-3 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, if not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation - N11 Litter/Debris Control Program (CASQA SC-60) HOA will be responsible for performing trash pick-up and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary, and proper disposal of waste collected. Responsibilities will also include investigating, noting, and documenting improper disposal by the public. N12 Employee Training All employees, contractors, and subcontrators of the property management shall be trained quarterly on WQMP requirements with annually updated educational materials. Training will include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc. N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks (CASQA SC-31) Not proposed N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program (CASQA SC-74) As required by the TGD, at least 80% of the project's private drainage facilities shall be inspected and maintained annually with 100% of facilities inspected and maintained within a two-year period. All on-site catch basin inlets shall be inspected and cleaned out by HOA. N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and Parking Lots (CASQA SC-43, SC-70) On-site parking and driveways will be vacuum swept on a monthly basis. N16 Other Non-structural Measures for Public Agency Projects Not a public agency project. N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES permits No other applicable NPDES permits required Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-4 Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, If not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable S1 Provide storm drain system stencilling and signage (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-13) Storm drain stencils or signage prohibiting dumping and discharge of materials ("No Dumping - Drains to Ocean") shall be provided adjacent to each of the project's proposed inlets. The stencils shall be inspected and restenciled as needed. S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-34) Not Proposed S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-32) The community will have trash cans for common areas and be serviced by the HOA. The residents will have trash cans for their units and these trash cans will be serviced regularly. S4 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control (Statewide Model Landscape Ordinance; CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-12) The developer/HOA will be responsible for implementing all efficient irrigation systems for common area landscaping including but not limited to provisions for water sensors and programmable irrigation cycles. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with water use efficiency guidelines. S5 Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement Landscape areas to be depressed a minimum of 1" below paved areas. S6 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) 2:1 slope will be landscaped routinely for protection of the slopes. S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) Not Proposed S8 Covered maintenance bays with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) Not Proposed S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) Not Proposed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-5 S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-36) Not Proposed Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, If not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable S11 Equipment wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) Not Proposed S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-30) Not Proposed S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) 2:1 slope will be landscaped routinely for protection of the slopes. S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas Not Proposed S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) Not Proposed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-6 4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices Site design practices associated with new LID requirements in the MS4 Permit should be considered in the earliest phases of a project. Preventative site design practices can result in smaller DCV for LID BMP and hydromodification control BMP by reducing runoff generation. Describe site design and drainage plan including: Refer to Section 5.2 of the TGD for WQMP for more details. Form 4.1-3 Preventative LID Site Design Practices Checklist Site Design Practices If yes, explain how preventative site design practice is addressed in project site plan. If no, other LID BMPs must be selected to meet targets Minimize impervious areas: Yes No Explanation: Landscape areas will be installed in the common area and slope area. Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No Explanation: Runoff will be conveyed to infiltration basin/infiltration trench via storm drain system which includes swales, inlets, and storm drain pipes. Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No Explanation: Drainage patterns of all the tributaries that drain through the project will remain unchanged. The time of concentration resulting from the project improvements wil be mitigated. Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No Explanation: Where feasible, runoff from the pads is drained towards pervious areas. Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No Explanation: There are no environmentally sensitive areas onsite and existing vegetation will be preserved as much as possible. Re-vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No Explanation: Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated where possible and existing vegetation will be replaced with proposed landscaping. Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No Explanation: Retentional/infiltration Basin and infiltration trench areas will be marked to minimize unnecessary compaction. Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No Explanation: Vegetated swales will be used in the sideyards. Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction : Yes No Explanation: Minimal or no compaction will be performed within the proposed landscape areas. ▪ A narrative of site design practices utilized or rationale for not using practices ▪ A narrative of how site plan incorporates preventive site design practices ▪ Include an attached Site Plan layout which shows how preventative site design practices are included in WQMP Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-7 4.2 Project Performance Criteria The purpose of this section of the Project WQMP is to establish targets for post-development hydrology based on performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID design capture volume), and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection of any downstream waterbody segments with a HCOC. If the project has more than one outlet for stormwater runoff, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet. Methods applied in the following forms include: ▪ For LID BMP Design Capture Volume (DCV), the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires use of the P6 method (MS4 Permit Section XI.D.6a.ii) – Form 4.2-1 ▪ For HCOC pre- and post-development hydrologic calculation, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires the use of the Rational Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section D). Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 calculate hydrologic variables including runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff from the project site pre- and post-development using the Hydrology Manual Rational Method approach. For projects greater than 640 acres (1.0 mi2), the Rational Method and these forms should not be used. For such projects, the Unit Hydrograph Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section E) shall be applied for hydrologic calculations for HCOC performance criteria. Refer to Section 4 in the TGD for WQMP for detailed guidance and instructions. Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DA-1) 1 Project area DA 1 (ft2): 1,221,862 SF 2 Imperviousness after applying preventative site design practices (Imp%): 60 3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): _0.41 Rc = 0.858(Imp%)^3-0.78(Imp%)^2+0.774(Imp%)+0.04 4 Determine 1-hour rainfall depth for a 2-year return period P2yr-1hr (in): 0.515 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 0.763 P6 = Item 4 *C1, where C1 is a function of site climatic region specified in Form 3-1 Item 1 (Valley = 1.4807; Mountain = 1.909; Desert = 1.2371) 6 Drawdown Rate Use 48 hours as the default condition. Selection and use of the 24 hour drawdown time condition is subject to approval by the local jurisdiction. The necessary BMP footprint is a function of drawdown time. While shorter drawdown times reduce the performance criteria for LID BMP design capture volume, the depth of water that can be stored is also reduced. 24-hrs 48-hrs 7 Compute design capture volume, DCV (ft3): 62,328 CF DCV = 1/12 * [Item 1* Item 3 *Item 5 * C2], where C2 is a function of drawdown rate (24-hr = 1.582; 48-hr = 1.963) Compute separate DCV for each outlet from the project site per schematic drawn in Form 3-1 Item 2 Water quality credit = 0% Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-8 Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DA-2) 1 Project area DA 1 (ft2): 204,107 SF 2 Imperviousness after applying preventative site design practices (Imp%): 60 3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): _0.41 Rc = 0.858(Imp%)^3-0.78(Imp%)^2+0.774(Imp%)+0.04 4 Determine 1-hour rainfall depth for a 2-year return period P2yr-1hr (in): 0.515 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 0.763 P6 = Item 4 *C1, where C1 is a function of site climatic region specified in Form 3-1 Item 1 (Valley = 1.4807; Mountain = 1.909; Desert = 1.2371) 6 Drawdown Rate Use 48 hours as the default condition. Selection and use of the 24 hour drawdown time condition is subject to approval by the local jurisdiction. The necessary BMP footprint is a function of drawdown time. While shorter drawdown times reduce the performance criteria for LID BMP design capture volume, the depth of water that can be stored is also reduced. 24-hrs 48-hrs 7 Compute design capture volume, DCV (ft3): 10,412 CF DCV = 1/12 * [Item 1* Item 3 *Item 5 * C2], where C2 is a function of drawdown rate (24-hr = 1.582; 48-hr = 1.963) Compute separate DCV for each outlet from the project site per schematic drawn in Form 3-1 Item 2 Water Quality Credit = 0% WQMP Project Report County of San Bernardino Stormwater Program Santa Ana River Watershed Geodatabase Thursday, March 31, 2022 Note: The information provided in this report and on the Stormwater Geodatabase for the County of San Bernardino Stormwater Program is intended to provide basic guidance in the preparation of the applicant’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and should not be relied upon without independent verification. Project Site Parcel Number(s):023741114, 023741113 Project Site Acreage:36.836 HCOC Exempt Area:Yes. Verify that the project is completely with the HCOC exemption area. Closest Receiving Waters: (Applicant to verify based on local drainage facilities and topography.) System Number - 813 Facility Name - Declez Channel Owner - SBCFCD Closest channel segment’s susceptibility to Hydromodification:EHM Highest downstream hydromodification susceptibility:EHM Is this drainage segment subject to TMDLs?No Are there downstream drainage segments subject to TMDLs?No Is this drainage segment a 303d listed stream?No Are there 303d listed streams downstream?No Are there unlined downstream waterbodies?No Project Site Onsite Soil Group(s):A, B Environmentally Sensitive Areas within 200':COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER Groundwater Depth (FT):-200 Parcels with potential septic tanks within 1000':No Known Groundwater Contamination Plumes within 1000':No Studies and Reports Related to Project Site:Chino Basin Recharge Master Plan Chino Basin Water Master 32nd Annual Report Summary Report Master Storm Drainage Plan Study Summary Report Master Storm Drainage Plan MapFONTANA MPD FEE STUDY Master SD Hydrology Calcs for Fontana Vol III Master SD Hydrology Calcs For Fontana Vol II Master SD Hydrology Calcs for Fontana Vol V Master SD Hydrology Calcs for Fontana Vol IV San Sevaine - Boyle Map 0001 San Sevaine - Boyle Map 0002San Sevaine - Boyle Map 0003 SBCounty CSDP Project No.2 Volume 1 SBCounty CSDP Project No.2 Volume 2 Volume 2 MapSBCounty CSDP Project No.3 Volume I SBCounty CSDP Project No.3 Volume II West Fontana Channel Preliminary Basin Study Page 1 of 1San Bernardino - WAP Report 3/31/2022http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap_report/report.asp?septic=No&SECAREA=COASTAL... Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-9 Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment (DA 1) Does project have the potential to cause or contribute to an HCOC in a downstream channel: Yes No Go to: http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ This project site is located within the HCOC exempt area. If “Yes”, then complete HCOC assessment of site hydrology for 2yr storm event using Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 and insert results below (Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 may be replaced by computer software analysis based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual) If “No,” then proceed to Section 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis Condition Runoff Volume (ft3) Time of Concentration (min) Peak Runoff (cfs) Pre-developed 1 Form 4.2-3 Item 12 2 Form 4.2-4 Item 13 3 Form 4.2-5 Item 10 Post-developed 4 Form 4.2-3 Item 13 5 Form 4.2-4 Item 14 6 Form 4.2-5 Item 14 Difference 7 Item 4 – Item 1 8 Item 2 – Item 5 9 Item 6 – Item 3 Difference (as % of pre-developed) 10 % Item 7 / Item 1 11 % Item 8 / Item 2 12 % Item 9 / Item 3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-10 Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume (DA 1) Weighted Curve Number Determination for: Pre-developed DA DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H 1a Land Cover type 2a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) 3a DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of DMA should equal area of DA 4a Curve Number (CN) use Items 1 and 2 to select the appropriate CN from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for WQMP Weighted Curve Number Determination for: Post-developed DA DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H 1b Land Cover type 2b Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) 3b DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of DMA should equal area of DA 4b Curve Number (CN) use Items 5 and 6 to select the appropriate CN from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for WQMP 5 Pre-Developed area-weighted CN: 7 Pre-developed soil storage capacity, S (in): S = (1000 / Item 5) - 10 9 Initial abstraction, Ia (in): Ia = 0.2 * Item 7 6 Post-Developed area-weighted CN: 8 Post-developed soil storage capacity, S (in): S = (1000 / Item 6) - 10 10 Initial abstraction, Ia (in): Ia = 0.2 * Item 8 11 Precipitation for 2 yr, 24 hr storm (in): Go to: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 12 Pre-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 9)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 9 + Item 7) 13 Post-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 10)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 10 + Item 8) 14 Volume Reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement, (ft3): VHCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 12 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-11 Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration (DA 1) Compute time of concentration for pre and post developed conditions for each DA (For projects using the Hydrology Manual complete the form below) Variables Pre-developed DA1 Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA Post-developed DA1 Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D 1 Length of flowpath (ft) Use Form 3-2 Item 5 for pre-developed condition 2 Change in elevation (ft) 3 Slope (ft/ft), So = Item 2 / Item 1 4 Land cover 5 Initial DMA Time of Concentration (min) Appendix C-1 of the TGD for WQMP 6 Length of conveyance from DMA outlet to project site outlet (ft) May be zero if DMA outlet is at project site outlet 7 Cross-sectional area of channel (ft2) 8 Wetted perimeter of channel (ft) 9 Manning’s roughness of channel (n) 10 Channel flow velocity (ft/sec) Vfps = (1.49 / Item 9) * (Item 7/Item 8)^0.67 * (Item 3)^0.5 11 Travel time to outlet (min) Tt = Item 6 / (Item 10 * 60) 12 Total time of concentration (min) Tc = Item 5 + Item 11 13 Pre-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 pre-developed DMA 14 Post-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 post-developed DMA 15 Additional time of concentration needed to meet HCOC requirement (min): TC-HCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 14 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-12 Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff (DA 1) Compute peak runoff for pre- and post-developed conditions Variables Pre-developed DA to Project Outlet (Use additional forms if more than 3 DMA) Post-developed DA to Project Outlet (Use additional forms if more than 3 DMA) DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA A DMA B DMA C 1 Rainfall Intensity for storm duration equal to time of concentration Ipeak = 10^(LOG Form 4.2-1 Item 4 - 0.6 LOG Form 4.2-4 Item 5 /60) 2 Drainage Area of each DMA (Acres) For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 3 Ratio of pervious area to total area For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 4 Pervious area infiltration rate (in/hr) Use pervious area CN and antecedent moisture condition with Appendix C-3 of the TGD for WQMP 5 Maximum loss rate (in/hr) Fm = Item 3 * Item 4 Use area-weighted Fm from DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 6 Peak Flow from DMA (cfs) Qp =Item 2 * 0.9 * (Item 1 - Item 5) 7 Time of concentration adjustment factor for other DMA to site discharge point Form 4.2-4 Item 12 DMA / Other DMA upstream of site discharge point (If ratio is greater than 1.0, then use maximum value of 1.0) DMA A n/a n/a DMA B n/a n/a DMA C n/a n/a 8 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Qp = Item 6DMAA + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAA/2] + [Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAA/3] 9 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: Qp = Item 6DMAB + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAB/1] + [Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAB/3] 10 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: Qp = Item 6DMAC + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAC/1] + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAC/2] 10 Peak runoff from pre-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 8, 9, and 10 (including additional forms as needed) 11 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Same as Item 8 for post-developed values 12 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: Same as Item 9 for post-developed values 13 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: Same as Item 10 for post-developed values 14 Peak runoff from post-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 11, 12, and 13 (including additional forms as needed) 15 Peak runoff reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement (cfs): Qp-HCOC = (Item 14 * 0.95) – Item 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-13 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis Complete the following forms for each project site DA to document that the proposed LID BMPs conform to the project DCV developed to meet performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit (WQMP Template Section 4.2). For the LID DCV, the forms are ordered according to hierarchy of BMP selection as required by the MS4 Permit (see Section 5.3.1 in the TGD for WQMP). The forms compute the following for on-site LID BMP: ▪ Site Design and Hydrologic Source Controls (Form 4.3-2) ▪ Retention and Infiltration (Form 4.3-3) ▪ Harvested and Use (Form 4.3-4) or ▪ Biotreatment (Form 4.3-5). At the end of each form, additional fields facilitate the determination of the extent of mitigation provided by the specific BMP category, allowing for use of the next category of BMP in the hierarchy, if necessary. The first step in the analysis, using Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP, is to complete Forms 4.3-1 and 4.3-3) to determine if retention and infiltration BMPs are infeasible for the project. For each feasibility criterion in Form 4.3-1, if the answer is “Yes,” provide all study findings that includes relevant calculations, maps, data sources, etc. used to make the determination of infeasibility. Next, complete Forms 4.3-2 and 4.3-4 to determine the feasibility of applicable HSC and harvest and use BMPs, and, if their implementation is feasible, the extent of mitigation of the DCV. If no site constraints exist that would limit the type of BMP to be implemented in a DA, evaluate the use of combinations of LID BMPs, including all applicable HSC BMPs to maximize on-site retention of the DCV. If no combination of BMP can mitigate the entire DCV, implement the single BMP type, or combination of BMP types, that maximizes on-site retention of the DCV within the minimum effective area. If the combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs are unable to mitigate the entire DCV, then biotreatment BMPs may be implemented by the project proponent. If biotreatment BMPs are used, then they must be sized to provide sufficient capacity for effective treatment of the remainder of the volume-based performance criteria that cannot be achieved with LID BMPs (TGD for WQMP Section 5.4.4.2). Under no circumstances shall any portion of the DCV be released from the site without effective mitigation and/or treatment. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-14 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility (DA 1) Feasibility Criterion – Complete evaluation for each DA on the Project Site 1 Would infiltration BMP pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Yes No Refer to Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 2 Would installation of infiltration BMP significantly increase the risk of geotechnical hazards? Yes No (Yes, if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert): • The location is less than 50 feet away from slopes steeper than 15 percent • The location is less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback. • A study certified by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study determines that stormwater infiltration would result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards. If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 3 Would infiltration of runoff on a Project site violate downstream water rights? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on hydrologic soil group (HSG) D soils or does the site geotechnical investigation indicate presence of soil characteristics, which support categorization as D soils? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 5 Is the design infiltration rate, after accounting for safety factor of 2.0, below proposed facility less than 0.3 in/hr (accounting for soil amendments)? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 6 Would on-site infiltration or reduction of runoff over pre-developed conditions be partially or fully inconsistent with watershed management strategies as defined in the WAP, or impair beneficial uses? Yes No See Section 3.5 of the TGD for WQMP and WAP If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 7 Any answer from Item 1 through Item 3 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration of any volume is not feasible onsite. Proceed to Form 4.3-4, Harvest and Use BMP. If no, then proceed to Item 8 below. 8 Any answer from Item 4 through Item 6 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration is permissible but is not required to be considered. Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP. If no, then proceed to Item 9, below. 9 All answers to Item 1 through Item 6 are “No”: Infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, LID infiltration BMP must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the MEP. Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-15 4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP Section XI.E. of the Permit emphasizes the use of LID preventative measures; and the use of LID HSC BMPs reduces the portion of the DCV that must be addressed in downstream BMPs. Therefore, all applicable HSC shall be provided except where they are mutually exclusive with each other, or with other BMPs. Mutual exclusivity may result from overlapping BMP footprints such that either would be potentially feasible by itself, but both could not be implemented. Please note that while there are no numeric standards regarding the use of HSC, if a project cannot feasibly meet BMP sizing requirements or cannot fully address HCOCs, feasibility of all applicable HSC must be part of demonstrating that the BMP system has been designed to retain the maximum feasible portion of the DCV. Complete Form 4.3-2 to identify and calculate estimated retention volume from implementing site design HSC BMP. Refer to Section 5.4.1 in the TGD for more detailed guidance. Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) 1 Implementation of Impervious Area Dispersion BMP (i.e. routing runoff from impervious to pervious areas), excluding impervious areas planned for routing to on-lot infiltration BMP: Yes No If yes, complete Items 2-5; If no, proceed to Item 6 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 2 Total impervious area draining to pervious area (ft2) 3 Ratio of pervious area receiving runoff to impervious area 4 Retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3) V = Item2 * Item 3 * (0.5/12), assuming retention of 0.5 inches of runoff 5 Sum of retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 4 for all BMPs 6 Implementation of Localized On-lot Infiltration BMPs (e.g. on-lot rain gardens): Yes No If yes, complete Items 7- 13 for aggregate of all on-lot infiltration BMP in each DA; If no, proceed to Item 14 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 7 Ponding surface area (ft2) 8 Ponding depth (ft) 9 Surface area of amended soil/gravel (ft2) 10 Average depth of amended soil/gravel (ft) 11 Average porosity of amended soil/gravel 12 Retention volume achieved from on-lot infiltration (ft3) Vretention = (Item 7 *Item 8) + (Item 9 * Item 10 * Item 11) 13 Runoff volume retention from on-lot infiltration (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-16 Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) Form 4.3-2 cont. Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) 14 Implementation of evapotranspiration BMP (green, brown, or blue roofs): Yes No If yes, complete Items 15-20. If no, proceed to Item 21 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 15 Rooftop area planned for ET BMP (ft2) 16 Average wet season ET demand (in/day) Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 17 Daily ET demand (ft3/day) Item 15 * (Item 16 / 12) 18 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 19 Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Item 17 * (Item 18 / 24) 20 Runoff volume retention from evapotranspiration BMPs (ft3): 0 CF Vretention =Sum of Item 19 for all BMPs 21 Implementation of Street Trees: Yes No If yes, complete Items 22-25. If no, proceed to Item 26 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 22 Number of Street Trees 23 Average canopy cover over impervious area (ft2) 24 Runoff volume retention from street trees (ft3) Vretention = Item 22 * Item 23 * (0.05/12) assume runoff retention of 0.05 inches 25 Runoff volume retention from street tree BMPs (ft3): 0 CF Vretention = Sum of Item 24 for all BMPs 26 Implementation of residential rain barrel/cisterns: Yes No If yes, complete Items 27-29; If no, proceed to Item 30 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 27 Number of rain barrels/cisterns 28 Runoff volume retention from rain barrels/cisterns (ft3) Vretention = Item 27 * 3 29 Runoff volume retention from residential rain barrels/Cisterns (ft3): 0 CF Vretention =Sum of Item 28 for all BMPs 30 Total Retention Volume from Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs: 0 CF Sum of Items 5, 13, 20, 25 and 29 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-17 4.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Use Form 4.3-3 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed retention and infiltration BMPs. Volume retention estimates are sensitive to the percolation rate used, which determines the amount of runoff that can be infiltrated within the specified drawdown time. The infiltration safety factor reduces field measured percolation to account for potential inaccuracy associated with field measurements, declining BMP performance over time, and compaction during construction. Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP provides guidance on estimating an appropriate safety factor to use in Form 4.3-3. If site constraints limit the use of BMPs to a single type and implementation of retention and infiltration BMPs mitigate no more than 40% of the DCV, then they are considered infeasible and the Project Proponent may evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs lower in the LID hierarchy of use (Section 5.5.1 of the TGD for WQMP) If implementation of infiltrations BMPs is feasible as determined using Form 4.3-1, then LID infiltration BMPs shall be implemented to the MEP (section 4.1 of the TGD for WQMP). . Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-18 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP - including underground BMPs (DA 1) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): 72,740 CF Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 BMP Type Use columns to the right to compute runoff volume retention from proposed infiltration BMP (select BMP from Table 5-4 in TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs DA 1 BMP Type Infiltration Basin DA 2 BMP Type Infiltration Trench DA - BMP Type - 2 Infiltration rate of underlying soils (in/hr) See Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP for minimum requirements for assessment methods 10"/hr 97"/hr - 3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 2.6 2.6 - 4 Design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 3.8"/hr 37"/hr - 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 48 hr 48 hr - 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details 5 ft - - 7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 2.7 ft - - 8 Infiltrating surface area, SABMP (ft2) the lesser of the area needed for infiltration of full DCV or minimum space requirements from Table 5.7 of the TGD for WQMP 18,882 SF 3,294 SF - 9 Amended soil depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 in the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details - - - 10 Amended soil porosity - - - 11 Gravel depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details - 8 ft - 12 Gravel porosity - 0.4 - 13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 3 hr 3 hr - 14 Above Ground Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Item 8 * [Item7 + (Item 9 * Item 10) + (Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 68,919 CF - - 15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3) Volume determined using manufacturer’s specifications and calculations - 41,010 CF - 16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: 109,929 CF (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan) 17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 151% Retention% = Item 16 / Form 4.2-1 Item 7 18 Is full LID DCV retained onsite with combination of hydrologic source control and LID retention/infiltration BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10; If no, then reduce Item 3, Factor of Safety to 2.0 and increase Item 8, Infiltrating Surface Area, such that the portion of the site area used for retention and infiltration BMPs equals or exceeds the minimum effective area thresholds (Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP) for the applicable category of development and repeat all above calculations. Worksheets from Orange County Technical Guidance Document (5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Factor Category Factor Description Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p) p = w x v A Suitability Assessment Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.50 Predominant soil texture 0.25 2 0.50 Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.50 Depth to groundwater / impervious layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p 1.75 B Design Tributary area size 0.25 3 0.75 Level of pretreatment/ expected sediment loads 0.25 1 0.25 Redundancy 0.25 1 0.25 Compaction during construction 0.25 1 0.25 Design Safety Factor, SB = p 1.50 Combined Safety Factor, STOT= SA x SB 2.6 Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM (corrected for test-specific bias) 10 / 97 Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = STOT / KM 3.8 / 37 Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: See “Percolation Test Summary” for NewBridge / Southridge Park Site, Fontana California, Prepared by Petra Geosciences, Inc., Dated June, 2022. Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-19 4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP Harvest and use BMP may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing infiltration BMPs. Use Form 4.3-4 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed harvest and use BMPs. Volume retention estimates for harvest and use BMPs are sensitive to the on-site demand for captured stormwater. Since irrigation water demand is low in the wet season, when most rainfall events occur in San Bernardino County, the volume of water that can be used within a specified drawdown period is relatively low. The bottom portion of Form 4.3-4 facilitates the necessary computations to show infeasibility if a minimum incremental benefit of 40 percent of the LID DCV would not be achievable with MEP implementation of on-site harvest and use of stormwater (Section 5.5.4 of the TGD for WQMP). Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMPs (DA 1) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC or infiltration BMP (ft3): Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16 BMP Type(s) Compute runoff volume retention from proposed harvest and use BMP (Select BMPs from Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 2 Describe cistern or runoff detention facility 3 Storage volume for proposed detention type (ft3) Volume of cistern 4 Landscaped area planned for use of harvested stormwater (ft2) 5 Average wet season daily irrigation demand (in/day) Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 in/day 6 Daily water demand (ft3/day) Item 4 * (Item 5 / 12) 7 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 8Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Minimum of (Item 3) or (Item 6 * (Item 7 / 24)) 9 Total Retention Volume (ft3) from Harvest and Use BMP Sum of Item 8 for all harvest and use BMP included in plan 10 Is the full DCV retained with a combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest & use BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10. If no, then re-evaluate combinations of all LID BMP and optimize their implementation such that the maximum portion of the DCV is retained on-site (using a single BMP type or combination of BMP types). If the full DCV cannot be mitigated after this optimization process, proceed to Section 4.3.4. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-20 4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP Biotreatment BMPs may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs. A key consideration when using biotreatment BMP is the effectiveness of the proposed BMP in addressing the pollutants of concern for the project (see Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP). Use Form 4.3-5 to summarize the potential for volume based and/or flow based biotreatment options to biotreat the remaining unmet LID DCV w. Biotreatment computations are included as follows: • Use Form 4.3-6 to compute biotreatment in small volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioretention w/underdrains); • Use Form 4.3-7 to compute biotreatment in large volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. constructed wetlands); • Use Form 4.3-8 to compute sizing criteria for flow-based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioswales) Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP (DA 1) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP for potential biotreatment (ft3): 0 Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16- Form 4.3-4 Item 9 List pollutants of concern Copy from Form 2.3-1. 2 Biotreatment BMP Selected (Select biotreatment BMP(s) necessary to ensure all pollutants of concern are addressed through Unit Operations and Processes, described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP) Volume-based biotreatment Use Forms 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 to compute treated volume Flow-based biotreatment Use Form 4.3-8 to compute treated volume Bioretention with underdrain Planter box with underdrain Constructed wetlands Wet extended detention Dry extended detention Vegetated swale Vegetated filter strip Proprietary biotreatment 3 Volume biotreated in volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): Form 4.3- 6 Item 15 + Form 4.3-7 Item 13 4 Compute remaining LID DCV with implementation of volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): Item 1 – Item 3 5 Remaining fraction of LID DCV for sizing flow based biotreatment BMP: % Item 4 / Item 1 6 Flow-based biotreatment BMP capacity provided (cfs): Use Figure 5-2 of the TGD for WQMP to determine flow capacity required to provide biotreatment of remaining percentage of unmet LID DCV (Item 5), for the project’s precipitation zone (Form 3-1 Item 1) 7 Metrics for MEP determination: • Provided a WQMP with the portion of site area used for suite of LID BMP equal to minimum thresholds in Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP for the proposed category of development: If maximized on-site retention BMPs is feasible for partial capture, then LID BMP implementation must be optimized to retain and infiltrate the maximum portion of the DCV possible within the prescribed minimum effective area. The remaining portion of the DCV shall then be mitigated using biotreatment BMP. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-21 Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) – Bioretention and Planter Boxes with Underdrains Biotreatment BMP Type (Bioretention w/underdrain, planter box w/underdrain, other comparable BMP) DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP 2 Amended soil infiltration rate Typical ~ 5.0 3 Amended soil infiltration safety factor Typical ~ 2.0 4 Amended soil design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12 * Item 4 * Item 5) or Item 6 8 Amended soil surface area (ft2) 9 Amended soil depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 10 Amended soil porosity, n 11 Gravel depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 12 Gravel porosity, n 13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 14 Biotreated Volume (ft3) Vbiotreated = Item 8 * [(Item 7/2) + (Item 9 * Item 10) +(Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 15 Total biotreated volume from bioretention and/or planter box with underdrains BMP: Sum of Item 14 for all volume-based BMPs included in this form Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-22 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) – Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention Biotreatment BMP Type Constructed wetlands, extended wet detention, extended dry detention, or other comparable proprietary BMP. If BMP includes multiple modules (e.g. forebay and main basin), provide separate estimates for storage and pollutants treated in each module. DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) Forebay Basin Forebay Basin 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP forebay and basin List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP 2 Bottom width (ft) 3 Bottom length (ft) 4 Bottom area (ft2) Abottom = Item 2 * Item 3 5 Side slope (ft/ft) 6 Depth of storage (ft) 7 Water surface area (ft2) Asurface =(Item 2 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) * (Item 3 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) 8 Storage volume (ft3) For BMP with a forebay, ensure fraction of total storage is within ranges specified in BMP specific fact sheets, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details V =Item 6 / 3 * [Item 4 + Item 7 + (Item 4 * Item 7)^0.5] 9 Drawdown Time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 2.1 10 Outflow rate (cfs) QBMP = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) / (Item 9 * 3600) 11 Duration of design storm event (hrs) 12 Biotreated Volume (ft3) Vbiotreated = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) +( Item 10 * Item 11 * 3600) 13 Total biotreated volume from constructed wetlands, extended dry detention, or extended wet detention : (Sum of Item 12 for all BMP included in plan) Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-23 Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment (DA 1) Biotreatment BMP Type Vegetated swale, vegetated filter strip, or other comparable proprietary BMP DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in TGD Table 5-5 2 Flow depth for water quality treatment (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 3 Bed slope (ft/ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 4 Manning's roughness coefficient 5 Bottom width (ft) bw = (Form 4.3-5 Item 6 * Item 4) / (1.49 * Item 2^1.67 * Item 3^0.5) 6 Side Slope (ft/ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 7 Cross sectional area (ft2) A = (Item 5 * Item 2) + (Item 6 * Item 2^2) 8 Water quality flow velocity (ft/sec) V = Form 4.3-5 Item 6 / Item 7 9 Hydraulic residence time (min) Pollutant specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 10 Length of flow based BMP (ft) L = Item 8 * Item 9 * 60 11 Water surface area at water quality flow depth (ft2) SAtop = (Item 5 + (2 * Item 2 * Item 6)) * Item 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-24 4.3.5 Conformance Summary Complete Form 4.3-9 to demonstrate how on-site LID DCV is met with proposed site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, harvest and use, and/or biotreatment BMP. The bottom line of the form is used to describe the basis for infeasibility determination for on-site LID BMP to achieve full LID DCV, and provides methods for computing remaining volume to be addressed in an alternative compliance plan. If the project has more than one outlet, then complete additional versions of this form for each outlet. Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative Compliance Volume Estimate (DA 1 & DA 2) 1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA1 (ft3): 72,740 Copy Item 7 in Form 4.2-1 2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 30 in Form 4.3-2 3 On-site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 109,929 Copy Item 16 in Form 4.3-3 4 On-site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 9 in Form 4.3-4 5 On-site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 3 in Form 4.3-5 6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0 Copy Item 6 in Form 4.3-5 7 LID BMP performance criteria are achieved if answer to any of the following is “Yes”: • Full retention of LID DCV with site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP: Yes No If yes, sum of Items 2, 3, and 4 is greater than Item 1 • Combination of on-site retention BMPs for a portion of the LID DCV and volume-based biotreatment BMP that address all pollutants of concern for the remaining LID DCV: Yes No If yes, a) sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is greater than Item 1, and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized; or b) Item 6 is greater than Form 4.3--5 Item 6 and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized ▪ On-site retention and infiltration is determined to be infeasible and biotreatment BMP provide biotreatment for all pollutants of concern for full LID DCV: Yes No If yes, Form 4.3-1 Items 7 and 8 were both checked yes 8 If the LID DCV is not achieved by any of these means, then the project may be allowed to develop an alternative compliance plan. Check box that describes the scenario which caused the need for alternative compliance: • Combination of HSC, retention and infiltration, harvest and use, and biotreatment BMPs provide less than full LID DCV capture: Checked yes for Form 4.3-5 Item 7, Item 6 is zero, and sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is less than Item 1. If so, apply water quality credits and calculate volume for alternative compliance, Valt = (Item 1 – Item 2 – Item 3 – Item 4 – Item 5) * (100 - Form 2.4-1 Item 2)% • An approved Watershed Action Plan (WAP) demonstrates that water quality and hydrologic impacts of urbanization are more effective when managed in at an off-site facility: Attach appropriate WAP section, including technical documentation, showing effectiveness comparisons for the project site and regional watershed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-25 4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP Use Form 4.3-10 to compute the remaining runoff volume retention, after LID BMP are implemented, needed to address HCOC, and the increase in time of concentration and decrease in peak runoff necessary to meet targets for protection of waterbodies with a potential HCOC. Describe hydromodification control BMP that address HCOC, which may include off-site BMP and/or in-stream controls. Section 5.6 of the TGD for WQMP provides additional details on selection and evaluation of hydromodification control BMP. Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMPs (DA 1) 1 Volume reduction needed for HCOC performance criteria (ft3): N/A (Form 4.2-2 Item 4 * 0.95) – Form 4.2-2 Item 1 2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, and harvest and use LID BMP (ft3): Sum of Form 4.3-9 Items 2, 3, and 4 Evaluate option to increase implementation of on-site retention in Forms 4.3-2, 4.3-3, and 4.3-4 in excess of LID DCV toward achieving HCOC volume reduction 3 Remaining volume for HCOC volume capture (ft3): Item 1 – Item 2 4 Volume capture provided by incorporating additional on-site or off-site retention BMPs (ft3): Existing downstream BMP may be used to demonstrate additional volume capture (if so, attach to this WQMP a hydrologic analysis showing how the additional volume would be retained during a 2-yr storm event for the regional watershed) 5 If Item 4 is less than Item 3, incorporate in-stream controls on downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification Attach in-stream control BMP selection and evaluation to this WQMP 6 Is Form 4.2-2 Item 11 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below: • Demonstrate increase in time of concentration achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMP, and additional on-site or off-site retention BMP BMP upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate increased time of concentration through hydrograph attenuation (if so, show that the hydraulic residence time provided in BMP for a 2-year storm event is equal or greater than the addition time of concentration requirement in Form 4.2-4 Item 15) • Increase time of concentration by preserving pre-developed flow path and/or increase travel time by reducing slope and increasing cross-sectional area and roughness for proposed on-site conveyance facilities • Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California 7 Form 4.2-2 Item 12 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below: • Demonstrate reduction in peak runoff achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMPs, and additional on-site or off-site retention BMPs BMPs upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate additional peak runoff reduction through hydrograph attenuation (if so, attach to this WQMP, a hydrograph analysis showing how the peak runoff would be reduced during a 2-yr storm event) • Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-26 4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable) Describe an alternative compliance plan (if applicable) for projects not fully able to infiltrate, harvest and use, or biotreat the DCV via on-site LID practices. A project proponent must develop an alternative compliance plan to address the remainder of the LID DCV. Depending on project type some projects may qualify for water quality credits that can be applied to reduce the DCV that must be treated prior to development of an alternative compliance plan (see Form 2.4-1, Water Quality Credits). Form 4.3-9 Item 8 includes instructions on how to apply water quality credits when computing the DCV that must be met through alternative compliance. Alternative compliance plans may include one or more of the following elements: • On-site structural treatment control BMP - All treatment control BMP should be located as close to possible to the pollutant sources and should not be located within receiving waters; • Off-site structural treatment control BMP - Pollutant removal should occur prior to discharge of runoff to receiving waters; • Urban runoff fund or In-lieu program, if available Depending upon the proposed alternative compliance plan, approval by the executive officer may or may not be required (see Section 6 of the TGD for WQMP). Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-1 Section 5 Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP All BMP included as part of the project WQMP are required to be maintained through regular scheduled inspection and maintenance (refer to Section 8, Post Construction BMP Requirements, in the TGD for WQMP). Fully complete Form 5-1 summarizing all BMP included in the WQMP. Attach additional forms as needed. The WQMP shall also include a detailed Operation and Maintenance Plan for all BMP and may require a Maintenance Agreement (consult the jurisdiction’s LIP). If a Maintenance Agreement is required, it must also be attached to the WQMP. Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance (use additional forms as necessary) BMP Reponsible Party(s) Inspection/ Maintenance Activities Required Minimum Frequency of Activities N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants, and Occupants HOA Educational materials are included in this WQMP, HOA will provide educational materials and train employees. HOA is required to research updated educational materials annually. Upon turn over to homeowners or lease agreement and June of each year N2 Activity Restrictions HOA Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) will be prepared by the HOA to communicate restrictions of activities for the purpose of surface water quality protection, such as no car washing in the parking lot. Any activity specifically not allowed for by this WQMP is restricted. Annually N3 Landscape Management BMPs HOA Landscaping planning consistent with city guidelines to be implemented to reduce groundwater and storm water contamination thru infiltration basins and landscape areas. This will include control of fertilizers and/or pesticides, and periodic lawn mowing. Weekly N4 BMP Maintenance HOA HOA will provide new employees with educational materials, educate on activity restrictions and train them in maintenance of BMP’s. HOA will implement and maintain each non-structural & structural BMPs. Annually (Prior to the start of rainy season [October 1st]) N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance HOA Underground Storage Tank will be maintained by HOA in accordance with State regulations and County Environmental Health Services guidelines. Annually (Prior to the start of rainy season [October 1st]) N11 Litter/Debris Program HOA HOA will be responsible for performing trash pick-up and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary, and proper disposal of Weekly Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-2 waste collected. Responsibilities will also include investigating, noting, and documenting improper disposal by the public. N12 Employee or HOA contractor Training/Education HOA Provide training regarding the impacts of improper disposal of hazardous and waste materials, improper watering, fertilizers, pesticides, and maintenance activities on water quality through San Bernardino County/City of Fontana Website. Upon initial hiring and every June thereafter N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection HOA All on-site catch basins, filters, storm drain pipes, inlets, and other storm drain appurtenances shall be inspected and cleaned out at least once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1st of each year. Annually (Prior to the start of rainy season [October 1st]) N15 Street Sweeping HOA HOA will have vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots on a weekly basis and whenever necessary. Weekly S1 Storm Drain Stenciling Developer then HOA Stencils and signage will be inspected for legibility and repainted as necessary, at least once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1st each year. Per CASQA Fact Sheet SD-13 Annually (Prior to the start of rainy season [October 1st]) S3 Trash & Waste Storage Areas HOA The community will have trash cans for common areas and be serviced by the HOA. The residents will have trash cans for their units and these trash cans will be serviced regularly. Weekly S4 Landscape Planning and Site Design & Efficient Irrigation HOA/Homeowners (private) and LMD Inspect all common landscape areas and manage use of pesticides and fertilizers per City Ordinances. Replace mulch and dead vegetation as necessary. Inspect all water sensors and irrigation systems to eliminate unnecessary watering of landscaped areas and to verify irrigation timing and cycle lengths adjusted to weather and temperature water demands. Weekly S5 Finish Grade of Landscape areas below top of curb & sidewalk/pavement Developer/HOA Landscape areas will be depressed a minimum of 1” below paved areas and weekly maintained. Weekly S6 Protect Slopes & Channels and Provide Energy Dissipation HOA HOA will maintain and routinely landscape the proposed 2:1 slopes. Weekly S13 Hillside Landscaping HOA HOA will maintain and routinely landscape the proposed 2:1 slopes. Weekly Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-3 Infiltration Basin Developer then City of Fontana Inspect and remove litter and debris. Clean and inspect trash and accumulated sediment that may cause clogging at the inlet, outlet, and orifice per CASQA Fact Sheet TC- 11. Repair damaged vegetation. Inspect twice per year (beginning and end of rainy season, October and May) and after heavy runoff events. Infiltration Trench HOA Inspect and remove litter and debris. Clean and inspect trash and accumulated sediment that may cause clogging at the inlet, outlet, and orifice per CASQA Fact Sheet TC-11. Repair damaged vegetation. Inspect twice per year (beginning and end of rainy season, October and May) and after heavy runoff events. 6-1 Section 6 WQMP Attachments 6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan Include a site plan and drainage plan sheet set containing the following minimum information: 6.2 Electronic Data Submittal Minimum requirements include submittal of PDF exhibits in addition to hard copies. Format must not require specialized software to open. If the local jurisdiction requires specialized electronic document formats (as described in their local Local Implementation Plan), this section will describe the contents (e.g., layering, nomenclature, geo-referencing, etc.) of these documents so that they may be interpreted efficiently and accurately. 6.3 Post Construction Attach all O&M Plans and Maintenance Agreements for BMP to the WQMP. 6.4 Other Supporting Documentation ▪ BMP Educational Materials ▪ Activity Restriction – C, C&R’s & Lease Agreements ▪ Project location ▪ Site boundary ▪ Land uses and land covers, as applicable ▪ Suitability/feasibility constraints ▪ Structural Source Control BMP locations ▪ Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP locations ▪ LID BMP details ▪ Drainage delineations and flow information ▪ Drainage connections 20.1' 44.0' 18.0' 22.4' 42.0' 18.0' 18.0' 62.0' 34.0' 34.0' 18.0' 18.0' E V 44.0' R32.0' 26.1' 12.0' 26.0' 20.0' 22.0' 26.0'R32.0' 26.0' MM MM MM M M MM M M M MM M M M 5% Site VICINITY MAP JURUPA AVE SANTA ANA AVE VALLEY BLVD SAN BERNARDINO FWY SLOVER AVE MU L L B E R R Y AV E CH E R R Y A V E LI V E O A K A V E HE M L O C K AV E BE E C H A V E CI T R U S A V E CITR U S A V E MU L L B E R R Y AV E SLOVER AVE CHERRY AVE VILLAGE DR 3/22/2023 UNITED CIVIL, INC. 30141 Agoura Rd., Suite 215 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 PHONE: (818) 707-8648 FAX: (818) 707-8649 PREPARED BY:CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT PREPARED FOR: SOUTHRIDGE 3/22/2023 TRACT NO. 20565 VILLAGE DRIVE LI V E O A K A V E N U E GOLDENDRAIN DRIVE LIV E O A K A V E N U E S T R E E T " A " STREET " A " STR E E T " B " ST R E E T " A " STREET "C" S T R E E T " C " ST R E E T " D " ST R E E T " D " STREET "D" STREE T " C " STRE E T " C " FUTUREPUBLICPARK FUTUREPUBLIC TRAIL FUTUREPUBLICTRAIL FUTUREPUBLICTRAIL FUTUREPUBLICTRAIL FUTUREPUBLICTRAIL FUTUREPUBLICTRAIL PUBLICPARK Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Education Materials Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Memorandum of Agreement PRELIMINARY REPORT Fidelity National Title Company Your Reference: Order No.: 989-30080864-BAM CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06)Page 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF FONTANA IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A: LOT 11 OF TRACT NO. 15117, IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 275, PAGES 66 THROUGH 90, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 0237-411-13-0-000 PARCEL B: LOT 12 OF TRACT 15117, IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 275 OF MAPS, PAGES 66 THROUGH 90, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL MINERALS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS, INTEREST AND ROYALTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY THEREOF, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, AS WELL AS METALLIC OR OTHER SOLID MINERALS, IN AND UNDER SAID PROPERTY; HOWEVER, GRANTOR OR ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER TO ENTER UPON, INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OR SAID PROPERTY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AS RESERVED IN DEED EXECUTED BY SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, RECORDED JULY 18, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-259739 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 0237-411-14-0-000 Site VICINITY MAP JURUPA AVE SANTA ANA AVE VALLEY BLVD SAN BERNARDINO FWY SLOVER AVE MU L L B E R R Y AV E CH E R R Y A V E LI V E O A K A V E HE M L O C K AV E BE E C H A V E CI T R U S A V E CITR U S A V E MU L L B E R R Y AV E SLOVER AVE CHERRY AVE VILLAGE DR 20.1' 44.0' 18.0' 22.4' 42.0' 18.0' 18.0' 62.0' 34.0' 34.0' 18.0' 18.0' EV 44.0' R32.0' 26.1' 12.0' 26.0' 20.0' 22.0'26.0'R32.0' 26.0' 5% SOUTHRIDGE TRACT NO. 20565 UNITED CIVIL, INC. 30141 Agoura Rd., Suite 215 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 PHONE: (818) 707-8648 FAX: (818) 707-8649 PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR: NH SOUTHRIDGE LLC 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 570 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600 TEL: (949) 344-2705 CONTACT: BRYAN AVILLA WQMP EXHIBIT CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) BMP Fact Sheets Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Soils Report/Infiltration Test Results ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE 40880 County Center Drive, Suite M, Temecula, CA 92591 T: 951.600.9271 F: 951.719.1499 For more information visit us online at www.petra-inc.com June 22, 2021 J.N. 21-177 NEWBRIDGE HOMES 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. J. Rob Meserve Subject: Feasibility/Due Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment, Live Oak Project, Undeveloped Land Southeast of Live Oak Drive and Village Drive, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0237-411-14, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California References: See Attached List Dear Mr. Meserve: In accordance with your request, Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is providing this geotechnical due- diligence review of the subject tract for undeveloped property in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). This report presents our findings and professional opinions with respect to the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development, geotechnical constraints that should be taken into consideration during design and development of the site, and potential mitigation measures to bring the site to compliance from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. It must be emphasized that this report is intended as a feasibility-level geotechnical assessment only and is based solely on a review of the referenced geotechnical reports, background geologic literature and our limited subsurface exploration and soil test data. As such, the contents of this report are not suitable for submittal to regulatory agencies, nor should the findings or conclusions provided herein be relied upon for earthwork, quantity calculation or procedure, or structural engineering design. It should be further noted that this geotechnical evaluation does not address soil contamination or other environmental issues potentially affecting the property which was provided under separate cover. SITE GENERAL OVERVIEW The irregular-shaped undeveloped property is comprised of approximately 27 acres of land in the city of Fontana, identified as San Bernardino County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0237-411-14 (San Bernardino County, 2021). The site is bounded to the north by Village Drive, to the east by an abandoned rock quarry and granitic hillside (Jurupa Mountains), to the west by an existing park (Southridge Park), and to the south by existing residential tracts. The proposed residential development is a part of the Southridge Village Specific Plan. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 2 A conceptual development plan provided by the client, dated March 28, 2021, indicated 96 single-family residential lots are proposed, with interior streets, underground utilities, and other associated improvements. Topographically, the subject property slopes from south to north with a component sloping east to west. Elevations range from approximately 995 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 925 feet above msl. Multiple dirt roads are located within the subject site. Native vegetation cover is well established within the subject property. From a surface perspective, multiple areas of irregular slopes, depressions, dumped soils, and boulders suggest portions of the subject site may have been previously graded. For example, the slope along the southwest edge of the subject site, fronting Southridge Park, is a fill slope with large rock fragments exposed in the slope face. Considering the proximity of the subject property to the abandoned rock quarry, and the irregular cut face to the hillside along the east edge of the subject site, suggests overburden materials may have been placed onsite; however, mining records for the quarry could not be readily found. DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT Literature Review Petra has reviewed a geotechnical investigation report by GeoBoden, Inc. (GeoBoden, 2019) on the subject property. In addition, we reviewed available online aerial imagery, historical aerials photographs by EDR, and background geologic maps and literature in the vicinity of the project site (see References). Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Assessment A representative of Petra conducted an initial site reconnaissance on May 7, 2021 to mark-out for DigAlert clearance. Petra returned to the site on May 17, 2021 to conduct limited field exploration with a truck- mounted hollow-stem drill rig to evaluate the natural subsurface soils. The initial field work included the drilling and sampling of eight borings (B-1 through B-8) to depths of 2.5 to 45 feet below the ground surface (bgs). All borings were advanced to practical refusal, including five borings achieving practical refusal at depths of 2.5 to 5 feet bgs on over-size rock fragments. Relatively undisturbed ring and disturbed, representative bulk samples of soil were collected from the borings for laboratory testing. Following sampling, the borings were backfilled with spoils. Locations of the borings are depicted on Figure 2. Subsequently, Petra returned to the subject site to excavate and log nine track hoe test pits (T-1 through T-9) on May 25, 2021. A Caterpillar 325 excavator was used to excavate the test pits to depths between 6 and 14 feet bgs. Test pits were backfilled with spoils. Locations of the borings are depicted on Figure 2. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 3 Laboratory Testing The laboratory program consisted of testing select undisturbed ring specimens and/or bulk samples of onsite soil materials collected from the borings for in-situ dry density and moisture content, expansion index, and general corrosion potential (sulfate and chloride content, pH, and resistivity). Results are provided in Appendix B. FINDINGS Proposed Development Based on a conceptual development plan provided by the client (dated March 28, 2021), the Live Oak Project in Fontana, California would consist of 96 building pads for single-family residences along with associated low-height slopes and with various roadway improvements. Based upon information provided by the client, a trailhead park is proposed at the southeast corner of Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive. A recent topographic map provided by the client (undated) depicts topography in proximity to the subject property. Generally, the eastern subject property boundary does not encroach into the abandoned quarry slopes, which ascend at a steep gradient above the subject property. The fractured and disturbed quarry slopes will require a rockfall hazard assessment prior to development of the site. Site Reconnaissance During our limited field exploration, a representative of Petra conducted a site reconnaissance to observe the current surface conditions at subject site. Dumped stockpiles of earth materials are common along the east and central portions of the subject site. The larger stockpiles throughout the property, including boulder piles, are likely remnants of the abandoned quarry operations. Dirt roads and trails exist throughout the subject site, including access to Southridge Park to the west and Southridge Village Open Space Preserve to the east. An abandoned motorcycle track was observed in the northwesterly portion of the property. A small, square concrete slab was observed on a knoll in the west central portion of the property. Natural vegetation is well established within the subject property. Rockfall debris (talus) exists along the easterly edge of the subject property. Overall, minimal trash/debris was observed within the subject property. Offsite Quarry Slope Abutting the eastern property boundary are disturbed bedrock slopes of the abandoned Declez/Declezville Quarry (Anicic Jr., 2005). Explosives were used to fracture and loosen the stone from the hillside, and the large irregular blocks were loaded into railroad cars at the quarry and taken offsite. Drilling was done with steam drills. Large steam-powered derricks were used to handle the stone. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 4 Remnants of the quarry excavation consist of large, angular granitic outcrops that exhibit varying degrees of fracturing. Open fractures are visible indicating disturbance by blasting. One of the dominant fracture patterns is orientated out-of-slope. Weed-covered talus slopes are common between bedrock outcrops. Although thick vegetation is common along the toe-of-slope, there does not appear to be a large accumulation of boulders near the base. Rockfall hazards associated with the offsite bedrock slopes should be assessed by an experienced rockfall hazard engineer. Based upon information provided from historical aerial photographs from 1938 to 2016, the subject property was used during quarry operations, including a railroad spur along the northwest edge of the subject property. Small rail spurs were also observed within the site. Overburden or spoils from the quarry were placed as fill within the subject property, typically identified by irregular slopes, or mounds. Literature Review As previously noted, Petra has reviewed the ‘Geotechnical Investigation Report” on the subject property by GeoBoden, Inc., dated August 2, 2019 (see References). Noteworthy findings and conclusions gleaned from the report are summarized below as paraphrased excerpts. Purpose The purposes of this investigation were to determine the geotechnical properties of subsurface soil conditions, to evaluate their in-place characteristics, evaluate site seismicity, and to provide geotechnical recommendations with respect to site grading and for design and construction of buildings foundations and other site improvements. Field Exploration The current field exploration program was initiated under the technical supervision of the undersigned geotechnical engineer. A total of 10 exploratory borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drilling rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 16.5 to 21.5 feet (below ground surface). Logs of subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were prepared in the field by a representative of our firm. Soil samples consisting of relatively undisturbed brass ring samples and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) samples were collected at approximately 5-foot depth intervals and were returned to the laboratory for testing. Selected samples collected during drilling activities were tested in the laboratory to assist in evaluating controlling engineering properties of subsurface materials at the site. Physical tests performed included moisture and density determination, consolidation (Collapse), No. 200 sieve wash, direct shear, expansion index, and corrosion. Site and Subsurface Conditions The site is underlain by native soils consisting of sandy silt, sand with silt and silty sand with gravel. Construction debris were limited to the near surface. No rubble fill was encountered during our exploration. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 5 Based on blow counts recorded during sampling, the native soils encountered within borings were found to be predominately medium dense to very dense. Groundwater was not encountered within our exploratory borings to the maximum depth of exploration (21.5 feet below ground surface). Groundwater is expected to be present at depths as shallow as 50 feet or greater below the ground surface. A log of their borings are provided in Appendix B. Laboratory Test Results Consolidation test was performed on sample of the existing native overburden soils recovered from the boring. Results of the consolidation test indicate that the overburden material will have low compressibility under the anticipated loads. Results of consolidation test on a sample of native soil indicate that the native soil will have low collapse potential. The potential for hydro-collapse, in general, decreases with depth for the site materials. Removal and recompaction of the surficial soils are expected to reduce the anticipated amount of total differential settlement within the site. Laboratory testing of representative samples of onsite soils indicate that these materials exhibit VERY LOW to LOW expansion potentials. An Expansion Index (EI) of 15 was reported. Corrosion testing was performed on a selected soil sample in the near surface to determine the corrosivity of the site soil to steel and concrete. The soil sample was tested for soluble sulfate (Caltrans 417), soluble chloride (Caltrans 422), and pH and minimum resistivity (Caltrans 643). A soluble sulfate concentration of 0.0143 percent by weight was reported. Chloride content was listed as 43 parts per million (ppm). A pH of 7.2 and a resistivity of 1,876-ohm cm was reported. Based upon these results the following recommendations are provided: • Below grade ferrous metals should be given a high-quality protective coating, such as an 18-mil plastic tape, extruded polyethylene, coal tar enamel, or Portland cement mortar. • Below grade ferrous metals should be electrically insulated (isolated) from above grade ferrous metals and other dissimilar metals, by means of dielectric fittings in utilities and exposed metal structures breaking grade. • Steel and wire reinforcement within concrete in contact with the site soils should have at least two inches of concrete cover. • If ferrous building materials are expected to be placed in contact with site soils, it may be desirable to consult a corrosion specialist regarding chosen construction materials, and/or protection design for the proposed facility. Corrosion test results also indicate that the surficial soils at the site have negligible sulfate attack potential on concrete, according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4. No special sulfate-resistant cement will be necessary for concrete placed in contact with the on-site soils. Grading Recommendations In general, all fill soils within the proposed buildings footprints should be over-excavated and replaced with engineered fill. As a minimum, removals should extend to competent native soils. At least 2 feet of compacted fill should be provided underneath all spread footings and floor slabs. The compacted fill should extend laterally a minimum of 5 feet beyond the foundation footprints, where possible. All existing low- density, near-surface soils will require removal to competent material from areas to receive newly NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 6 compacted fill. The basis for establishing a competent exposed surface on which to place fill should consist of competent materials exhibiting an in-place relative compaction of at least 85 percent. Prior to placing structural fill, exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area approved for fill should first be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, water or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then recompacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Based on the observations made in our borings and the results of pertinent laboratory tests, anticipated depths of removal of unsuitable soils will vary from 3 to 4 feet. However, actual removal depths will have to be determined during grading based on in-grading observations and testing performed by a representative of geotechnical consultants. Field Assessment Boring Data Nine exploratory borings were drilled within the subject property (designated B-1 through B-8) to a maximum depth of 45 feet bgs. Independent of the surface stockpiles and dumped fill materials on site, near-surface fills were encountered in all of our recent borings. Based on our observations and sampling conducted from the exploratory hollow-stem auger borings, undocumented fill materials underlain by residual surficial soils exist within the subject property. Based upon historical aerial photographic assessment, it is likely that these fills represent a disposal area during the former quarry operations. In addition to low sample blow counts, a distinct characteristic of the existing fill materials is sub-angular to angular rock fragments in contrast with the subrounded rock fragments of the underlying residual soils or alluvium. In four borings, where drilling was able to penetrate the undocumented fill materials, depths ranged from 2 to 15 feet bgs. Where encountered underlying the undocumented fill materials, residual soils and alluvium were encountered at thicknesses of approximately 5 to 20 feet. Where encountered in four of the recent borings, weathered granitic bedrock was found at depths of 2 to 28 feet bgs. The locations of our borings are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the borings are provided in Appendix A. Test Pits To further asses the characteristics of the undocumented fill materials on-site, nine exploratory test pits (designated T-1 through T-9) were excavated within the subject property to a maximum depth of 14.5 feet bgs. Where encountered, fill materials consisted of a dry, loose, sandy matrix with angular gravels, cobbles, and boulders up to 7 feet in one dimension. In some cases, buried debris was encountered such as plastic sandbags, metal cables and metal pipe (T-3), construction debris and roots (T-8), and PVC piping and string (T-9). Heavy sidewall caving commonly hindered continuing excavation. Granitic bedrock was encountered at a depth of 10 feet in T-1; 13 feet in T-3; 3 feet in T-5; and 7 feet in T-8. The locations of our test pits are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the test pits are provided in Appendix A. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 7 Laboratory Testing Limited laboratory testing of various representative samples collected from the drill rig locations for classification and engineering analysis purposes. Testing included in-situ density and moisture content, maximum density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, and soil corrosivity. Results of in situ density and moisture content are provided on the boring logs, Appendix A. Results of limited in-house testing of representative samples indicate that the expansion index (EI) of the soils are in the Very Low EI range (0-20). General Corrosivity Screening As a screening level study, limited chemical and electrical tests were performed on samples considered representative of the onsite soils to identify potential corrosive characteristics of these soils. The common indicators that are generally associated with soil corrosivity, among other indicators, include water-soluble sulfate (a measure of soil corrosivity on concrete), water-soluble chloride (a measure of soil corrosivity on metals embedded in concrete), pH (a measure of soil acidity), and minimum electrical resistivity (a measure of corrosivity on metals embedded in soils). Test methodology and results are presented in Table 1. It should be noted that Petra does not practice corrosion engineering; therefore, the test results, opinion and engineering judgment provided herein should be considered as general guidelines only. Additional analyses, and/or determination of other indicators, would be warranted, especially, for cases where buried metallic building materials (such as copper and cast or ductile iron pipes) in contact with site soils are planned for the project. In many cases, the project geotechnical engineer may not be informed of these choices. Therefore, for conditions where such elements are considered, we recommend that other, relevant project design professionals (e.g., the architect, landscape architect, civil and/or structural engineer, etc.) to be involved. We also recommend considering a qualified corrosion engineer to conduct additional sampling and testing of near-surface soils during the final stages of site grading to provide a complete assessment of soil corrosivity. Recommendations to mitigate the detrimental effects of corrosive soils on buried metallic and other building materials that may be exposed to corrosive soils should be provided by the corrosion engineer as deemed appropriate. In general, a soil’s water-soluble sulfate levels and pH relate to the potential for concrete degradation; water-soluble chloride in soils impact ferrous metals embedded or encased in concrete, e.g., reinforcing steel; and electrical resistivity is a measure of a soil’s corrosion potential to a variety of buried metals used in the building industry, such as copper tubing and cast or ductile iron pipes. Table 1, below, presents test results with an interpretation of current code approach and guidelines that are commonly used in building NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 8 construction industry. The table includes the code-related classifications of the soils as they relate to the various tests, as well as a general recommendation for possible mitigation measures in view of the potential adverse impact of corrosive soils on various components of the proposed structures in direct contact with site soils. The guidelines provided herein should be evaluated and confirmed, or modified, in their entirety by the project structural engineer, corrosion engineer and/or the contractor responsible for concrete placement for structural concrete used in exterior and interior footings, interior slabs on-ground, garage slabs, wall foundations and concrete exposed to weather such as driveways, patios, porches, walkways, ramps, steps, curbs, etc. TABLE 1 Soil Corrosivity Screening Results Sample ID Test (Test Method Designation) Test Results Classification General Recommendations B-1` @ 0-5’ B-5 @ 3-6’ Soluble Sulfate (Cal 417) SO42- < 0.10 % by weight S0(1) - Not Applicable Type II cement; minimum fc’(2) = 2,500 psi; no water/cement ratio restrictions. B-5 @ 3-6’ pH (Cal 643) 8.5 – 9.0 Strongly Alkaline(3) No special recommendations B-1` @ 0-5’ pH (Cal 643) > 9.0 Very Strongly Alkaline(3) No special recommendations B-1` @ 0-5’ B-5 @ 3-6’ Soluble Chloride (Cal 422) < 500 ppm C1(1) - Moderate Residence: No special recommendations; fc’(2) should not be less than 2,500 psi. B-5 @ 3-6’ Resistivity (Cal 643) 10,000 – 20,000 ohm-cm Mildly Corrosive(5) Protective wrapping/coating of buried pipes; corrosion resistant materials B-1` @ 0-5’ Resistivity (Cal 643) 5,000 – 10,000 ohm-cm Moderately Corrosive(5) Protective wrapping/coating of buried pipes; corrosion resistant materials Notes: 1. ACI 318-14, Section 19.3 2. fc’, 28-day unconfined compressive strength of concrete 3. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, formerly Soil Conservation Service 4. Exposure classification C2 applies specifically to swimming pools and appurtenant concrete elements 5. Pierre R. Roberge, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering” Groundwater Borings drilled by GeoBoden, Inc. (GeoBoden, 2019) reported that no groundwater was encountered to a maximum depth of 21 feet below the ground surface. Historical data from a State well northwest of the subject property, near the corner of Cherry Avenue and Jurupa Avenue, reported groundwater at depth of approximately 225 to 250 feet below the ground surface between 2000 and 2020 (MWD, 2021). NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 9 Groundwater was not encountered in our recent borings to a maximum depth of 45 feet below grade. General area groundwater is not anticipated to affect the proposed remedial grading operations; however, contingencies should be planned for cases where localized areas of saturated soils requiring stabilization are encountered perched along the upper bedrock contact. Undocumented Fill Much of the subject property is either mantled by stockpiled fill or underlain by undocumented fill. Fills were more than likely placed during historic quarry operations within to the subject property to create a level working area for equipment and rail spurs. Where encountered and the depth of fill observed in borings onsite, the thickness of this material was found to be: 2 feet in B-5; 5 feet in B-1; 25 feet in B-2; and 28 feet in B-8. The absence of residual soil and/or young alluvial soils found between the fill and the underlying bedrock suggests that portion of the site may have been lowered to create a level working surface. Borings within the remainder of the site encountered practical refusal on coarse gravel, cobbles, or boulders at depths of 2 to 3.5 feet bgs, thereby preventing the determination of total fill thickness. Where encountered in test pits, undocumented fill materials consisted of dry, loose silty sand with angular rock fragments up to 7 feet in one dimension. Fill material thicknesses were found to be: 7 feet in T-9; and 11 feet in T-3. In addition, depth to bedrock was found to be: 7 feet in T-1 and T-8; 13 feet in T-3; and 3 feet in T-5. In the remainder of the test pits, caving of the excavation sidewalls hindered continued depth, indicating undocumented fill soils exceeded 9 to 14 feet in thickness. Visual observation of the fill slopes along the western site boundary indicates undocumented fill thicknesses equal to at least the height of the slope. Over-Size Rock Large angular boulders are commonly scattered throughout the subject property, typically exceeding 4 feet in one dimension. Boulders up to 7 feet in one dimension were encountered in test pits excavated within the subject site. Boulders exceeding 3 feet in one dimension will require special handling, consisting of breaking, isolated burial in fills, or offsite disposal. Compressible Soils In the two borings drilled to a depth of 40 feet bgs (B-8) and 45 feet bgs (B-2), loose and dry residual soils and/or young alluvial soils were encountered at depths of 15 to 25 feet bgs. These soils, underlying undocumented fills within the subject property, are deemed to be compressible. In addition, localized soil NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 10 piles have been dumped on the subject property. Buried compressible soils will require removal and recompaction. Soil piles will require reprocessing prior to placement s fill as needed. Faulting and Nearby Seismic Sources Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and literature, no active faults are known to project through the property. Furthermore, the site does not lie within the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS, 2018). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (AP Act) defines an active fault as one that “has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years).” The main objective of the AP Act is to prevent the construction of dwellings on top of active faults that could displace the ground surface resulting in loss of life and property. No evidence of faulting was reported on the subject property by the former consultant GeoBoden (2019) or was observed within the subject site during our recent field work. According to the USGS Unified Hazard Tool website and/or 2010 CGS Fault Activity Map of California, the San Bernardino segment of the San Jacinto Fault zone, located approximately 15.9 kilometers east of the site, would probably generate the most severe site ground motions and, therefore, is the majority contributor to the deterministic minimum component of the ground motion models. This fault system is capable of producing a magnitude 8.06 or larger event. Strong Ground Motions The site is in a seismically active area of Southern California and will likely be subjected to very strong seismically related ground shaking during the anticipated life span of the project. Structures within the site should therefore be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong ground motion in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC). Secondary Seismic Effects The site exhibits gentle-sloping land that is not typically prone to landsliding; however, the offsite quarry slopes and the Jurupa Mountains as a whole, are mapped by San Bernardino County as moderately to highly susceptible to landslides (San Bernardino County, 2007). Secondary effects of seismic activity normally considered as possible hazards to a site include several types of ground failure. Various general types of ground failures, which might occur because of severe ground shaking at the site include ground subsidence, ground lurching and lateral spreading. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, subsoil, and groundwater conditions, in addition to other factors. Based on existing site NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 11 conditions, lateral spreading is consisted unlikely; however, landsliding and ground lurching are considered likely at the site. Removal and recompaction of undocumented fills and protection of the site from rockfall and talus slope hazards would decrease impacts to the proposed subject development. Seismically induced flooding that might be considered a potential hazard to a site normally includes flooding due to tsunami or seiche (i.e., a wave-like oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed basin) that may be initiated by a strong earthquake or failure of a major reservoir or retention structure upstream of the site. No major reservoirs are located up-gradient within the near vicinity of the site. The potential for seiche is considered very low. Seismically Induced Settlement Assessment of liquefaction potential for a particular site requires knowledge of several regional as well as site-specific parameters, including the estimated design earthquake magnitude, the distance to the assumed causative fault and the associated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration at the site, subsurface stratigraphy and soil characteristics and groundwater elevation. Parameters such as distance to causative faults and estimated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration can readily be determined using published references, or by utilizing a commercially available computer program specifically designed to perform a probabilistic analysis. Stratigraphy and soil characteristics can only be accurately determined by means of a site-specific subsurface evaluation combined with appropriate laboratory analysis of representative samples of onsite soils. Liquefaction occurs when dynamic loading of a saturated sand or silt causes pore-water pressures to increase to levels where grain-to-grain contact is lost, and material temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, settlement and tilting of engineered structures, flotation of buoyant buried structures and fissuring of the ground surface. A common manifestation of liquefaction is the formation of sand boils – short-lived fountains of soil and water that emerge from fissures or vents and leave freshly deposited conical mounds of sand or silt on the ground surface. San Bernardino County does not identify the subject property within a zone of liquefaction potential (San Bernardino County, 2007). Although deep groundwater may not contribute to liquefaction-induced settlement, dry and unconsolidated undocumented fill materials encountered during our field exploration suggests the potential for seismically induced dynamic settlement is anticipated to be high. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our site reconnaissance, limited subsurface exploration/laboratory testing and literature review of readily available data, development of the proposed project within this subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided rockfall hazards associated with the offsite rock quarry can be mitigated, and that the following geotechnical issues be considered by the Client during this due diligence period. Primary Geotechnical Issues Our professional opinion, from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, regarding various aspects of site condition and/or proposed development is presented herein. The following presents the salient points of our due diligence assessment that we recommend be considered for future site development. • Rockfall Hazard: The exposed quarry face is comprised of large, angular granitic bedrock outcrops that are naturally and/or mechanically fractured. Open fractures are visible in some locations related to near-vertical overhangs. One of the prominent fracture orientations is out-of-slope toward the proposed development. Between the large angular outcrops are fan-shaped slopewash deposits that are covered with dry vegetation. Slopewash deposits consist of variable mixtures of sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders; however, high concentrations of boulders are not present along the toe-of- slope. The blocky nature of exposed outcrops and existing loose boulders suggest that dislodged rocks are not likely to bounce as compared to rounded boulders. Rockfall hazards are currently being evaluated by an experienced professional. • Undocumented Fill: Much of the subject property is either mantled by stockpiled fill or underlain by undocumented fill placed during historic quarry operations within or adjacent to the subject property. Where encountered in borings onsite, the thickness of this material was found as 5 feet (B-1), 25 feet (B-2), and 28 feet bgs (B-8) within the northern portion of the subject property. The fill thickness encountered in boring B-5 (2 feet), located in the southern portion of the site, suggests thinning of the fill to the south. The absence of residual soil and/or young alluvial soils found between the fill and the underlying bedrock suggests the southern portion of the site may have been lowered to create a level working surface. Borings within the remainder of the site encountered practical refusal on coarse gravel, cobbles, or boulders at depths of 2 to 3.5 feet bgs. Where encountered in test pits, undocumented fill materials consisted of dry, loose silty sand with angular rock fragments up to 7 feet in one dimension. Using the angular to subangular rock fragment characteristic to differentiate fill from the underlying residual soil and young alluvial materials, fill material thicknesses were found at 7 feet in T-9 and 11 feet in T-3. In addition, depth to bedrock was found at 7 feet in T-1 and T-8; 13 feet in T-3; and 3 feet in T-5 suggesting localized lowering of the former quarry work surface. In the remainder of the test pits, caving of the excavation sidewalls hindered continued depth, indicating undocumented fill soils exceeded 9 to 14 feet in thickness. Visual observation of the fill slopes along the western site boundary indicates undocumented fill thicknesses equal to at least the height of the slope. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 13 Based upon the dry and loose nature of the undocumented fill materials encountered onsite, these materials are considered unsuitable to support settlement sensitive improvements in their present condition and should be completely removed. Based upon the limited existing data, fill thicknesses appear to be irregular but are anticipated to increase from east to west and to the north following natural topography sloping away from the hillside. Additional subsurface exploration is recommended to further characterize remedial earthwork limits. • Over-Size Rock: Large boulders are commonly scattered throughout the subject property, typically consisting of isolated clusters and large piles. Boulders up to 7 feet in one dimension were encountered in test pits excavated within the subject site. Boulders exceeding 3 feet in one dimension will require special handling, consisting of breaking, isolated burial in fills, or offsite disposal. Over-size rock buried in engineering fills within the site shall be at least 10 feet below finish pad grade and 15 feet from the face of finished slope grade. Additional recommendations can be provided upon request. • Settlement: Based upon the dry and loose nature of the undocumented fill materials encountered onsite, as well as the likely presence of voids in buried rock clusters, these materials are susceptible to piping and seismically induced settlement in their present condition and should be completely removed and replaced as compacted (engineered) fill. Additional subsurface exploration is recommended to further characterize remedial earthwork limits. • Clearing and Grubbing: The building pads generally have a light to heavy amount of vegetation growth and minimal scattered trash and debris. All vegetation, debris, trash etc. should be cleared and hauled offsite. Voids created by removal of large bushes and trees shall be cleaned of loose soil and the backfill compacted to at least 90 percent relative density per ASTM D 1557. • Expansion Potential of Soils to Foundations: Limited testing by this office found soils within the subject tract indicated a Very Low expansion potential. It is expected that graded lots will likely exhibit Very Low expansion potential. Such expansion conditions typically are accommodated by conventional slab-on-ground foundation systems. Additional laboratory testing would be required at the completion of rough grading to confirm the as-built expansion conditions prior to finalizing foundation recommendations. • Corrosion Potential: Our limited corrosion testing indicates site soils have a negligible to moderate exposure to soluble sulfates, moderate exposure to soluble chlorides and are extremely corrosive to metallic elements. We recommend enlisting a corrosion engineer to provide corrosion protection recommendations, in addition to sampling and testing of pad grade soils during future precise grading. • Building Foundation Design: Seismic and foundation design recommendations for the residential buildings should be provided in accordance with the most recently approved California Building Code (CBC), which is currently the 2019 CBC. Proposed structures should also be designed in accordance with the most recently approved CBC. NEWBRIDGE HOMES June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 14 REPORT LIMITATIONS This report is based on the existing conditions of the subject property and the geotechnical observations made during our site reconnaissance, limited field exploration, limited laboratory testing and review the previous consultant’s available reports and data. However, note that soil and groundwater/moisture conditions can vary in characteristics between points of excavations, both laterally and vertically. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the described geotechnical evaluations and represent our professional judgment. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. 6/22/21 Edward Lump Grayson R. Walker Associate Geologist Principal Engineer CEG 1924 GE 871 EL/GRW/lv Attachments: References Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map Appendix A – Boring and Test Pit Logs Appendix B – Boring Logs, GeoBoden, Inc., 2019 W:\2020-2025\2021\100\21-177 Newbridge Homes (Live Oak Project, Fontana)\Reports\21-177 100 Due Diligence Report.docx NEW BRIDGE HOMES, LLC June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 15 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) – Standard – Section Four – Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock. Anicic, John Charles, Jr., 2005, Images of America Series - Eight, Ailea, San Sevaine, Declez, Declezville, and South Fontana, 1888 to Present, Arcadia Publishing. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42. California Building Code (2019), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Par 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2018 International Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. California Department of Water Resources, 2004, California Groundwater - Bulletin 118. , 2021, Water Data Library, accessed March, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/ County of San Bernardino, 2007, San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazards Overlay, Sheet FH29 C, Fontana, accessed May 2021. EDR, 2021, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Live Oak Ave. & Village Dr., Fontana, CA 92337, Inquiry Number 6500241.1, dated May 20. GeoBoden, Inc., 2019, Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, APN: 0237-411-14, Fontana, California, Project No. GD-01-16, dated August 2. Google Earth™ 2021, by Google Earth, Inc., http://www.google.com/earth/index.html, accessed March. International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada”, California Division of Mines and Geology. Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6. Morton, D.T., 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, USGS Open-File Report 03-418. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2021, Seismic Design Maps, U.S. Seismic Design Maps (seismicmaps.org) Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2010, Feasibility-Level Geotechnical Review, Lots 1, 5-14, 20-47, 57-69, and 90-97 of Tract 30092, Piazza Serena Project, Northwest Corner of Monroe and Avenue 58, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, for Capstone Advisors, J.N. 356-10, dated November 19. Sladden Engineering (Sladden), 2001, Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract 30092, Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, La Quinta Area, Riverside County, California, for Barton Properties, Inc., Project No. 544-1029, 01- 02-070, dated February 9. , 2004, Geotechnical Update, Residential Development, Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, La Quinta, California, for Forecast Homes, Project No. 544-1029, 04-09-611, dated August 31. NEW BRIDGE HOMES, LLC June 22, 2021 Live Oak Project / Fontana J.N. 21-177 Page 16 REFERENCES Sneed, M., Brandt, J.T., and Solt, M., 2014, Land Subsidence, Groundwater Levels, and Geology in the Coachella Valley, California, 1993-2010, USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2014-5075. Sneed, M. and Brandt, J.T., 2020, Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence and Uplift Using Global Positioning System Surveys and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 2010 – 2017, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5093. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California: organized through the Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2014, http://www.data.scec.org/significant/index.html. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook), 2009, BNI Publishers. Tokimatsu, K.; Seed, H.B.; 1987; Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking; Journal of Geotechnical Engineering: Vol. 113, No. 8, p. 861-879. United States Geologic Survey (U.S.G.S.), 1996a, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report 96-706. , 1996b, National Seismic-Hazards Maps, Open-File Report 96-532. , 2002, Documentations for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, Open-File Report 02-20. , 2007, Preliminary Documentation for the 2007 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, Open-File Report 2007-June Draft. , 2011, Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.1.0, utilizing ASCE 7 Standard Analysis Option, dated February 10. , 2021, Unified Hazard Tool Calculator, Unified Hazard Tool (usgs.gov) Site Location Map PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. COSTA MESA MURRIETA PALM DESERT SANTA CLARITA Figure 1J.N.: SCALE: June 2021 21-177 epl NTS DATE: DWG BY: 40880 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE M TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 PHONE: (951) 600-9271 Live Oak Project City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California - Approximate Site Location LEGEND N N TP-15 - Approximate location of exploratory test pit - Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring LEGEND B-7 Af Qal - Artificial Fill - Quaternary Young Alluvium - Quaternary/Tertiary Sandstone Qls - Quaternary Landslide Deposits QTsw GEOLOGIC UNITS N SITE Scale 0 2 miles - Reproduced from: USGS, 2021, The National Map Viewer B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-10 Approximate Location of Borings (by GeoBoden, 2019) Approximate Location of Borings (by Petra, 2021) Approximate Location of Test Pits (by Petra, 2021) B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-8 T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 T-7 T-8T-9 T-9 B-8 B-7 Refusal on Shallow Cobbles/Boulders Refusal Due to Heavy Caving and Boulders Base Map Reference: PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. 40880 County Center Drive, Suite M Temecula, California 92591 PHONE: (714) 549-8921 COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA Exploration Location Map Live Oak Project Fontana, San Bernardino County, California DATE: June 2021 J.N.: 21-177 Figure 2 N N TP-15 - Approximate location of exploratory test pit - Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring LEGEND B-7 Af Qal - Artificial Fill - Quaternary Young Alluvium - Quaternary/Tertiary Sandstone Qls - Quaternary Landslide Deposits QTsw GEOLOGIC UNITS GEOSCIENCES LEGEND N APPENDIX A BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS 1.8 107.0 Disturbed 1.0 91.2 1.1 74.7 Disturbed Disturbed 1.1 79.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 Disturbed No Recovery 1.8 86.0 1.6 112.7 1.0 Disturbed 1.1 Disturbed 1.3 Disturbed 1.0 Disturbed 0.7 Disturbed 0.8 Disturbed 1.0 1.0 93.1 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS, GEOBODEN, INC., 2019 Total Depth of Boring, Dt (ft):15 Diameter of Hole, D (in):8 Diameter of Pipe, d (in):3 Agg. Correction (% Voids):40 Pre-soak depth (ft):5 1st Reading 2nd Reading 5 11.90 13.40 18.0 0.28 103.7 8 10.00 12.40 28.8 0.28 65.8 5 9.40 12.35 35.4 0.14 119.6 5 9.50 12.60 37.2 0.13 131.0 5 9.00 11.40 28.8 0.17 84.1 5 11.40 14.00 31.2 0.16 183.4 5 9.05 11.20 25.8 0.19 74.2 5 11.20 13.60 28.8 0.17 150.9 Percolation Rate:0.19 min/in 74 gal/day/ft2 Infiltration Rate:10 in/hr* (Porchet Method) r = D / 2 Ho = Dt - Do Hf = Dt - Df DH = ΔD = Ho - Hf Havg = (Ho + Hf) / 2 *Raw Number, Does Not Include a Factor of Safety Reference: RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LIDBMP, dated September, 2011 DATE: June 2022 J.N.: 21-177 Figure 3 NewBridge / Southridge Park Site Fontana, California PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA SAN DIEGO Test Number: P-2 40880 County Center Drive, Suite MTemecula, CA 92591 PHONE: (951) 600-9271 Perc. Rate (gal/day/ft^2) Shallow Percolation Test Method Time Interval (min) Depth to Water Surface Dw (ft) Change in Head (in) Perc. Rate (min/in) where Infiltration Rate, It =DH (60r) / Dt (r + 2Havg ) Total Depth of Boring, Dt (ft):20 Diameter of Hole, D (in):8 Diameter of Pipe, d (in):3 Agg. Correction (% Voids):40 Pre-soak depth (ft):5 1st Reading 2nd Reading 2 18.55 20.00 17.4 0.11 707.2 2 18.30 20.00 20.4 0.10 727.2 2 18.40 19.95 18.6 0.11 679.8 2 18.60 20.00 16.8 0.12 702.5 #DIV/0!#DIV/0! #DIV/0!#DIV/0! Percolation Rate:0.12 min/in 703 gal/day/ft2 Infiltration Rate:97 in/hr* (Porchet Method) r = D / 2 Ho = Dt - Do Hf = Dt - Df DH = ΔD = Ho - Hf Havg = (Ho + Hf) / 2 *Raw Number, Does Not Include a Factor of Safety Reference: RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LIDBMP, dated September, 2011 DATE: June 2022 J.N.: 21-177 Test Number: P-1 40880 County Center Drive, Suite MTemecula, CA 92591 PHONE: (951) 600-9271 Perc. Rate (gal/day/ft^2) Shallow Percolation Test Method Time Interval (min) Depth to Water Surface Dw (ft) Change in Head (in) Perc. Rate (min/in) where Infiltration Rate, It =DH (60r) / Dt (r + 2Havg ) Figure 2 NewBridge / Southridge Park Site Fontana, California PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA SAN DIEGO