Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix G-1_PWQMP
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan For: FONTANA BUSINESS CENTER 3 PAM APN: 0255-101-24-0-000 Prepared for: Chase Partners LTD 6444 San Fernando Road, #3944 Glendale, CA 91221 (310) 689-7600 Prepared by: Plotnik & Associates 220 S. Pacific Coast Hwy., Ste. 111 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (310) 605-6657 Submittal Date: 1/25/23 Revision Date: 9/18/23 Approval Date:_____________________ MCN NO. 23-013 WQMP NO. 23-000012 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Owner’s Certification Project Owner’s Certification This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Chase Partners by Plotnik & Associates. 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): WQMP23-000012 Grading Permit Number(s): Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): Building Permit Number(s): CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN: 0255-101-24-0-000 APN: 0255-101-30-0-000 Owner’s Signature Owner Name: David Parker Title President Company Chase Partners LTD Address 6444 San Fernando Road, #3944 Email dparkinvest@yahoo.com Telephone # 310-689-7600 Signature Date Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents Preparer’s Certification Project Data Permit/Application Number(s): WQMP23-000012 Grading Permit Number(s): Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): Building Permit Number(s): CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN: 0255-101-24-0-000 APN: 0255-101-30-0-000 “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: Jason Kimura PE Stamp Below Title Project Manager Company Plotnik & Associates Address 18626 S. Wilmington Avenue, #100 Email jkimura@plotnik.com Telephone # (310) 605-6657 Signature Date September 18, 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 APPENDIX A – Soils report Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 1-1 Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s) Form 1-1 Project Information Project Name Fontana Business Center 3 14523 Miller Avenue Fontana, CA 92336 Project Owner Contact Name: Chase Partners LTD / David Parker Mailing Address: 6444 San Fernando Road, #3944 Glendale, CA 91221 E-mail Address: dparkinvest@yahoo.com Telephone: (310) 689- 7600 Permit/Application Number(s): WQMP23-000012 Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): Additional Information/ Comments: APN: 0255-101-24-0-000 APN: 0255-101-30-0-000 Description of Project: New construction of a 33,855 s.f. warehouse with associated parking, landscaping and truck maneuvering area on a 1.59 Ac. Lot at the southwest corner of the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Miller Avenue in the City of Fontana. Provide summary of Conceptual WQMP conditions (if previously submitted and approved). Attach complete copy. N/A 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 (ft2): 69,271 3 Number of Dwelling Units: 4 SIC Code: 4225 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: Chase Partners is the developer of the property and will be responsible for long term maintenance of WQMP facilities until the property is sold to a new owner and the new owner assumes responsibility of the BMP maintenance and management. No infrastructure will be transferred to a public agency after completion. 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 Potential sources of pathogens from the project include landsape areas. Nutrients - Phosphorous E N Potential sources include sewage, sediment, or generated by organic litter. Nutrients - Nitrogen E N Potential sources of nitrogen from the project include fertilizer use from the project’s landscaping areas. Noxious Aquatic Plants E N Sediment E N Roads, parking lots and roofs are expected to be common sources of sediment. Metals E N Potential sources of trace metals include motor vehicles and construction material. Oil and Grease E N Potential sources of oil and grease include motor vehicles. Trash/Debris E N Sources include common litter and biodegradable organic matter such as leaves and grass cuttings from landscaped areas. Pesticides / Herbicides E N Potential sources of pesticides include fertilizer, bug spray, or weed killer use within the project’s landscaping areas. Organic Compounds E N Potential sources of organic compounds onsite include the project’s landscaping and landscape maintenance activities. Other: Oxygen Demanding Compounds E N Potential sources include onsite landscaping 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 % (Total all credit percentages up to a maximum allowable credit of 50 percent) Description of Water Quality Credit Eligibility (if applicable) N/A. The project will not utilize any water quality credits. 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 34.114043 Longitude -117.488843 Thomas Bros Map page 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 DMA1 to Outlet 1 Landscaped area and an area of sidewalk will be directed to an infiltration area in the landscaping. Flows in excess of the design capture volume will overflow into a catch basin and will be piped into the adjacent curb opening catch basin. DMA2 to Outlet 2 Flows will be directed to an underground infiltration chamber system. When chamber system is full, drainage will overflow to a storm drain system which connects to an existing storm drain lateral in Juniper Avenue. Outlet 1 DMA 1 Outlet 2 DMA 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-2 Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Area 1 For Drainage Area 1’s sub-watershed DMA, provide the following characteristics DMA 1 DMA 2 1 DMA drainage area (ft2) 4,168 65,103 2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 0 0 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 A 5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 150’ 350’ 6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) 1.1% 1.5% 7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3 of Hydrology Manual Natural, Barren Natural, Barren 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 Poor Poor Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-3 Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Area 1 (use only as needed for additional DMA w/in DA 1) For Drainage Area 1’s sub-watershed DMA, provide the following characteristics DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H 1 DMA drainage area (ft2) 2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert areas, use http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2 0100412_map.pdf 4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ 5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) 7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3 of Hydrology Manual 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 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-4 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 The project site drains to the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel which flows south to the Santa Ana River Reach 3 and Pacific Ocean. Applicable TMDLs Refer to Local Implementation Plan Nitrate and 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, Lead and Pathogens Prado Dam (Prado Park Lake) – Nutrients and Pathogens Santa Ana Reach 2 – Indicator Bacteria Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ N/A Unlined Downstream Water Bodies Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ Prado Dam System (Millcreek) and Santa Ana River, Reach 3, 2 &1 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 The property owners shall familiarize themselves with the WQMP document content including BMP educational materials in Section 6.4 and shall ensure that all occupants are educated on Stormwater BMPs. N2 Activity Restrictions Property owners shall limit use of parking and loading docks to those activities only. The property owners shall also control the discharge of stormwater pollutants from their sites through activity restrictions in lease agreements. N3 Landscape Management BMPs The property owners and their landscape maintenance contractors shall regularly inspect the irrigation systems and infiltrations systems for signs of sediment and debris build up and clean/repair as needed. N4 BMP Maintenance Property owners will be responsible for maintenance of all BMP's listed in Form 5-1 of this document. N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Property owners and tenants with storage/use of hazardous materials on-site will be responsible for Title 22 CCR compliance through required permitting and storage requirements. N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances The owner shall ensure that all business activities at the site comply with the City of Ontario's Stormwater Ordinance through implementation of BMP's. N7 Spill Contingency Plan Any liquid chemical storage on-site shall comply with hazmat regulations and any required spill contingency plans. N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No underground storage tanks are proposed. N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance All hazardous materials stored at the site will comply with disclosure requirements and necessary signage and appropriate storage and containment methods. 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 Implement at completion of construction. All property owners shall comply with Fire Department requirements. N11 Litter/Debris Control Program Trash and litter shall be swept from the site and dumped into a City approved dumpster with lids. Owners or tenants shall contract with the City of Fontana or private refuse company to empty dumpsters on a weekly basis. N12 Employee Training Owners shall implement an educational program for future employees and tenants using the City outreach packet included in Appendix E. N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Owners shall implement trash management and litter control procedures in the loading dock areas aimed at reducing pollution to drainage areas. N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program All on-site catch basins shall be inspected monthly during the rainy season. The owners shall clean all catch basins whenever debris, trash or sediment accumulates and shall investigate any suspected illegal dumping into these drains. N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and Parking Lots Implement at completion of construction. Sweep parking lot twice monthly. N16 Other Non-structural Measures for Public Agency Projects No public agency projects associated, this is a private project. N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES permits All business owners shall comply with other NPDES permits including the State's General Stormwater Permit for Industrial activities. 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) Install per City of Fontana Standards. S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-34) No outdoor material storage shall be allowed on-site. S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-32) All trash enclosures on this site shall have a solid roof cover to prevent dumpster contents and enclosure from coming into contact with rainwater. Shall comply with CASQA SD-32. 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 irrigation system will be designed to prevent overspray and run off through the use of pressure regulating devices, check valves, flow sensors, proper spacing, low precipitation emission devices and weather based controllers. S5 Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement Landscaped finished grades will be set at 1"-2" below sidewalk and pavement grades. S6 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) Landscaping will be used to protect slopes and channels to provide energy dissipation. S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) Covered dock areas are designed to comply with CASQA SD-31. S8 Covered maintenance bays with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) No maintenance bays are proposed with this development. S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No vehicle wash areas are proposed with this development. S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-36) No covered outdoor processing areas are proposed with this development. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-5 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) No equipment wash areas area proposed with this development. S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-30) No fueling areas are proposed with this development. S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) No hillside landscaping is propsoed with this development. S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas No food wash water control is proposed with this development. S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No community car wash racks are proposed with this development. 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: Building, parking and truck maneuvering areas have been minimized to the practical extent feasible. Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No Explanation: Infiltration basins are proposed onsite to maximize onsite infiltration potential. Landscaped areas will provide natural infiltration. Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No Explanation: Drainage pattern has been manintained. Due to development, times of concentration have been increased. Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No Explanation: Individual drainage areas and roof drains are directed to subsurface infiltration galleries. Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No Explanation: No appreciable vegetation exists on site. Entire site will be redeveloped. Re-vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No Explanation: Drought tolerant landscaping and efficient irrigation is proposed throughout the development. Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No Explanation: Infiltration areas will not be compacted beyond existing condition by staking off these areas during grading and construction. Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No Explanation: Vegetated drainage swales are being used where practical. Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction : Yes No Explanation: Compaction will be limited to pavement and building areas only. 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 (DMA 1) 1 Project area DMA 1 (ft2): 4,168 2 Imperviousness after applying preventative site design practices (Imp%): 13 3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): 0.13 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): 0.530 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 0.785 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): 70 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 Management Plan (WQMP) 4-8 Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DMA 2) 1 Project area DMA 2 (ft2): 65,103 2 Imperviousness after applying preventative site design practices (Imp%): 90 3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): 0.73 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): 0.530 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 0.785 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): 6,103 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 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/ 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) 4-9 Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment (DA 2) 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/ 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): N/A 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): N/A 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): N/A 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 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility (DA 2) 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) 4-16 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): 0 Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-17 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): 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): 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 Vretention =Sum of Item 28 for all BMPs 30 Total Retention Volume from Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs: 0 Sum of Items 5, 13, 20, 25 and 29 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-18 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) 4-19 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP - including underground BMPs 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): 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 DMA 1 BMP Type Landscape Area DMA 2 BMP Type ADS StormTech 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 0.7 4.1 3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 2 2 4 Design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 0.35 2.05 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 48 48 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details 0.5 6.75 7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 0.5 6.75 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 120 1,547 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 N/A N/A 10 Amended soil porosity N/A N/A 11 Gravel depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details 0 0.75 12 Gravel porosity 0.40 0.40 13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 3 3 14 Above Ground Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Item 8 * [Item7 + (Item 9 * Item 10) + (Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 83 0 15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3) Volume determined using manufacturer’s specifications and calculations 0 6,444 16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: 6,527 c.f. (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan) 17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 106% 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. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-20 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): N/A 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) 4-21 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): N/A 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. N/A 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) 4-22 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: N/A Sum of Item 14 for all volume-based BMPs included in this form Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-23 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) – Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention Biotreatment BMP Type N/A 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 : N/A (Sum of Item 12 for all BMP included in plan) Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-24 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) 4-25 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 2) 1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA-1 (ft3): 6,173 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): 6,527 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) 4-26 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) 4-27 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 ADS StormTech Chamber Property Owner Inspect isolator row. Jetvac isolator row when average sediment depth exceeds 3”. 2 times per year Catch Basin Filter Insert Property Owner Vacuum collected material from liner. Inspect for damage Service 3 times per year (prior to, during and after rainy season). Change filter once per year. S1: Storm Drain Stenciling & Signage Property Owner Replace when damaged or illegible. Annual inspection, replace as required. S3: Trash & Waste Storage Areas Property Owner Inspect to ensure no spills or hazardous material is present. Sweep litter and debris. Clean up all spills immediately. Inspect daily, sweep weekly. S4: efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, Property Owner Inspect irrigation system rain triggered shut off mechanisms, timers and automatic shut off valves in case of broken lines or heads and minimize runoff. Maintain drought tolerant landscaping. Maintain landscaping weekly, inspect irrigation monthly. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-2 water conservati on S5: Finished Grade of Landscaped Areas Property Owner Maintain landscaped mulch and topsoil 1” below adjacent hardscape or pavement areas. Inspect Monthly S6: Slopes, Channels Property Owner Maintain drainage flow paths. Stabilize disturbed areas Inspect monthly S7: Loading Dock Areas Property Owner Sweep trash and debris, clean up spills immediately. Loaded and unloaded items will be moved indoors as soon as possible. Inspect daily for spills. Sweep weekly. 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 VICINITY MAP SITE City of Fontana WQMP Handbook August 2021 - 6 - Figure 2-1 Hydrologic Soil Group City of Fontana WQMP Handbook August 2021 - 7 - Figure 2-2 HCOC Exempt Areas NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 Location name: Fontana, California, USA* Latitude: 34.0616°, Longitude: -117.444° Elevation: 1077.42 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5-min 0.107 (0.089-0.129) 0.139 (0.116-0.169) 0.184 (0.153-0.224) 0.221 (0.182-0.272) 0.275 (0.218-0.349) 0.318 (0.247-0.413) 0.363 (0.276-0.484) 0.412 (0.304-0.565) 0.482 (0.340-0.690) 0.539 (0.367-0.799) 10-min 0.153 (0.128-0.186) 0.200 (0.166-0.242) 0.263 (0.219-0.321) 0.317 (0.261-0.390) 0.394 (0.313-0.500) 0.456 (0.354-0.591) 0.521 (0.395-0.693) 0.591 (0.435-0.810) 0.691 (0.487-0.988) 0.773 (0.526-1.15) 15-min 0.185 (0.154-0.224) 0.242 (0.201-0.293) 0.319 (0.264-0.388) 0.384 (0.316-0.471) 0.476 (0.379-0.605) 0.551 (0.429-0.715) 0.630 (0.478-0.839) 0.714 (0.526-0.979) 0.835 (0.590-1.20) 0.934 (0.636-1.39) 30-min 0.277 (0.231-0.336) 0.362 (0.301-0.439) 0.477 (0.396-0.580) 0.574 (0.473-0.705) 0.713 (0.567-0.906) 0.824 (0.641-1.07) 0.942 (0.715-1.25) 1.07 (0.788-1.47) 1.25 (0.882-1.79) 1.40 (0.953-2.07) 60-min 0.406 (0.339-0.492) 0.530 (0.441-0.643) 0.699 (0.580-0.850) 0.842 (0.693-1.03) 1.05 (0.831-1.33) 1.21 (0.940-1.57) 1.38 (1.05-1.84) 1.57 (1.16-2.15) 1.83 (1.29-2.62) 2.05 (1.40-3.04) 2-hr 0.604 (0.504-0.732) 0.780 (0.649-0.946) 1.01 (0.842-1.23) 1.21 (0.994-1.48) 1.48 (1.17-1.88) 1.69 (1.31-2.19) 1.91 (1.45-2.54) 2.14 (1.58-2.93) 2.46 (1.74-3.52) 2.72 (1.85-4.03) 3-hr 0.765 (0.638-0.928) 0.984 (0.819-1.19) 1.27 (1.06-1.55) 1.51 (1.24-1.85) 1.83 (1.46-2.33) 2.09 (1.62-2.71) 2.34 (1.78-3.12) 2.61 (1.93-3.58) 2.98 (2.11-4.27) 3.28 (2.23-4.86) 6-hr 1.09 (0.908-1.32) 1.40 (1.17-1.70) 1.80 (1.50-2.19) 2.13 (1.75-2.61) 2.57 (2.04-3.26) 2.90 (2.26-3.77) 3.24 (2.46-4.32) 3.59 (2.64-4.92) 4.06 (2.86-5.81) 4.42 (3.01-6.56) 12-hr 1.44 (1.20-1.75) 1.87 (1.56-2.27) 2.41 (2.00-2.94) 2.85 (2.34-3.49) 3.42 (2.72-4.35) 3.85 (3.00-5.00) 4.28 (3.25-5.70) 4.72 (3.47-6.46) 5.29 (3.74-7.58) 5.73 (3.91-8.50) 24-hr 1.94 (1.72-2.23) 2.55 (2.25-2.94) 3.32 (2.93-3.84) 3.93 (3.44-4.58) 4.73 (4.00-5.70) 5.33 (4.42-6.55) 5.91 (4.79-7.45) 6.51 (5.13-8.43) 7.29 (5.51-9.83) 7.88 (5.76-11.0) 2-day 2.34 (2.07-2.70) 3.14 (2.78-3.63) 4.17 (3.67-4.82) 4.98 (4.36-5.81) 6.07 (5.14-7.31) 6.88 (5.71-8.46) 7.69 (6.23-9.69) 8.52 (6.71-11.0) 9.61 (7.27-13.0) 10.4 (7.64-14.6) 3-day 2.52 (2.23-2.91) 3.44 (3.04-3.97) 4.63 (4.08-5.36) 5.59 (4.89-6.52) 6.87 (5.82-8.28) 7.85 (6.51-9.65) 8.83 (7.15-11.1) 9.83 (7.75-12.7) 11.2 (8.46-15.1) 12.2 (8.94-17.0) 4-day 2.71 (2.40-3.13) 3.74 (3.31-4.32) 5.08 (4.48-5.88) 6.16 (5.39-7.19) 7.63 (6.46-9.19) 8.75 (7.26-10.8) 9.89 (8.01-12.5) 11.1 (8.71-14.3) 12.6 (9.55-17.0) 13.8 (10.1-19.3) 7-day 3.09 (2.74-3.56) 4.33 (3.83-5.00) 5.96 (5.25-6.89) 7.29 (6.37-8.50) 9.10 (7.71-11.0) 10.5 (8.71-12.9) 11.9 (9.67-15.0) 13.4 (10.6-17.4) 15.4 (11.7-20.8) 17.0 (12.4-23.7) 10-day 3.35 (2.96-3.86) 4.73 (4.18-5.46) 6.56 (5.79-7.59) 8.07 (7.06-9.41) 10.1 (8.58-12.2) 11.7 (9.74-14.4) 13.4 (10.8-16.9) 15.1 (11.9-19.6) 17.5 (13.2-23.6) 19.3 (14.1-27.0) 20-day 4.01 (3.55-4.63) 5.74 (5.07-6.62) 8.05 (7.10-9.32) 9.99 (8.74-11.6) 12.7 (10.7-15.3) 14.8 (12.3-18.2) 17.1 (13.8-21.5) 19.4 (15.3-25.1) 22.7 (17.2-30.6) 25.4 (18.6-35.4) 30-day 4.74 (4.19-5.46) 6.76 (5.98-7.81) 9.52 (8.40-11.0) 11.9 (10.4-13.8) 15.1 (12.8-18.2) 17.8 (14.8-21.9) 20.6 (16.7-25.9) 23.5 (18.5-30.5) 27.7 (21.0-37.4) 31.2 (22.8-43.5) 45-day 5.63 (4.98-6.49) 7.95 (7.03-9.18) 11.1 (9.83-12.9) 13.9 (12.1-16.2) 17.8 (15.1-21.4) 21.0 (17.4-25.8) 24.4 (19.7-30.7) 28.0 (22.1-36.3) 33.3 (25.2-44.9) 37.6 (27.5-52.4) 60-day 6.63 (5.87-7.64) 9.22 (8.15-10.6) 12.8 (11.3-14.8) 15.9 (13.9-18.6) 20.4 (17.3-24.6) 24.1 (20.0-29.7) 28.1 (22.7-35.4) 32.4 (25.5-42.0) 38.7 (29.3-52.2) 43.9 (32.1-61.3) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical 1 1 1 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.0 1 0.25 1 1 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.0 Testing was performed based on the requirements of the shallow percolation test procedure as developed by Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (accepted in San Bernardino County). Testing was performed at 8 and 5 feet below the existing ground surface. 2.0 See Table 4.3-3 See Table 4.3-3 Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. FOR STORMTECH INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS VISIT OUR APP SiteAssist IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-4500 CHAMBER SYSTEM 1.STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. 2.STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3.CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: ·STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. ·BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. ·BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. 4.THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. 5.JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. 6.MAINTAIN MINIMUM 9" (230 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. 7.INLET AND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12" (300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS. 8.EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3 OR #4. 9.STONE SHALL BE BROUGHT UP EVENLY AROUND CHAMBERS SO AS NOT TO DISTORT THE CHAMBER SHAPE. STONE DEPTHS SHOULD NEVER DIFFER BY MORE THAN 12" (300 mm) BETWEEN ADJACENT CHAMBER ROWS. 10.STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING. 11.THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH CHAMBER FOUNDATION MATERIAL BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. 12.ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 1.STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 2.THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-4500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: ·NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. ·NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". ·WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3.FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANTY. CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. MC-4500 STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS 1.CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-4500. 2.CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCH-SHAPED AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 3.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 60x101. 4.CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. 5.THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. 6.CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED, TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE: 1) INSTANTANEOUS (<1 MIN) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2) MAXIMUM PERMANENT (75-YR) COVER LOAD AND 3) ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED (1-WEEK) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK. 7.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: ·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS. ·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3”. ·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. 8.ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OWNER, THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS: ·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. ·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.12 OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. ·THE TEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DEAD LOAD DESIGN EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-YEAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN. 9.CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. ©2022 ADS, INC. PROJECT INFORMATION ADS SALES REP PROJECT NO. ENGINEERED PRODUCT MANAGER F3 FONTANA, CA St o r m T e c h 88 8 - 8 9 2 - 2 6 9 4 | WW W . S T O R M T E C H . C O M ® Ch a m b e r S y s t e m 46 4 0 T R U E M A N B L V D HI L L I A R D , O H 4 3 0 2 6 1- 8 0 0 - 7 3 3 - 7 4 7 3 DA T E : DR A W N : J K PR O J E C T # : CH E C K E D : N / A TH I S D R A W I N G H A S B E E N P R E P A R E D B A S E D O N I N F O R M A T I O N P R O V I D E D T O A D S U N D E R T H E D I R E C T I O N O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R O R O T H E R P R O J E C T R E P R E S E N T A T I V E . T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R S H A L L R E V I E W T H I S D R A W I N G P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . I T I S T H E U L T I M A T E RE S P O N S I B I L I T Y O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R T O E N S U R E T H A T T H E P R O D U C T ( S ) D E P I C T E D A N D A L L A S S O C I A T E D D E T A I L S M E E T A L L A P P L I C A B L E L A W S , R E G U L A T I O N S , A N D P R O J E C T R E Q U I R E M E N T S . DA T E DR W CH K DE S C R I P T I O N F3 FO N T A N A , C A SHEET OF2 5 NOTES •MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH NOTE #6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE. •DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD. •THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. •THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS. THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION ISPROVIDED. •NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT & THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED):12.75 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC):8.25 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC):7.75 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT):7.75 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT):7.75 TOP OF STONE:6.75 TOP OF MC-4500 CHAMBER:5.75 12" x 12" TOP MANIFOLD INVERT:3.72 24" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT:0.94 BOTTOM OF MC-4500 CHAMBER:0.75 BOTTOM OF STONE:0.00 PROPOSED LAYOUT 34 STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS 4 STORMTECH MC-4500 END CAPS 12 STONE ABOVE (in) 9 STONE BELOW (in) 40 STONE VOID 6444 INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF) (PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED) (COVER STONE INCLUDED) (BASE STONE INCLUDED) 1547 SYSTEM AREA (SF) 198.2 SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft) *INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBER MAX FLOWINVERT*DESCRIPTIONITEM ON LAYOUTPART TYPE 35.69"12" TOP PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC4500IEPP12T / TYP OF ALL 12" TOP CONNECTIONSAPREFABRICATED END CAP 2.26"24" BOTTOM PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC4500IEPP24B / TYP OF ALL 24" BOTTOM CONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSBPREFABRICATED END CAP INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" ACCESS PIPE / PART#: MC450024RAMPCFLAMP 35.69"12" x 12" TOP MANIFOLD, ADS N-12DMANIFOLD 2.5 CFS IN(DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)ECONCRETE STRUCTURE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS (SEE DETAIL) PLACE MINIMUM 17.50' OF ADSPLUS175 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INLET ROWS BED LIMITS 0 10 20 79.66' 19 . 4 2 ' 73.89' 17 . 4 2 ' A C D B E St o r m T e c h 88 8 - 8 9 2 - 2 6 9 4 | WW W . S T O R M T E C H . C O M ® Ch a m b e r S y s t e m ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBER SYSTEMS PLEASE NOTE: 1.THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE". 2.STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. 3.WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. 4.ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. NOTES: 1.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 60x101 2.MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 3.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. 4.PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. 5.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: ·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS. ·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3”. ·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO MATERIAL CLASSIFICATIONS COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT D FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS.N/A PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. C INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER. GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS LAYER. AASHTO M145¹ A-1, A-2-4, A-3 OR AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10 BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 12" (300 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS. B EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43¹ 3, 4 A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43¹ 3, 4 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3 24" (600 mm) MIN* 7.0' (2.1 m) MAX 12" (300 mm) MIN100" (2540 mm) 12" (300 mm) MIN 12" (300 mm) MIN 9" (230 mm) MIN D C B A *TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 30" (750 mm). 60" (1525 mm) DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 4) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) MC-4500 END CAP SUBGRADE SOILS (SEE NOTE 3) PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS 46 4 0 T R U E M A N B L V D HI L L I A R D , O H 4 3 0 2 6 1- 8 0 0 - 7 3 3 - 7 4 7 3 DA T E : DR A W N : J K PR O J E C T # : CH E C K E D : N / A TH I S D R A W I N G H A S B E E N P R E P A R E D B A S E D O N I N F O R M A T I O N P R O V I D E D T O A D S U N D E R T H E D I R E C T I O N O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R O R O T H E R P R O J E C T R E P R E S E N T A T I V E . T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R S H A L L R E V I E W T H I S D R A W I N G P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . I T I S T H E U L T I M A T E RE S P O N S I B I L I T Y O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R T O E N S U R E T H A T T H E P R O D U C T ( S ) D E P I C T E D A N D A L L A S S O C I A T E D D E T A I L S M E E T A L L A P P L I C A B L E L A W S , R E G U L A T I O N S , A N D P R O J E C T R E Q U I R E M E N T S . DA T E DR W CH K DE S C R I P T I O N F3 FO N T A N A , C A SHEET OF3 5 St o r m T e c h 88 8 - 8 9 2 - 2 6 9 4 | WW W . S T O R M T E C H . C O M ® Ch a m b e r S y s t e m INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE STEP 1)INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT A.INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT) A.1.REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN A.2.REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED A.3.USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG A.4.LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) A.5.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. B.ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS B.1.REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS B.2.USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE i)MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE B.3.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. STEP 2)CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESS A.A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED B.APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN C.VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED STEP 3)REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. STEP 4)INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. NOTES 1.INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. 2.CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE MC-4500 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL NTS STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE MC-4500 CHAMBER OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT MC-4500 END CAP 24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE FACTORY PRE-CORED END CAP PART #: MC4500REPE24BC OR MC4500REPE24BW ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS175 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 10.3' (3.1 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS SUMP DEPTH TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER (24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED) INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" (600 mm) ACCESS PIPE PART #: MC450024RAMP 46 4 0 T R U E M A N B L V D HI L L I A R D , O H 4 3 0 2 6 1- 8 0 0 - 7 3 3 - 7 4 7 3 DA T E : DR A W N : J K PR O J E C T # : CH E C K E D : N / A TH I S D R A W I N G H A S B E E N P R E P A R E D B A S E D O N I N F O R M A T I O N P R O V I D E D T O A D S U N D E R T H E D I R E C T I O N O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R O R O T H E R P R O J E C T R E P R E S E N T A T I V E . T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R S H A L L R E V I E W T H I S D R A W I N G P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . I T I S T H E U L T I M A T E RE S P O N S I B I L I T Y O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R T O E N S U R E T H A T T H E P R O D U C T ( S ) D E P I C T E D A N D A L L A S S O C I A T E D D E T A I L S M E E T A L L A P P L I C A B L E L A W S , R E G U L A T I O N S , A N D P R O J E C T R E Q U I R E M E N T S . DA T E DR W CH K DE S C R I P T I O N F3 FO N T A N A , C A SHEET OF4 5 St o r m T e c h 88 8 - 8 9 2 - 2 6 9 4 | WW W . S T O R M T E C H . C O M ® Ch a m b e r S y s t e m MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL NTS NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTAL FOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING. MANIFOLD HEADER MANIFOLD STUB STORMTECH END CAP MANIFOLD HEADER MANIFOLD STUB 12" (300 mm) MIN SEPARATION 12" (300 mm) MIN INSERTION 12" (300 mm) MIN SEPARATION 12" (300 mm) MIN INSERTION MC-4500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NTS PART #STUB B C MC4500IEPP06T 6" (150 mm)42.54" (1081 mm)--- MC4500IEPP06B ---0.86" (22 mm) MC4500IEPP08T 8" (200 mm)40.50" (1029 mm)--- MC4500IEPP08B ---1.01" (26 mm) MC4500IEPP10T 10" (250 mm)38.37" (975 mm)--- MC4500IEPP10B ---1.33" (34 mm) MC4500IEPP12T 12" (300 mm)35.69" (907 mm)--- MC4500IEPP12B ---1.55" (39 mm) MC4500IEPP15T 15" (375 mm)32.72" (831 mm)--- MC4500IEPP15B ---1.70" (43 mm) MC4500IEPP18T 18" (450 mm) 29.36" (746 mm)---MC4500IEPP18TW MC4500IEPP18B ---1.97" (50 mm)MC4500IEPP18BW MC4500IEPP24T 24" (600 mm) 23.05" (585 mm)---MC4500IEPP24TW MC4500IEPP24B ---2.26" (57 mm)MC4500IEPP24BW MC4500IEPP30BW 30" (750 mm)---2.95" (75 mm) MC4500IEPP36BW 36" (900 mm)---3.25" (83 mm) MC4500IEPP42BW 42" (1050 mm)---3.55" (90 mm) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)100.0" X 60.0" X 48.3" (2540 mm X 1524 mm X 1227 mm) CHAMBER STORAGE 106.5 CUBIC FEET (3.01 m³) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*162.6 CUBIC FEET (4.60 m³) WEIGHT (NOMINAL)125.0 lbs.(56.7 kg) NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)90.0" X 61.0" X 32.8" (2286 mm X 1549 mm X 833 mm) END CAP STORAGE 39.5 CUBIC FEET (1.12 m³) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*115.3 CUBIC FEET (3.26 m³) WEIGHT (NOMINAL)90 lbs.(40.8 kg) *ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS, 12" (305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY. PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T" END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W" CUSTOM PARTIAL CUT INVERTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE 12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm) ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-4500 END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THE INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B' ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FOR THE PIPE SIZE. UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION WEB CREST CREST STIFFENING RIB VALLEY STIFFENING RIB BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION LOWER JOINT CORRUGATION FOOT B C 52.0" (1321 mm) 48.3" (1227 mm) INSTALLED 60.0" (1524 mm) 100.0" (2540 mm)90.0" (2286 mm) 61.0" (1549 mm) 32.8" (833 mm) INSTALLED 38.0" (965 mm) 46 4 0 T R U E M A N B L V D HI L L I A R D , O H 4 3 0 2 6 1- 8 0 0 - 7 3 3 - 7 4 7 3 DA T E : DR A W N : J K PR O J E C T # : CH E C K E D : N / A TH I S D R A W I N G H A S B E E N P R E P A R E D B A S E D O N I N F O R M A T I O N P R O V I D E D T O A D S U N D E R T H E D I R E C T I O N O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R O R O T H E R P R O J E C T R E P R E S E N T A T I V E . T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R S H A L L R E V I E W T H I S D R A W I N G P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . I T I S T H E U L T I M A T E RE S P O N S I B I L I T Y O F T H E S I T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R T O E N S U R E T H A T T H E P R O D U C T ( S ) D E P I C T E D A N D A L L A S S O C I A T E D D E T A I L S M E E T A L L A P P L I C A B L E L A W S , R E G U L A T I O N S , A N D P R O J E C T R E Q U I R E M E N T S . DA T E DR W CH K DE S C R I P T I O N F3 FO N T A N A , C A SHEET OF5 5 UP TWH N 89° 29' 24" E294.00' N 00 ° 2 2 ' 5 1 " W 2 3 8 . 8 2 ' N 89° 30' 24" E 294.00' N 00 ° 2 2 ' 5 1 " W 2 3 8 . 9 1 ' N 0 0 ° 2 2 ' 5 1 " W 2 3 8 . 9 1 ' N 89° 29' 24" E290.00' N 89° 30' 24" E 290.00' JU N I P E R A V E N U E SANTA ANA AVENUE 0255-091-06-0-000 0255-101-25-0-000 0255-101-29-0-000 0255-101-33-0-0000255-091-63-0-000 TI T L E S H E E T A N D N O T E S AS SHOWN C-1 FONTANA BUSINESS CENTER 3 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR JUNIPER AVENUE FONTANA, CA 92337 VICINITY MAP INDEX MAP SITE PROJECT DATA BENCHMARK BASIS OF BEARINGS GENERAL NOTES FOR GRADING PLANS UTILITY CONTACT LIST UTILITY AGENCY CONTACT NAME CONTACT INFORMATION Ci v i l E n g i n e e r i n g & L a n d S u r v e y i n g Pl o t n i k & A s s o c i a t e s FO N T A N A B U S I N E S S C E N T E R 3 JU N I P E R A V E N U E FO N T A N A , C A 9 2 3 3 7 1/25/23 PCJEK 600.00 22 0 S . P a c i f i c C o a s t H w y . , S t e . 1 1 1 Re d o n d o B e a c h , C A 9 0 2 7 7 Te l : ( 3 1 0 ) 6 0 5 - 6 6 5 7 ww w . p l o t n i k . c o m D D U PP U D SS PP PP D D CB D E DI N 0 0 ° 2 2 ' 5 1 " W 2 7 1 8 . 4 8 ' N 89° 29' 24" E294.00' N 0 0 ° 2 2 ' 5 1 " W 2 3 8 . 8 2 ' N 89° 30' 24" E 294.00' N 0 0 ° 2 2 ' 5 1 " W 2 3 8 . 9 1 ' 1023.30'30.00' N 89° 30' 24" E30.00' SS ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION, PER MB 11/12 SOUTH LINE, INST 2005-0414870, OR, ESTABLISHED PER SAID DEED WEST LINE, PMB 217/44, ESTABLISHED PER MAP RO A D I S U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N RO A D I S U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N SITE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION VACANT LAND, NO BUILDINGS POLE 0.4' OUT POLE1.5' OUT POLE 2.3' OUT TEMP FENCEMEANDERS ALONG PL WALL 1.0' OUT WALL 1.0' OUT CURB 1.5' OUT FE N C E 1. 1 ' O U T CU R B 3. 4 ' O U T CU R B 3. 2 ' O U T FE N C E 1. 0 ' O U T AC C E S S PORTION LOT 761 MB 11/12 APN: 0255-101-25 OWNER: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE APN: 0255-101-29 OWNER: HOME DEPOT USA INC APN: 0255-101-33 OWNER: UNKNOWN 1046' 1048' 1049' 1050' 1051' 1052' 1053'1054' 1055' 1 0 5 6 ' 10 5 5 ' 10 5 4 '1053' 10 5 3 ' 1 0 5 3 ' 1054' 1055' 1056' 1055' 10 5 7 ' 1051' 1052' 1053' 8" S S N 0 0 ° 2 2 ' 5 1 " W 2 3 8 . 9 1 ' N 89° 29' 24" E290.00' N 89° 30' 24" E 290.00' TW H SSS SLOPED FLOOR @ 0.5% CONSTRUCTION NOTES A C-3 DC- 3 BC- 3 CC-3 JU N I P E R A V E N U E PR E L I M I N A R Y G R A D I N G P L A N 1" = 20' C-2 Ci v i l E n g i n e e r i n g & L a n d S u r v e y i n g Pl o t n i k & A s s o c i a t e s FO N T A N A B U S I N E S S C E N T E R 3 JU N I P E R A V E N U E FO N T A N A , C A 9 2 3 3 7 1/25/23 PCJEK 600.00 22 0 S . P a c i f i c C o a s t H w y . , S t e . 1 1 1 Re d o n d o B e a c h , C A 9 0 2 7 7 Te l : ( 3 1 0 ) 6 0 5 - 6 6 5 7 ww w . p l o t n i k . c o m NO T A P A R T NOT A PART NOT A PART SECTION A SECTION B SECTION C SECTION D JUNIPER AVENUE SE C T I O N S AS SHOWN C-3 Ci v i l E n g i n e e r i n g & L a n d S u r v e y i n g Pl o t n i k & A s s o c i a t e s FO N T A N A B U S I N E S S C E N T E R 3 JU N I P E R A V E N U E FO N T A N A , C A 9 2 3 3 7 1/25/23 PCJEK 600.00 22 0 S . P a c i f i c C o a s t H w y . , S t e . 1 1 1 Re d o n d o B e a c h , C A 9 0 2 7 7 Te l : ( 3 1 0 ) 6 0 5 - 6 6 5 7 ww w . p l o t n i k . c o m DE T A I L S AS SHOWN C-4 Ci v i l E n g i n e e r i n g & L a n d S u r v e y i n g Pl o t n i k & A s s o c i a t e s FO N T A N A B U S I N E S S C E N T E R 3 JU N I P E R A V E N U E FO N T A N A , C A 9 2 3 3 7 1/25/23 PCJEK 600.00 22 0 S . P a c i f i c C o a s t H w y . , S t e . 1 1 1 Re d o n d o B e a c h , C A 9 0 2 7 7 Te l : ( 3 1 0 ) 6 0 5 - 6 6 5 7 ww w . p l o t n i k . c o m APPENDIX A 16531 Orangehaven Lane, Riverside, CA 92503 • 951-264-9023 • noorzaygeo.com January 24, 2023 Chase Partners, LTD Project No. 23001 6444 San Fernando Road, #3944 Glendale, California 91221 Attn: Mr. Michael Carter Dear Mr. Carter: Attached herewith is the preliminary geotechnical investigation and stormwater percolation testing report prepared for the proposed warehouse building to be developed on Juniper Avenue, in Fontana, California (APN 0255-101-24-0000, 0255-101-30-0000). We appreciate this opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you have questions or comments concerning this report, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Noorzay Geotechnical Services, Inc. Maihan Noorzay, G.E. Principal Engineer Distribution: Mr. Michael Carter (PDF) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND STORMWATER PERCOLATION TESTING PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BUILDING JUNIPER AVENUE, FONTANA, CALIFORNIA APN 0255-101-24-0000, 0255-101-30-0000 PREPARED FOR CHASE PARTNERS, LTD NGS PROJECT NO. 23001 NoorzayGeo INTRODUCTION During January 2023, a preliminary geotechnical investigation and stormwater percolation testing was performed by this firm for the proposed warehouse building to be located on Juniper Avenue, in Fontana, California (APN 0255-101-24-0000, 0255-101-30-0000). The purposes of this investigation were to explore and evaluate the geotechnical engineering conditions at the subject site and to provide appropriate geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development. The location of the site is depicted on the Index Map (Enclosure A-1). A preliminary site plan prepared by Carter Group Architects, Inc, dated November 2, 2022, that exhibited the subject property boundaries and proposed building location, was used as a base map for our Site Plan (Enclosure A-2). The results of our investigation, together with our conclusions and recommendations, are presented in this report. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services provided during this preliminary geotechnical investigation included the following: • A field reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area • Logging and sampling of exploratory borings for testing and evaluation • Percolation testing for stormwater abatement purposes • Laboratory testing on selected samples • Evaluation of the geotechnical engineering/geologic data to develop site-specific recommendations for site grading and foundation design • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, professional opinions, and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction Page No. 2 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS As we understand it, a new, an approximately 35,500 square feet warehouse building will be developed on the site. The site is currently vacant. We anticipate that the proposed warehouse will consist of concrete tilt-up panels supported on continuous or spread footings and a slab-on-grade. Associated infrastructure such as utilities, stormwater retention, and parking lots are also planned. No additional information was provided during preparation of this report. The final grading and foundation plans were not available for review during preparation of this report. The final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is rectangular in shape, encompasses two parcels, APNs 0255-101-24 and 0255-101-30, with a total area of approximately 1.61 acres, and is located on Juniper Avenue approximately 400 feet south of Santa Ana Avenue, in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The site is currently vacant. It is bounded by Juniper Avenue to the west, by a warehouse building to the south, a post office to the north and by commercial/industrial property to the east. The highest elevation on the property is approximately 1,060 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the southwest corner of the property, and the lowest elevation on the property is approximately 1,054 feet MSL near the northwest corner. Maximum relief is about six feet with an overall gradient less than three percent, downhill toward the north. FIELD INVESTIGATION Soil conditions underlying the subject site were explored by means of three exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet and four percolation test holes drilled to approximately five to eight Page No. 3 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) with truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig equipped for soil sampling. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are indicated on Enclosure A-2. Continuous logs of the subsurface conditions, as encountered within the exploratory borings, were recorded at the time of drilling by an engineer from this firm. Both a standard penetration test (SPT) sampler (2-inch outer diameter and 1-3/8-inch inner diameter) and a ring sampler (3-1/4-inch outer diameter and 2-1/2-inch inner diameter) were utilized in our investigation. The penetration resistance was recorded on the boring logs as the number of hammer blows used to advance the sampler in 6-inch increments (or less if noted). The samplers were driven with an automatic hammer that drops a 140- pound weight 30 inches for each blow. After the required seating, samplers are advanced up to 18 inches, providing up to three sets of blowcounts at each sampling interval. The recorded blows are raw numbers without any corrections for hammer type (automatic vs. manual cathead) or sampler size (ring sampler vs. standard penetration test sampler). Both relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of typical soil types obtained were returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for testing and evaluation. The exploratory boring logs, together with the uncorrected blowcount data and in-place density data, are presented in Appendix B. The stratification lines presented on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types, which may include gradual transitions. The exploratory borings were backfilled with excavated soils using reasonable effort to restore the areas to their initial condition prior to leaving the site, but they were not compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent or greater. In an area as small and deep as a boring, consolidation and subsidence of soil backfill may occur over time causing a depression. The client is advised to observe exploratory boring areas occasionally and, when needed, backfill noted depressions. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Included in the laboratory testing program were field dry density and moisture content tests on relatively undisturbed samples. An optimum moisture-maximum dry density relationship was Page No. 4 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo established to evaluate the relative compaction of the subsurface soils. Direct shear testing was performed on a remolded sample to provide shear strength parameters for bearing capacity and earth pressure evaluations. No. 200 washes were performed for soil classification purposes. A selected sample of material was delivered to Project X Corrosion Engineering and tested for preliminary corrosivity analysis. Laboratory test results for the current investigation are provided in Appendix C. Soil classifications provided in our geotechnical investigation are in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The City of Fontana lies near the north edge of the Peninsular Ranges Physiographic Province, one of eleven such provinces recognized in the State of California. The Peninsular Ranges encompass southwestern California west of the Imperial-Coachella Valley trough and south of the elevated terraces of the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and Santa Monica Mountains. The province is characterized by youthful, steeply sloped, northwest-trending, elongated ranges, and intervening valleys. Structurally, the bulk of the Peninsular Ranges are composed of several relatively stable crustal blocks bounded by active strike-slip faults of the San Andreas transform system. Although some folding and minor faulting has occurred within the blocks, intense structural deformation and earthquake activity are mostly limited to the block margins. The Peninsular Ranges province contains a diverse array of metamorphic, sedimentary, volcanic, and intrusive igneous rocks. In general, the metamorphic rocks represent highly altered host rocks for the emplacement of very large masses of granitic rock of varying composition. Inland, the province is dominated by crystalline basement rocks. Fontana is located near the southern edge of a large, alluviated, east-west trending valley which lies adjacent to the south edge of the Transverse Ranges Physiographic Province. The Jurupa Hills are located immediately south of Fontana. The general geology in the area surrounding the subject site is Page No. 5 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo shown on the Regional Geologic Map and legend (Enclosures A-4, A-4a). FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone; there is no AP map for the Fontana Quadrangle. As with most of southern California, the subject site is situated in an area of active and potentially active faults. Active faults present several potential risks to structures, the most common of which are strong ground shaking, dynamic densification, liquefaction, mass wasting, and surface rupture at the fault plane. The following four factors are the principal determinants of seismic risk at a given location: ● Distance to seismogenically capable faults. ● The maximum or "characteristic" magnitude earthquake for a capable fault. ● Seismic recurrence interval, in turn related to tectonic slip rates. ● Nature of earth materials underlying the site. Based upon proximity to regionally significant, active faults, ground shaking is considered to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site. Characteristics of the major active fault zones selected for inclusion in analysis of strong ground shaking are listed in the following table. Numerous significant fault zones are located at distances exceeding 40 kilometers from the site, but greater distances, lower slip rates, and/or lesser maximum magnitudes indicate much lower risk to the site from the latter fault zones than those listed below. Fault Zone1 Distance from Site (km) Fault Length (km)1 Slip Rate (mm/yr)1 Reference Earthquake M(Max)1 Fault Type1 San Jacinto (San Bernardino Segment) (rl-ss) 11 43±4 12.0±6.0 6.9 A Page No. 6 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Fault Zone1 Distance from Site (km) Fault Length (km)1 Slip Rate (mm/yr)1 Reference Earthquake M(Max)1 Fault Type1 Cucamonga (r, 45 N) 12 28±3 5.0±2.0 6.9 B San Andreas (San Bernardino Segment) (rl-ss) 18 103±10 24.0±6.0 7.5 A San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley Segment) (rl-ss) 24 43±4 12.0±6.0 6.9 A Sierra Madre (r, 45N) 25 57±6 20. ±1.0 7.2 B Elsinore, Glen Ivy (rl-ss) 25 36±4 5.0±2.0 6.8 A San Jose (ll-r-o, 75N) 26± 28±3 1.0±0.5 6.6 B 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996 (Appendix A - Revised 2002), Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, DMG Open-File Report 96-08. 2. Fault Geometry: (ss) strike slip; (r) reverse; (n) normal; (rl) right lateral; (ll) left lateral; (O) oblique; (45 N) direction. 3. International Conference of Building Officials, February 1988, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California, and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, to be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Prepared by California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology in cooperation with Structural Engineers Association of California Seismology Committee. * Multiple branches of the San Andreas fault are mapped 5km. Distance from the nearest branch, the Mission Creek fault, to project area to be determined. SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS In the project area, near-surface soils consisted predominantly of artificial fill underlain by young, alluvial fan deposits. The fill soil, generally four to five feet in depth, was composed of silty sand (SM) with some gravel, which was tan brown or brown, moist, and loose to medium dense. The underlying native soil was composed of sandy silt (ML), silty sand to sandy silt (SM/ML), silty sand (SM), silty gravel (GM), and poorly graded gravel (GP), which was light brown or tan and tan-brown to gray and gray brown, and orange brown to reddish brown, dry to moist, and medium dense or very stiff to very dense or hard. Page No. 7 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo No groundwater was encountered within the three exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 51.5 below ground surface. No evidence of groundwater was noted. Slight to severe caving was encountered in the exploratory excavations. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered are included within our exploratory logs (Appendix B). 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE - SEISMIC PARAMETERS Based on the geologic setting and anticipated earthwork for construction of the proposed project, the soils underlying the site are classified as Site Class D – default according to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The seismic parameters according to the 2019 CBC are summarized in the following table. The seismic parameters provided assume Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) design is permitted using the exceptions noted in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16. 2019 CBC - Seismic Parameters Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters Ss = 1.635 and S1 = 0.6 Site Coefficients Fa = 1.2 and Fv = 1.7 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Parameters SMS = 1.962 and SM1 = 1.02 Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters SDS = 1.308 and SD1 = 0.68 Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) 0.798g Deaggregated Magnitude (mean, over all sources) 7.09 It should be noted that the above seismic parameters should be reviewed by the civil/ structural design engineer and approved by the appropriate governmental agency prior to using for this project. The civil/ structural design engineer should consult with the project geotechnical consultant if additional geotechnical information is needed for structural design. Page No. 8 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo GROUNDWATER The site is in the southeast quarter of Section 30, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Principal Meridian, at latitude 34.054301° North, Longitude 117.439407° West. Geotracker indicates the subject site lies within the Upper Santa Ana Valley—Chino groundwater basin. The closest water well data available from the California Department of Water Resources was well number 01S05W30L001S, which was located about 0.35 mile west-northwest of the subject site. The highest recorded groundwater in this well was more than 200 feet below ground surface or elevation of 826 AMSL at the well location. A second well, number 01S05W20N001S, was located about 0.9 mile northeast of the site. The highest recorded groundwater within this well was at an elevation of 814 MSL, or nearly 300 feet below ground surface at the well, and more than 200 feet below ground surface relative to the subject site. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint for the subject project. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT Liquefaction is a process in which strong ground shaking causes saturated soils to lose their strength and behave as a fluid (Matti and Carson, 1991). Ground failure associated with liquefaction can result in severe damage to structures. Soil types susceptible to liquefaction include sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and silt, as well as soils having a plasticity index (PI) less than 7 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2004) and loose soils with a PI less than 12 and a moisture content greater than 85 percent of the liquid limit (Bray and Sancio, 2006). The geologic conditions for increased susceptibility to liquefaction are: 1) shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet in depth); 2) the presence of unconsolidated sandy alluvium, typically Holocene in age; and 3) strong ground shaking. All three of these conditions must be present for liquefaction to occur. The San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays, number FH29C, indicates the subject site does not lie within a potential liquefaction zone. Due to the lack of shallow groundwater, liquefaction is not considered to be a geologic constraint at the subject site Page No. 9 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Severe seismic shaking may cause dry and non-saturated sands to densify, resulting in settlement expressed at the ground surface. Seismic settlement in dry soils generally occurs in loose sands and silty sands, with cohesive soils being less prone to significant settlement. Using the method outlined by Pradel (1998), calculations were performed to estimate the maximum and the differential settlement to be anticipated as a result of a major seismic event using the same parameters as for the liquefaction analysis. The results indicate that seismic settlement could be on the order of 1/4 inch. Differential seismic settlement could be on the order of half the total seismic settlement over 40 feet. The result of our analysis is provided in Appendix D. HYDROCONSOLIDATION Based on the relatively dense nature of the underlying near-surface materials encountered in our investigation, the anticipated grading operations, and the low potential for full saturation of the upper soil layers, it is our opinion that the potential for hydrocollapse settlement to significantly affect the proposed development is low. STATIC SETTLEMENT Potential static settlement was evaluated utilizing field and laboratory data and foundation load assumptions. The calculations indicate total static settlement of less than one inch beneath shallow foundations. Most of the potential static settlement should occur during construction. Based on the uniformity of the materials encountered, differential settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 the total settlement over 40 feet. LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY The San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays, number FH29C, indicates the subject site does not lie within a potential landslide susceptibility zone. There was no visual evidence of landslides Page No. 10 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo identified on or near the subject property during the field investigation. The subject site and surrounding area in all directions are very low relief with shallow gradients. There are no mapped landslides on or near the subject site. The probability that the site will be adversely affected by future landslides is considered low. FLOODING POTENTIAL Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) were compiled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Flood Insurance Program and are available for most areas within the United States at the FEMA web site (http://msc.fema.gov/). The attached FEMA Flood Map and FEMA Flood Map Legend (Enclosure A-6) were created from FIRMs specific to the area of the subject site. The FEMA Flood Map shows the site is located within ‘Zone X’. In this case, Zone X is defined as an area of minimal flood risk. Seiching Seiching is the oscillation of an enclosed body water, usually due to strong groundshaking following a seismic event. Seiching can affect lakes, water towers, swimming pools. There are no known enclosed bodies of water near enough to adversely affect the subject property. Tsunamis Tsunamis are not considered to be a geologic hazard at the subject site due to its inland location. EXPANSION POTENTIAL Materials encountered during this investigation were considered granular and non-critically expansive. Specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil forces are not anticipated at this time. Requirements for reinforcing steel to satisfy structural criteria are not affected by this recommendation. Additional evaluation of soils for expansion potential should be conducted by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operation as warranted. Page No. 11 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo PERCOLATION TESTING Two percolation tests (Percolation Test Nos 1 and 2) were performed at the location of an anticipated stormwater infiltration abatement system located near the northeast side of the site and two percolation tests (Percolation Test Nos 3 and 4) were performed near the southwest side of the site. The test locations are shown on Enclosure A-2. The soil profiles are provided in the exploratory logs in Appendix B. Samples of representative soil material from the test locations were obtained and returned to our lab for testing. The testing performed included No. 200 washes and the results are included in Appendix C. The testing was performed based on the requirements of the shallow percolation test procedure as developed by Riverside County Department of Environmental Health which is an accepted method in San Bernardino County. Based on the anticipated depth of the infiltration abatement as provided by the client, testing was performed at 8 and 5 feet below the existing ground surface. In order to prevent caving of the test holes, 3-inch perforated PVC pipe was placed inside the 8-inch diameter test holes and 3/4-inch gravel was placed in the annular space between the PVC pipe and the sides of the holes. Per the test method, if two consecutive measurements show that 6 inches of water seep away in less than 25 minutes, the location is considered "sandy", and the test should be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. If less than 6 inches of water seep away, the location is considered "non-sandy", and measurements are taken every 30 minutes for a total testing time of six hours. The test locations were considered "sandy" for the purposes of the percolation testing. It should be noted that the percolation rate is related to, but not equal to, the infiltration rate. The infiltration rate is a measure of the speed at which water progresses downward into the soil, while the Page No. 12 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo percolation rate includes both downward and horizontal speeds. The infiltration rate should be considered for use in detention basin or permeable pavement design and percolation rates should be considered for dry well or infiltration trench design. Both the percolation rates and infiltration rates from the percolation testing are provided in the following table. The percolation test data obtained were used to calculate the infiltration rate of the soil at each test location. The drop that occurs in the final reading is reported below. A modified version of the Porchet method was used to convert the percolation data to the infiltration rate. Our calculations correct for the use of gravel in the annular space. The rates provided do not include safety factors. Infiltration and Percolation Rates Test No. Depth (ft.) Percolation Rate Infiltration Rate* Soil Type (minutes/inch) (inches/hour) P-1 8 0.2 12.5 SP-SM P-2 8 0.7 4.1 SM P-3 5 2.4 1.4 SM P-4 5 4.2 0.7 SM * Corrected for gravel packing The test data is provided in Appendix E. The above infiltration and percolation rates, determined by the percolation test method, are based on field test results utilizing clear water. The rates can be affected by silt buildup, debris, degree of soil saturation, site variability and other factors. The rates were obtained at specific locations, are representative of the locations tested and may not be representative of the entire site. The rates presented above are tested field rates and should NOT be considered design infiltration rates. The designer of the individual basins should consider possible site variability in their design. Application of an appropriate safety factor may be prudent to account for Page No. 13 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo subsoil inconsistencies, possible compaction related to site grading and potential silting of the percolating soils, depending on the application. Based on review of the groundwater levels and exploratory boring logs, we expect a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the bottom of the infiltration surface and the estimated historical high groundwater table. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of our field and laboratory investigations, it is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic standpoints, provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented during design and construction. Moderate to severe seismic shaking can be expected at the site. There are no known active faults on or trending toward the subject site; the site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone. Slight to severe caving was observed in our exploratory excavations. The contractor should be prepared to deal with caving soils as applicable. Groundwater was not encountered within our exploratory borings. Based on nearby water well data, groundwater will be too deep to adversely affect the proposed project or the stormwater abatement plans. Based on results of our analysis, total seismic settlement could be on the order of 1/4 inch. We estimate a maximum differential seismic settlement of up to 1/2 the total seismic settlement over 40 feet with the existing site conditions. Total static settlement of less than one inch beneath shallow foundations should be anticipated. Differential static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 the total settlement over 40 feet. Page No. 14 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Landslides are not considered to be a geologic constraint on the subject site. Temporary excavations are anticipated to conform to local and State codes with regard to the geologic materials present at the site. Materials encountered during this investigation were considered granular and non-critically expansive. Specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil forces are not anticipated at this time. Additional evaluation of soils for expansion potential should be conducted by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operation as warranted. Based upon our field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the upper existing soils will not, in their present condition, provide uniform or adequate support for the proposed structure. Undocumented fill and/or variable in situ conditions may be present in the upper soils. These conditions may cause unacceptable differential and/or overall settlement upon application of the anticipated foundation loads. Because of site conditions it will be necessary to remove a minimum of 5 feet of the existing soils or 24 inches below footings, whichever is greater, in building areas. To provide adequate support for the proposed structure, it is our recommendation that the building areas be subexcavated as necessary and recompacted with a compacted fill mat beneath footings. A compacted fill mat will provide a dense, uniform, high-strength soil layer to distribute the foundation loads over the underlying soils. The final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that the recommendations provided in this report are implemented. Page No. 15 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL SITE GRADING It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a representative of the geotechnical engineer. An on-site, pre-job meeting with the developer, the contractor and the geotechnical engineer should occur prior to all grading-related operations. Operations undertaken at the site without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusions of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project. Grading of the subject site should be performed, at a minimum, in accordance with these recommendations and with applicable portions of the CBC. The following recommendations are presented for your assistance in establishing proper grading criteria. INITIAL SITE PREPARATION All areas to be graded should be stripped or cleaned of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials. These materials should be removed from the site for disposal. The cleaned soils may be reused as properly compacted fill. Rocks or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be used in compacted fills. If encountered, existing utility lines should be traced, removed, and rerouted from areas to be graded. MINIMUM MANDATORY REMOVAL OF EXISTING SOILS All building areas (including at least 5 feet laterally beyond the footing lines, where possible) should have at least the upper 5 feet of existing soils or 24 inches below footings, whichever is greater, removed and the open excavation bottoms observed by our engineer/ geologist to verify and document in writing that all undocumented fills or loose native soils are removed prior to refilling with properly tested and documented compacted fill. The removed and cleaned soils may be reused as properly compacted fill. Page No. 16 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Further subexcavation may be necessary depending on the conditions of the underlying soils. The actual depth of removal should be determined at the time of grading by the project geotechnical engineer/geologist. The determination will be based on soil conditions exposed within the excavations. At minimum, any undocumented fill, topsoil, or other unsuitable materials should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill. In-place density tests may be taken in the removal bottom areas where appropriate to provide data to help support and document the engineer/geologist's decision. PREPARATION OF FILL AREAS Prior to placing fill, and after the mandatory subexcavation operation, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified and moisture treated to a depth of 6 inches or more. The soils should be brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. PREPARATION OF SHALLOW FOOTING AREAS All footings should rest upon at least 24 inches of properly compacted fill material. The required overexcavation should extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the footing lines, where reasonably possible. In instances where the lateral overexcavation may not be accomplished, this firm should be contacted to evaluate the effect. The bottom of this excavation should then be scarified and moisture treated to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D1557 prior to refilling the excavation to the required grade as properly compacted fill. Thickness of compacted fill underneath foundations should not be allowed to vary by more than 50 percent for a single structure or 2 feet, whichever is less. In areas where, by virtue of grading, the fill thickness will exceed this maximum allowable differential, the subexcavation depths should be increased as necessary to reduce the differential fill thickness. This deepening of the subexcavation Page No. 17 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo may involve additional removals of native soils. A determination of specific structural areas that require additional subexcavation should be performed at the time of grading. In no case should footings for a single structure span from cut to fill conditions. All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical engineer to verify that they have been excavated into compacted fill prior to placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level, and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture- softened soils should be removed from the excavations prior to placing of concrete. COMPACTED FILLS The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill material provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Rocks or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be used in compacted fills. If utilized, import fill should be inorganic, non-expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical engineer of import sources sufficiently ahead of their use so that the sources can be observed and approved as to the physical characteristic of the import material. For all import material, the contractor shall also submit current verified reports from a recognized analytical laboratory indicating that the import has a "not applicable" potential for sulfate attack based upon current American Concrete Institute (ACI) criteria and is "mildly to moderately corrosive" to ferrous metal and copper. The reports shall be accompanied by a written statement from the contractor that the laboratory test results are representative of all import material that will be brought to the job. Fill should be spread in near-horizontal layers, approximately 8 inches thick. Thicker lifts may be approved by the geotechnical engineer if testing indicates that the grading procedures are adequate to achieve the required compaction. Each lift should be spread evenly, thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of the material and moisture in each layer, brought to near optimum Page No. 18 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. Based upon the relative compaction anticipated for compacted fill soils, we estimate compaction shrinkage of approximately 10 to 15 percent. Therefore, 1.10 cubic yards to 1.15 cubic yards of in- place soil material would be necessary to yield one cubic yard of properly compacted fill material. In addition, we would anticipate compaction subsidence of approximately 0.5 to 0.75 feet in the upper 5 feet. These values are exclusive of losses due to disposal of oversized material, stripping, tree removal or removal of other subsurface obstructions, if encountered, and may vary due to differing conditions within the project boundaries and the limitations of this investigation. Values presented for shrinkage and subsidence are estimates only. Final grades should be adjusted, and/or contingency plans to import or export material should be made to accommodate possible variations in actual quantities during site grading. SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN If the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structure may be safely founded on spread foundations, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of compacted fill. Exterior footings should be a minimum of 24 inches wide and should be established at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final subgrade level. Exterior footing reinforcement should consist of at least four No. 5 reinforcing bars (two on top and two on bottom). The structural engineer may require additional reinforcement. Interior footings should be a minimum of 18 inches wide and should be established at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final subgrade level. Interior footings should consist of at least four No. 4 reinforcing bars (two on top and two on bottom). The structural engineer may require additional reinforcement. Page No. 19 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo For the minimum width of 18 inches and depth of 18 inches, footings may be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. This allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of width and 500 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for dead plus live loads. These bearing values may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading. For footings thus designed and constructed, we would anticipate a maximum static settlement of less than one inch. Differential static settlement between similarly loaded adjacent footings is expected to be approximately half the total settlement over 40 feet. Static settlement is expected to occur during construction or shortly after. LATERAL LOADING AND RETAINING WALL DESIGN Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings bearing against compacted fill, allowable passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of 220 psf per foot of depth. Base friction may be computed at 0.28 times the normal load. Base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction. For unrestrained retaining wall conditions, an active earth pressure developed at a rate of 40 psf per foot of depth should be utilized for level backfill. For restrained retaining wall conditions, an at-rest earth pressure of 60 psf per foot of depth should be utilized for level backfill. The "at-rest" condition applies toward braced walls that are not free to tilt. The "active" condition applies toward unrestrained cantilevered walls where wall movement is anticipated. The structural designer should use judgment in determining the wall fixity and may utilize values interpolated between the at-rest and active conditions where appropriate. A triangular distribution of static earth pressures should be used in the design. Page No. 20 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo For walls 6 feet in height or greater, the seismic earth pressure should be considered in addition to the static earth pressure. This firm should be contacted should retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height be required for the project These values are applicable only to properly drained, level, backfill with no additional surcharge loadings and do not include a factor of safety other than conservative modeling of the soil strength parameters. For walls with uniform surcharge loading, including uniform traffic surcharge (located within a 1V:1H plane from the bottom of the wall), the increase in active pressure can be calculated as the product of 0.28 (Ka) and the surcharge load, q, (i.e., 0.28*q) for level backfill. The increase in at-rest pressure can be calculated as the product of 0.44 (K0) and the surcharge load, q for level conditions. The resulting additional surcharge pressure should be applied to the wall as a rectangular distribution, from top to bottom. Backfill behind retaining walls (within H/2 of the back of the wall, where H is the height of the wall) should consist of a soil of sufficient granularity that the backfill will properly drain. The granular soil should be classified per the USCS as GW, GP, SW, SP, SW-SM or SP-SM. Surface drainage should be provided to prevent ponding of water behind walls. A drainage system consisting of either of the following should be installed behind all retaining walls: 1. A 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC (Schedule 40) pipe or equivalent at the base of the stem encased in 2 cubic feet of granular drain material per linear foot of pipe or 2. Synthetic drains such as Enkadrain, Miradrain, Hydraway 300 or equivalent. Perforations in the PVC pipe should be 3/8 inch in diameter and facing down. Granular drain material should be wrapped with filter cloth such as Mirafi 140 or equivalent to prevent clogging of the drains Page No. 21 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo with fines. Walls should be waterproofed to prevent nuisance seepage. Water should outlet to an approved drain. SLABS-ON-GRADE To provide adequate support, concrete slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of 24 inches of compacted fill soil. The final pad surfaces should be rolled to provide smooth, dense surfaces. As a minimum, concrete slabs-on-grade should be 5 inches in thickness with No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches on center each way at mid-height of the slab. Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor retarder/barrier. We recommend that a vapor retarder/barrier be designed and constructed according to the American Concrete Institute 302.1R, Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, which addresses moisture vapor retarder/barrier construction. At a minimum, the vapor retarder/barrier should comply with ASTM E1745 and have a nominal thickness of at least 10 mils. The vapor retarder/barrier should be properly sealed, per the manufacturer's recommendations, and protected from punctures and other damage. Per the Portland Cement Association (www.cement.org/tech/cct_con_vapor_retarders.asp), for slabs with vapor-sensitive coverings, a layer of dry, granular material (sand) should be placed under the vapor retarder/barrier. For slabs in humidity-controlled areas, a layer of dry, granular material (sand) should be placed above the vapor retarder/barrier. Concrete building slabs subjected to heavy loads, such as materials storage and/or forklift traffic, should be designed by a registered civil engineer competent in concrete design. A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of 300 kips per cubic foot can be utilized in the design of slabs-on-grade for the proposed project. Flatwork Use of maximum control joint spacing of no more than 8.0 feet in each direction and a construction joint spacing of 10 to 12 feet should be used in the design of flatwork. Construction joints that abut Page No. 22 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo foundations or slabs should include a felt strip, or approved equivalent, that extends the full depth of the exterior slab. Exterior slabs are not required to be doweled into adjacent foundations. If the subgrade earth materials are allowed to become saturated, there is a risk of vertical differential movement of the exterior concrete hardscape, sidewalks, curbs / gutters, etc. Therefore, proper drainage should be established away from such improvements and minimal precipitation or irrigation water allowed to percolate into the earth materials adjacent to and/or under the exterior concrete flatwork or hardscape, curbs / gutters, etc. EXCAVATIONS The soils encountered within our exploratory excavations are generally classified as a Type "C" soil in accordance with the CAL/OSHA excavation standards. Unless specifically evaluated by our engineering geologist, all the trench excavations should be performed following the recommendation of CAL/OSHA (State of California, 2013) for Type "C" soil. Based upon a soil classification of Type "C", the temporary excavations should not be inclined steeper than 1-1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical for maximum trench depth of less than 20 feet. For trench excavations deeper than 20 feet or for soil conditions that differ from those described for Type "C" in the CAL/OSHA excavation standards, this firm should be contacted. TRENCH BEDDING AND BACKFILLS Trench Bedding Pipe bedding material should meet and be placed according to the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction "Greenbook" or other project specifications. Pipe bedding should be uniform, free-draining, granular material with a sand equivalent of at least 30. Proposed pipe bedding material should be evaluated to confirm sand equivalent values by this firm prior to use as pipe bedding material. Page No. 23 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Backfill The on-site soils should provide quality backfill material provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be buried or placed in backfills. Fill to be compacted by heavy equipment should be spread in near-horizontal layers, approximately 8 inches in thickness. For fill to be compacted by hand-operated equipment, thinner lifts, 4 to 6 inches in thickness, should be utilized. Each lift should be spread evenly, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. To avoid pumping, backfill material should be mixed and moisture conditioned outside of the excavation prior to lift placement in the trench. Soils required to be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, such as pavement subgrade, should be moisture treated to near optimum moisture content not exceeding 2 percent above optimum. A controlled low-strength material could be considered to fill any cavities, such as voids created by caving or undermining of soils beneath existing improvements or pavement to remain, or any other areas that would be difficult to properly backfill. POTENTIAL EROSION AND DRAINAGE The potential for erosion should be mitigated by proper drainage design. The site should be graded so that surface water flows away from structures at a minimum gradient of 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from structures. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of structures should be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building. Water should not be allowed to flow over graded areas or natural areas so as to cause erosion. Graded areas should be planted or otherwise protected from erosion by wind or water. Page No. 24 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo SOIL CORROSION A selected sample of material was delivered to Project X Corrosion Engineering for preliminary corrosivity analysis. Laboratory testing consisted of pH, resistivity, chlorides, and sulfates. The results of the laboratory tests appear in Appendix C. The result from the resistivity test indicates a "moderately corrosive" condition to ferrous metals. Specific corrosion control measures, such as coating of the pipe with non-corrosive material or alternative non-metallic pipe material, are considered necessary. Results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate a Class S0 anticipated exposure to sulfate attack. Based on the criteria from Table 19.3.2.1 of the American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Practice (2014), special measures, such as specific cement types or water-cement ratios, will not be needed for this Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack. The soluble chloride content of the soils tested was not at levels high enough to be of concern with respect to corrosion of reinforcing steel. The results should be considered in combination with the soluble chloride content of the hardened concrete in determining the effect of chloride on the corrosion of reinforcing steel. Noorzay Geotechnical Services does not practice corrosion engineering. If further information concerning the corrosion characteristics, or interpretation of the results submitted herein, is required, then a competent corrosion engineer could be consulted. PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN The following recommended structural sections were calculated based on traffic indices (TIs) provided in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Minimum TIs for Safety Roadside Rest Areas, Table 613.5B (Caltrans, 2012). Based upon an estimated R-value of 20, the structural sections tabulated below should provide satisfactory asphalt concrete pavement. Page No. 25 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design Usage TI R-Value Recommended Structural Section Auto Parking Areas 5.0 20 0.25' HMA/0.60' Class 2 AB Auto Roads 5.5 0.25' HMA/0.80' Class 2 AB Truck Parking Areas 6.0 0.30' HMA/0.90' Class 2 AB Truck Ramps and Roads 8.0 0.40' HMA/1.25' Class 2 AB HMA = hot mix asphalt AB = aggregate base The above structural sections are predicated upon proper compaction of the utility trench backfills and the subgrade soils, with the upper 6 inches of subgrade soils and all aggregate base material brought to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557 prior to paving. The aggregate base should meet Caltrans requirements for Class 2 base. It should be noted that the above pavement designs were based upon an estimated R-value and should be verified by sampling and testing during construction when the actual subgrade soils are exposed. Noorzay Geotechnical Services, Inc. does not practice traffic engineering. The TIs used to develop the recommended pavement sections are typical for projects of this type. We recommend that the project civil engineer or traffic engineer review the TIs to verify that they are appropriate for this project. PRELIMINARY RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN Based on an estimated R-value of 20 (California Bearing Ratio of 3), we recommend the following Portland cement concrete pavement designs. This design is based on the ACI Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots (ACI 330R-08). Page No. 26 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design Design Area Recommended Section Car Parking and Access Lanes ADTT = 1 (Category A) 4.5" PCC/Compacted Soil Truck Parking Areas ADTT = 300 (Category B) 6.5" PCC/Compacted Soil Truck Parking Areas ADTT = 700 (Category C) 7.0" PCC/Compacted Soil ADTT = Average Daily Truck Traffic The above recommended concrete sections are based on a design life of 20 years, with integral curbs or thickened edges. In addition, the above structural sections are predicated upon proper compaction of the utility trench backfills and the subgrade soils, with the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils brought to a uniform relative compaction of 95 percent (ASTM D1557). Slab edges that will be subject to vehicle loading should be thickened at least 2 inches at the outside edge and tapered to 36 inches back from the edge. Typical details are given in the ACI Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots (ACI 330R-08). Alternatively, slab edges subject to vehicle loading should be designed with dowels or other load transfer mechanism. Thickened edges or dowels are not necessary where new pavement will abut areas of curb and gutter, buildings or other structures preventing through-vehicle traffic and associated traffic loads. The concrete sections may be placed directly over a compacted subgrade prepared as described above. The concrete to be utilized for the concrete pavement should have a minimum modulus of rupture of 590 pounds per square inch. This approximates a 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 pounds per square inch. However, the design strength should be based upon the modulus of rupture and not the compressive strength. Contraction joints should be sawcut in the pavement at maximum spacing of 30 times the thickness of the slab, up to a maximum of 15 feet. Saw cutting in the pavement should be Page No. 27 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo performed within 12 hours of concrete placement, or preferably sooner. Saw cut depths should be equal to approximately one-quarter of the slab thickness for conventional saws or 1 inch when early- entry saws are utilized on slabs 9 inches thick or less. The use of plastic strips for formation of jointing is not recommended. The use of expansion joints is not recommended, except where the pavement will adjoin structures. Construction joints should be constructed such that adjacent sections butt directly against each other and are keyed into each other or the joints are properly doweled with smooth dowels. It should be noted that distributed steel reinforcement (welded wire fabric) is not necessary, nor will any decrease in section thickness result from its inclusion. The above pavement designs were based upon an estimated R-value and should be verified by sampling and testing during construction when the actual subgrade soils are exposed. Noorzay Geotechnical Services, Inc. does not practice traffic engineering. The ADTT values used to develop the recommended PCC pavement sections are typical for projects of this type. We recommend that the ADTT values used be reviewed by the project civil engineer or traffic engineer to verify that they are appropriate for this project. ADJACENT PROPERTIES STATEMENT Based on our field investigation and laboratory testing results, it is our opinion that the proposed development will be safe against hazards from landslide, settlement or slippage and the proposed construction will have no adverse effect on the geologic stability of the adjacent properties or future developments provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW It is recommended that we review the foundation plans for the proposed structures as they become available. The purpose of this review is to determine if these plans have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report. This review will also provide us an opportunity to submit additional recommendations as conditions warrant. Page No. 28 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo GRADING PLAN REVIEW The project civil engineer should review this report, incorporate critical information on to the grading plan and reference this geotechnical study, by company name, project number and report date, on the grading plan. Final grading plans should be reviewed by us when they become available to address the suitability of our grading recommendations with respect to the proposed development. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION All grading operations, including site clearing and stripping, should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer's field representative will be present to provide observation and field testing and will not supervise or direct any of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. Neither the presence of the geotechnical engineer's field representative nor the observations and testing by the geotechnical engineer shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that the geotechnical engineer will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project, which will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Page No. 29 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo LIMITATIONS Noorzay Geotechnical Services has striven to perform our services within the limits prescribed by our client, and in a manner consistent with the usual thoroughness and competence of reputable geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists practicing under similar circumstances. No other representation, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended by virtue of the services performed or reports, opinion, documents, or otherwise supplied. This report reflects the testing conducted on the site as the site existed during the investigation, which is the subject of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Changes in applicable or appropriate standards may also occur whether as a result of legislation, application, or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, this report is indicative of only those conditions tested at the time of the subject investigation, and the findings of this report may be invalidated fully or partially by changes outside of the control of Noorzay Geotechnical Services, Inc. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon observations performed and data collected at separate locations, and interpolation between these locations, carried out for the project and the scope of services described. It is assumed and expected that the conditions between locations observed and/or sampled are similar to those encountered at the individual locations where observation and sampling was performed. However, conditions between these locations may vary significantly. Should conditions that appear different than those described herein be encountered in the field by the client or any firm performing services for the client or the client's assign, this firm should be contacted immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect. If this report or portions thereof are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be understood by all parties that they are provided for information only and should be used as such. Page No. 30 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo The report and its contents resulting from this investigation are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse on extensions or modifications of the project, or for use on any other project. Page No. 31 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo CLOSURE We appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this report provides the information desired at this time. Should questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, Noorzay Geotechnical Services, Inc. Richard George, C.E.G. 2516 Consulting Geologist Maihan Noorzay, G.E. 3085 Principal Engineer Page No. 32 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318- 14), Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14), American Concrete Institute California, State of, Department of Water Resources, 2023, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary. California Water Resources Control Board, 2023, Geotracker website https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov Coduto, Donald P., 1998, Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practices: Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey. Coduto, Donald P., 2001, Foundation Design, Principles and Practices 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall. International Conference of Building Officials, 2019, California Building Code, 2019 Edition: Whittier, California. Structural Engineers Association of California, 2023, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, interactive website, https://seismicmaps.org U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Administration, 2008, Panel 06073C 8665H, Scale 1:6,000. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2023, Unified Hazard Tool Interactive Website, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Open File Report 03-418, Scale 1:24,000. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Morton, D.M, and F.K. Miller, 2006 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California, Open File Report, 2006- 1217, Scale: 1:100,000 U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2021, Fontana Quadrangle, California, 7.5-minute Series (Topographic), Scale: 1:24,000. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2021, Sunnymead Quadrangle, California, 7.5- minute Series (Topographic), Scale: 1:24,000. Page No. 33 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo Yi, F., 2017, GeoSuite, version 2.4 Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M. (2001), "Liquefaction Resistance of Soil: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 127, No. 10. NoorzayGeo APPENDIX A MAPS NoorzayGeo APPENDIX B EXPLORATORY LOGS Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1057 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 21.5 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r SM Qaf R 8 ML Qyfl 88 102.9 1.5 R 21 GP 3542 D 1.3 R 35 SM/ML 2620 98.9 1.3 R 5 SM 2027 107.4 10.6 End of boring at 21.5' bgs No groundwater encountered Moderate to severe caving noted Backfilled with soil cuttings 2 Artificial Fill: 1 Silty sand, brown, moist, loose, with gravels SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGExploratory Boring No. 1 De p t h ( f t . ) Description 23001 CME 75 Truck 8" 5 6 3 4 Sandy silt, tan, dry, stiff, only 5 rings recovered Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek: 7 8 9 10 11 Poorly graded gravel, gray, dry, dense, large cobble, disturbed sample 12 21 18 13 19 14 Silty sand, gray brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand 22 23 Silty sand to sandy silt with gravel, tan brown, moist, medium dense to hard15 16 17 20 24 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1054 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 51.5 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r B SM Qaf 0-5' SM Qyfl S 31 3635 S 4 ML 44 S 4 56 S 5 87 24 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 23 20 21 22 … tan brown to gray, moist to dry, very fine sand 18 19 16 17 …tan brown, moist, stiff, very fine sand 14 15 11 12 13 Sandy silt, brown to light brown, moist, firm, very fine sand 9 10 7 8 4 5 6 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek: Silty sand with gravel, tan brown, moist, very dense, very fine sand 2 3 1 Silty sand, brown, moist, loose to medium dense SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGExploratory Boring No. 2 De p t h ( f t . ) Description Artificial Fill: 23001 CME 75 Truck 8" Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1054 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 51.5 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r ML Qyfl S 10 14 9 S 14 SM 22 12 S 9 14 14 S 7 11 13 S 7 ML11 14 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 48 42 43 46 47 44 45 Sandy silt, brown, moist, very stiff 39 40 …same, no gravels noted 41 37 38 35 36 33 34 …gray brown, trace small gravels, dry to moist, medium dense, fine sand 31 32 Silty sand, orange brown, with gravels, fine sand, dense 29 30 27 28 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek (con't): 25 26 Sandy silt, reddish brown, moist, medium dense to very stiff, fine sand De p t h ( f t . ) Description SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGExploratory Boring No. 2 (con't.) 23001 CME 75 Truck 8" Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1054 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 51.5 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r ML Qyfl S 8 15 19 No groundwater encountered Moderate to severe caving noted 72 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 70 71 67 68 69 65 66 62 63 64 58 59 60 61 55 56 57 54 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek (con't): 49 50 51 End of boring at 51.5' bgs 52 53 Backfilled with soil cuttings Sandy silt, orange brown, moist, hard, fine sand De p t h ( f t . ) Description SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGExploratory Boring No. 2 (con't.) 23001 CME 75 Truck 8" Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1054 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 21.5 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r SM Qaf SM Qyfl R 35 45 50/5.5"119.2 5.5 R 24 SM/ML 33 30 D 0.7 R 14 SP/SM 18 29 108.6 1.4 R 14 GM 21 37 122.8 2.4 23 18 Moderate caving noted 20 21 19 Backfilled with soil cuttings Silty gravel, reddish brown to orange brown, moist, dense, gravels to 3" 24 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 17 End of boring at 21.5' bgs No groundwater encountered22 Poorly graded sand to silty sand, gray, moist to dry, medium dense, medium to coarse sand 16 12 13 14 15 …disturbed sample, silty sand to sandy silt with gravel, tan brown, moist, only rocks and gravel in the sample, dense to hard11 7 8 9 10 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGExploratory Boring No. 3 23001 CME 75 Truck Artificial Fill: 8" De p t h ( f t . ) Description 1 2 5 Silty sand with gravel, brown, moist, loose 3 …tan brown 4 6 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek: Silty sand with gravel, gray to brown, moist, very dense, fine sand Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1057 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 8 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r SM Qaf SP-SM Qyfl B 7-8' 24 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 22 23 20 21 18 19 16 17 14 15 12 13 10 11 Slight caving observed 8 9 6 7 End of boring at 8' bgsPerforated pipe installed and used for percolation test No groundwater encountered Poorly graded sand to silty sand with gravel, tan brown, moist 4 5 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek: …gray brown, with gravel, trace cobbles 1 2 3 Silty sand, brown, moist, loose to medium dense Artificial Fill: De p t h ( f t . ) Description SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGPercolation Test No. 1 23001 CME 75 Truck 8" Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1056 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 8 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r SM Qaf SM Qyfl B 7-8' 3 Silty sand, brown, moist, some gravel Artificial Fill: 1 De p t h ( f t . ) Description 2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGPercolation Test No. 2 23001 CME 75 Truck 8 End of boring at 8' bgs 4 5 6 7 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek: 8" Silty sand, tan brown, moist, with gravel 9 Perforated pipe installed and used for percolation test No groundwater encountered 10 Slight caving observed 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 24 23 21 22 Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1056 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 5 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r SM Qaf B SM Qyfl 4-5' 8" Silty sand with gravel, tan brown, moist Perforated pipe installed and used for percolation test No groundwater encountered End of boring at 5' bgs 2 3 Silty sand, brown, moist 11 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGPercolation Test No. 3 23001 CME 75 Truck No caving observed De p t h ( f t . ) Description 4 5 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek: Artificial Fill: 1 6 9 10 8 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 24 Project Number: Date:1/6/23 Logged By:MN Type of Rig:Drive Wt.:140 lbs. Elevation:1055 ± Drill Hole Dia.:Drop:30" Boring Depth (ft.): 5 Sa m p l e T y p e Pe n e t r a t i o n Re s i s t a n c e So i l Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Dr y D e n s i t y (I b / f t 3) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Li t h o l o g y Gr o u n d w a t e r SM Qaf B SM Qyfl 4-5' No caving observed De p t h ( f t . ) Description SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGPercolation Test No. 4 23001 CME 75 Truck 8" 4 5 Artificial Fill: 1 Silty sand, brown, moist 2 3 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek: Silty sand with gravel, tan brown, moist End of boring at 5' bgs …tan brown, some gravel 12 6 7 8 Perforated pipe installed and used for percolation testNo groundwater encountered 9 10 11 16 13 14 15 20 19 17 18 21 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test D - Disturbed Sample 22 23 24 NoorzayGeo APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Job Name: Juniper Ave.Tested By :M. Noorzay Job Number: 23001 Date Completed:1/12/23 Sampled By:M. Noorzay Input By:M. Noorzay Date Sampled:1/6/23 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 5 10 15 20 1 2 3 4 RING RING RING RING ML GP SM/ML SM 1 DISTURBED 2 3 171.4 332.4 565.8 2.657E-03 5.315E-03 7.972E-03 45.5 91.0 136.5 125.9 241.4 429.3 104.4 100.1 118.7 6.5 4.8 50.1 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0 172.9 250.0 250.0 246.2 170.6 246.9 226.1 3.8 2.3 3.1 23.9 1.5 1.3 1.3 10.6 102.9 DISTURBED 98.9 107.4 Dry Density (pcf) Container Number Tare (gms) Wet Soil + Tare (gms) Dry Soil + Tare (gms) Weight of Water (gms) Water Content (%) % Saturation (Assumed Gs=2.7) Boring Number Sample Depth (ft) Sample Number Sample Type USCS Description Number of Rings Total Weight of Rings + Soil (gms) Volume of Rings(ft3)(1r = 0.0027 ft3) Weight of Rings (gms)(1r = 45.497 g) Weight of Soil (gms) Wet Density (pcf) In-Situ Moisture Content and Dry Density ASTM D2937 Job Name: Juniper Ave.Tested By :M. Noorzay Job Number: 23001 Date Completed:1/12/23 Sampled By:M. Noorzay Input By:M. Noorzay Date Sampled:1/6/23 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 5 10 15 20 5 6 7 8 RING RING RING RING SM SM/ML SP/SM GM 3 DISTURBED 3 3 591 534.5 591.3 7.972E-03 7.972E-03 7.972E-03 136.5 136.5 136.5 454.5 398.0 454.8 125.7 110.1 125.8 35.8 6.7 17.5 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0 206.3 250.0 250.0 237 204.8 246.6 244.1 13.0 1.5 3.4 5.9 5.5 0.7 1.4 2.4 119.2 DISTURBED 108.6 122.8 In-Situ Moisture Content and Dry Density ASTM D2937 % Saturation (Assumed Gs=2.7) Boring Number Sample Depth (ft) Sample Number Sample Type USCS Description Number of Rings Total Weight of Rings + Soil (gms) Volume of Rings(ft3)(1r = 0.0027 ft3) Weight of Rings (gms)(1r = 45.497 g) Weight of Soil (gms) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Container Number Tare (gms) Wet Soil + Tare (gms) Dry Soil + Tare (gms) Weight of Water (gms) Water Content (%) Job Name: Juniper Ave.Tested By :M. Noorzay Job Number: 23001 Date Completed: Sampled By:M. Noorzay Input By:M. Noorzay Date Sampled:1/6/23 B-2 5 B-2 10 B-2 20 B-2 25 B-2 30 B-2 45 P-1 7-8 P-2 7-8 P-3 4-5 P-4 4-5 243.6 SP-SM214.3 12.0 246.1 201.3 230.8 Note: Report the material passing the 75-μm (No. 200) sieve by washing to the nearest 0.1%. If greater than 10%, report to the nearest 1%. Calculation for Percent of Material Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve by Washing: Where: A= Percent of Material Finer than 75-μm (No.200) Sieve by Washing B= Original Dry Mass of Sample (g) C= Dry Mass of Sample after Washing (g) 63.7 18.2 23.8 USCS SM ML ML SM ML SM SM ML No. 200 Wash ASTM D 1140 A= % Passing #200 244.1 168.1 B= Original Dry Mass (g) C= Wash Dry Mass (g) 26.3 50.2 57.7 31.1 Depth (ft.)Boring No. 1/12/23 66.7 233.6 84.8 231.9 226.5 111.5 307.2 223.8 98 237.5 79.2 175.8 240.7 169.1 29.7 SM 100´-=B CBA Job Name: Juniper Ave.Tested By :M. Noorzay Job Number: 23001 Date Completed: Sampled By:M. Noorzay Input By:M. Noorzay Date Sampled:1/6/23 Sample Number:B-2 @ 0-5' Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM) Trial Number 1 2 3 4 Compaction Method Water Added (%)2 4 6 8 ASTM D1557 X Weight of Soil + Mold (grams)6132.672 6214.32 6187.104 6123.6 ASTM D698 Weight of Mold (grams)4117.9 4117.9 4117.9 4117.9 Weight of Wet Soil (grams)2014.772 2096.42 2069.204 2005.7 Wet Density (pcf)133.3 138.7 136.9 132.7 Method B Container ID 1 2 3 4 Mold Size 4 Wet Soil + Container (grams)200 200 200 200 Mold Vol.0.0333333 Dry Soil + Container (grams)188.3 184.5 181.6 178.4 Weight of Container (grams)0 0 0 0 Weight of Dry Soil (grams)188.3 184.5 181.6 178.4 Weight of Water (grams)11.7 15.5 18.4 21.6 Preparation Method Moisture Content (%)6.2 8.4 10.1 12.1 Moist X Dry Density (pcf)125.5 127.9 124.3 118.3 Dry Maximum Dry Density (pcf)127.9 Optimum Moisture Content (%)8.4 Maximum Dry Density w/ Rock Correction (pcf)130.1 Optimum Moisture Content w/ Rock Correction (%)8.0 7.6%N/A 5 1/12/23 Modified Proctor ASTM D1557 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 0 10 20 30 DR Y D E N S I T Y ( p c f ) MOISTURE CONTENT (% ) 2.80 2.70 2.60 METHOD B Percent Retained on 3/8" Sieve: Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (Twenty-five) Job Name: Juniper Ave.Tested By :M. Noorzay Job Number: 23001 Date Completed: Sampled By:M. Noorzay Input By:M. Noorzay Date Sampled:1/6/23 Sample Number:B-2 @ 0-5' Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM) 1 2 3 Peak Ultimate B-2 B-2 B-2 Friction, phi (Deg)36.6 34.9 0-5 0-5 0-5 Cohesion (psf)86.4 58.1 Sample Type:RM Normal Stress (psf)1000 2000 4000 Method:Drained Maximum Shear Stress (psf)867 1517 3078 Consolidation:Yes Ultimate Shear Stress (psf)867 1288 2905 Saturation:Yes SM SM SM Strain Rate (in/min):0.005 Depth (in/ft.) Soil Type Direct Shear ASTM D3080 Samples Tested Boring ID 1/12/23 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( p s f ) Normal Stress (psf) Peak Ultimate 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( p s f ) Displacement Shear Stress v. Displacement 1,000 2,000 4,000 Project X REPORT S230110A Corrosion Engineering Page 2 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Soil Analysis Lab Results Client: Noorzay Geotechnical Services, Inc. Job Name: Fontana Business Center 3, Juniper Ave, Fontana CA Client Job Number: NGS# 23001 Project X Job Number: S230110A January 12, 2023 Method ASTM G51 Bore# / Description Depth pH (ft)(mg/kg)(wt%)(mg/kg)(wt%)(Ohm-cm)(Ohm-cm) B-2 SM/ML 0-5 177.5 0.0178 85.8 0.0086 24,790 7,370 7.3 ASTM G187 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 Resistivity As Rec'd | Minimum Sulfates SO42- Chlorides Cl- Cations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid) NoorzayGeo APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL CALCULATIONS Project: Location: Job Number:Boring No.:Enclosure: Seismic Settlement Potential - SPT Data Juniper Warehouse Building Juniper Ave., Fontana, CA 23001 B-2 D-1 GeoSuite© Version 2.2.2.15. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002 - 2023 GeoAdvanced . All rights reserved _Commercial Copy Prepared at 1/23/2023 3:21:40 PM C: \ U s e r s \ m a i h a n \ O n e D r i v e \ N G S \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 2 3 \ 2 3 0 0 1 - F o n t a n a B u s i n e s s C e n t e r 3 - J u n i p e r A v e \ g e o s u i t e \ G e o S u i t e _ 2 3 0 0 1 _ B - 2 . c s v 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 De p t h ( f t ) SM ML ML-SM Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude = 7.09 Max. Acceleration = 0.798 g Project GW = 100 ft Maximum Settlement = 0.15 in Settlement at Bottom of Footing = 0.15 in Liquefaction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Settl.: Pradel (1998) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: [Sand] Boulanger & Idriss(2004) σv correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) SM ML ML-SM ML-SM SM ML-SM USCS N = 25 Class = D _ 0 20 40 N60|(N1)60 0 40 80 DR (%) 0 0.5 1 τav(tsf) 0 0.5 1 CSR7.5|CRR7.5 0 0.05 0.1 γmax (%)Pd 0 0.05 0.1 εv (%)Pd 0 0.05 0.1 ΣSi(in)Pd NoorzayGeo APPENDIX E PERCOLATION TEST DATA Enclosure E-1 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo BORING NUMBER:P-1 LOT No:N/A TRACT No: N/A CLIENT: PROJECT: 8.0 DATE OF TESTING:8.0 DRILLED BY:3.0 TESTED BY:8.0 0.50 0.57 Time Total Initial Final Change Initial Final Percolation Infiltration Corrected Infiltration Interval Elapsed Water Water in Water Hole Hole Rate rate rate* Time Level Level Level Depth Depth (Porchet Method)(Gravel Packing) (min.)(min.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(min./in.)(in/hr)(in/hr) 4 0 3.25 7.45 4.20 8.0 8.0 0.08 44.7 25.5 3 7 4.90 7.4 2.50 8.0 8.0 0.10 49.6 28.3 10 17 4.61 8.00 3.39 8.0 8.0 0.25 21.9 12.5 10 27 4.45 8.00 3.55 8.0 8.0 0.23 21.9 12.5 10 37 5.59 8.00 2.41 8.0 8.0 0.35 21.1 12.0 10 47 5.77 8.00 2.23 8.0 8.0 0.37 20.9 11.9 10 57 5.75 8.00 2.25 8.0 8.0 0.37 20.9 11.9 10 67 4.58 8.00 3.42 8.0 8.0 0.24 21.9 12.5 * Gravel packing correction applied per SB County EHS On-Site Waste Water Disposal System Soil Percolation (PERC) Test Report Standards: Suitability of Lots and Soils for Use of Leachlines or Seepage Pits, dated August 1992 % VOID (Rock Backfill): GRAVEL PACKING January 6, 2023 DEPTH AFTER (ft.): MN PVC PIPE DIA. (in.): MN PERC HOLE DIA. (in.): PERCOLATION TEST DATA DATE OF DRILLING:January 6, 2023 DEPTH BEFORE (ft.): Warehouse building at Juniper Avenue Fontana, California 92336 Chase Development Enclosure E-2 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo BORING NUMBER:P-2 LOT No:N/A TRACT No: N/A CLIENT: PROJECT: 8.0 DATE OF TESTING:8.0 DRILLED BY:3.0 TESTED BY:8.0 0.50 0.57 Time Total Initial Final Change Initial Final Percolation Infiltration Corrected Infiltration Interval Elapsed Water Water in Water Hole Hole Rate rate rate* Time Level Level Level Depth Depth (Porchet Method)(Gravel Packing) (min.)(min.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(min./in.)(in/hr)(in/hr) 3 0 0.44 3.50 3.06 8.0 8.0 0.08 19.8 11.3 5 8 3.50 5.31 1.81 8.0 8.0 0.23 11.5 6.6 10 18 5.31 6.97 1.66 8.0 8.0 0.50 9.8 5.6 10 28 6.12 7.56 1.44 8.0 8.0 0.58 13.0 7.4 10 38 5.84 7.16 1.32 8.0 8.0 0.63 9.5 5.4 10 48 5.53 6.72 1.19 8.0 8.0 0.70 7.0 4.0 10 58 5.82 6.99 1.17 8.0 8.0 0.71 8.0 4.5 10 68 5.61 6.79 1.18 8.0 8.0 0.71 7.2 4.1 * Gravel packing correction applied per SB County EHS On-Site Waste Water Disposal System Soil Percolation (PERC) Test Report Standards: Suitability of Lots and Soils for Use of Leachlines or Seepage Pits, dated August 1992 % VOID (Rock Backfill): GRAVEL PACKING January 6, 2023 DEPTH AFTER (ft.): MN PVC PIPE DIA. (in.): MN PERC HOLE DIA. (in.): PERCOLATION TEST DATA DATE OF DRILLING:January 6, 2023 DEPTH BEFORE (ft.): Warehouse building at Juniper Avenue Fontana, California 92336 Chase Development Enclosure E-3 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo BORING NUMBER:P-3 LOT No:N/A TRACT No: N/A CLIENT: PROJECT: 5.0 DATE OF TESTING:5.0 DRILLED BY:3.0 TESTED BY:8.0 0.50 0.57 Time Total Initial Final Change Initial Final Percolation Infiltration Corrected Infiltration Interval Elapsed Water Water in Water Hole Hole Rate rate rate* Time Level Level Level Depth Depth (Porchet Method)(Gravel Packing) (min.)(min.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(min./in.)(in/hr)(in/hr) 8 0 0.63 1.75 1.12 5.0 5.0 0.6 4.2 2.4 9 17 1.75 2.56 0.81 5.0 5.0 0.9 3.6 2.0 10 27 2.56 3.16 0.60 5.0 5.0 1.4 3.1 1.8 10 37 3.16 3.61 0.45 5.0 5.0 1.9 3.0 1.7 10 47 3.12 3.48 0.36 5.0 5.0 2.3 2.3 1.3 10 57 3.48 3.83 0.35 5.0 5.0 2.4 2.8 1.6 10 67 2.91 3.27 0.36 5.0 5.0 2.3 2.1 1.2 10 77 3.27 3.62 0.35 5.0 5.0 2.4 2.4 1.4 % VOID (Rock Backfill): GRAVEL PACKING January 6, 2023 DEPTH AFTER (ft.): MN PVC PIPE DIA. (in.): MN PERC HOLE DIA. (in.): * Gravel packing correction applied per SB County EHS On-Site Waste Water Disposal System Soil Percolation (PERC) Test Report Standards: Suitability of Lots and Soils for Use of Leachlines or Seepage Pits, dated August 1992 PERCOLATION TEST DATA DATE OF DRILLING:January 6, 2023 DEPTH BEFORE (ft.): Warehouse building at Juniper Avenue Fontana, California 92336 Chase Development Enclosure E-4 Job No. 23001 NoorzayGeo BORING NUMBER:P-4 LOT No:N/A TRACT No: N/A CLIENT: PROJECT: 5.0 DATE OF TESTING:5.0 DRILLED BY:3.0 TESTED BY:8.0 0.50 0.57 Time Total Initial Final Change Initial Final Percolation Infiltration Corrected Infiltration Interval Elapsed Water Water in Water Hole Hole Rate rate rate* Time Level Level Level Depth Depth (Porchet Method)(Gravel Packing) (min.)(min.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(min./in.)(in/hr)(in/hr) 11 0 1.40 2.06 0.66 5.0 5.0 1.4 2.1 1.2 12 23 2.06 2.56 0.50 5.0 5.0 2.0 1.8 1.0 10 33 2.56 2.90 0.34 5.0 5.0 2.5 1.7 1.0 10 43 2.90 3.17 0.27 5.0 5.0 3.1 1.5 0.9 10 53 3.17 3.39 0.22 5.0 5.0 3.8 1.4 0.8 10 63 3.39 3.54 0.15 5.0 5.0 5.6 1.1 0.6 10 73 3.00 3.20 0.20 5.0 5.0 4.2 1.2 0.7 10 83 3.20 3.40 0.20 5.0 5.0 4.2 1.3 0.7 Warehouse building at Juniper Avenue Fontana, California 92336 PERCOLATION TEST DATA DATE OF DRILLING:January 6, 2023 Chase Development MN MN DEPTH BEFORE (ft.): DEPTH AFTER (ft.): PVC PIPE DIA. (in.): PERC HOLE DIA. (in.): % VOID (Rock Backfill): GRAVEL PACKING January 6, 2023 * Gravel packing correction applied per SB County EHS On-Site Waste Water Disposal System Soil Percolation (PERC) Test Report Standards: Suitability of Lots and Soils for Use of Leachlines or Seepage Pits, dated August 1992