Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix K - Water Quality Management PlanAllard Engineering Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan For: Fontana RV and Self Storage Fontana, CA 92335 APN: 0237-411-27 WQMP No.: WQMPPC24-00065 Prepared for: Newbridge Homes, LLC 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 344-2705 Prepared by: Allard Engineering 16866 Seville Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Phone (909) 356-1815 rallard@allardeng.com Submittal Date: 7/22/2024 Revision Date: 1/14/2025 Preliminary for Entitlements Complete Date: _____________ Construction WQMP Complete Date: _____________ Final WQMP Approved Date: _______________ Allard Engineering Project Owner’s Certification This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Newbridge Homes, LLC. by Allard Engineering. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana and the NPDES Area wide 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):WQMPPC24-00065 Grading Permit Number(s):T.B.D. Tract/Parcel Map Number(s):T.B.D.Building Permit Number(s):T.B.D. CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract):APN: 0237-411-27 Owner’s Signature Owner Name:Bryan Avilla Title Manager Company Newbridge Homes, LLC Address 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email BAvilla@newbridgehomes.com Telephone # (949) 344-2705 Signature Date Allard Engineering Preparer’s Certification Project Data Permit/Application Number(s):WQMPPC24-00065 Grading Permit Number(s):T.B.D. Tract/Parcel Map Number(s):T.B.D.Building Permit Number(s):T.B.D. CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract):APN: 0237-411-27 “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:RAYMOND ALLARD PE Stamp Below Title PRESIDENT Company Allard Engineering Address 16866 Seville Avenue Email rallard@allardeng.com Telephone # (909) 356-1815 Signature Date Fontana RV & Self Storage 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 ....................................................... 4-7 4.2 Project Performance Criteria ......................................................................... 4-8 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis ....................................................................... 4-14 4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP .............................................. 4-19 4.3.2 Infiltration BMP .......................................................................................... 4-26 4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP .................................................................................. 4-30 4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP ....................................................................................... 4.31 4.3.5 Conformance Summary ............................................................................... 4-35 4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP ............................................................... 4-38 4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable) ................................................. 4-39 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 .......................................................................................... 3-5 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMP ................................................................... 4-2 Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMP .......................................................................... 4-5 Form 4.1-3 Site Design Practices Checklist ........................................................................... 4-7 Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume ............................. 4-8 Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment .......................................................................... 4-11 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents iii Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume ............................................................... 4-12 Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration .................................................. 4-13 Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff .................................................................... 4-14 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility ................................................................................ 4-16 Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP ..................................................... 4-20 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP ........................................................................................... 4-27 Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMP ......................................................................................... 4-30 Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP ................................................ 4-31 Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment – Bioretention and Planter Boxes w/Underdrains 4-32 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment- Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention 4-33 Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment ................................................................................... 4-34 Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative Compliance Volume Estimate .......... 4-35 Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMP ..................................................................... 4-38 Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5-1 Appendix A: WQMP Calculation Appendix B: WQMP design detail Appendix C: Geotechnical/Infiltration Test Report Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 1-1 Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s) Form 1-1 Project Information Project Name Fontana RV and Self Storage Project Owner Contact Name:Newbridge Homes, LLC Mailing Address: 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 E-mail Address: BAvilla@newbridgehomes .com Telephone: (949) 344-2705 Permit/Application Number(s):WQMPPC24-00065 Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): T.B.D.APN: 0237-411-27 Additional Information/ Comments: N/A Description of Project: The proposed project site is a 7.5 acres. The proposed 7.5 acres of commercial development which is consist of a RV park and Self-Storage Facilities located in the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California. The site is located at the southwest corner of Village Drive and Declez Channel in the City of Fontana. Currently the parcel is undeveloped barren land. Currently the parcel is undeveloped barren land. In existing condition, the site is 100% pervious surface (Barren cover). The majority of the site drains in the northwesterly direction on existing terrain on to the village drive northwest of the site In the proposed condition, the project will be developed as a RV parking & Self Storage Facilities including driveways, alley drive, sidewalks, landscape areas which is approximately 90% impervious (10% pervious). The proposed site drainage area consists of a single drainage management area (DMA-1) based on the proposed flow pattern onsite. DMA-1 (7.5 ac) include an Infiltration Basin for water quality volume infiltration, a network of storm drain pipes/ribbon gutter/drainage conveyance system including grate inlet with ADS Flexstorm Filter Inserts for pre-treatment. Stormwater will be conveyed to the Infiltration Basin via the proposed storm drain system for water quality volume infiltration only for upto 2-year storm event. For larger storm events up to 100-year, the flow will be drained out of the basin via the proposed lateral which is proposed to be tie in to the existing lateral which is the part of the existing drainage system in Village Drive. Water will finally drains to the Declez Channel via the existing storm drain system. The project site is located within the HCOC Exempt area and designated as commercial and will be maintained by the site owner. There are offsite areas from the south and southeast which is 100% pervious in current Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 1-2 condition and is dedicated to the City. The offsite area is not the part of the mitigation plan. The offsite watershed south and east of the project is collected in a proposed graded channel and the water is then conveyed to the existing Declez Channel via an existing 30in RCP lateral. 0.1 Ac of offsite watershed west of the site will be intercepted by a v-gutter and conveyed to Village Drive. There will be no water running onto this proposed project. The offsite runoff around this project is consistent with the existing hydrology for the Declez Channel. Provide summary of Conceptual WQMP conditions (if previously submitted and approved). Attach complete copy. N/A Fontana RV & Self Storage 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):326,700 sf 3 Number of Dwelling Units:Commercial 4 SIC Code:6531 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-2 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) Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-3 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 of WQMP stormwater facilities: Commercial development will be owned individually and maintained by the Owner. The Owner will be responsible for maintenance of common area, alley drive, landscaping, stormdrain system and the long term maintenance of the proposed BMPs (List of BMPs to be mainted by the owner provided in Section 5, Form 5-1). At the time of sale the owner’s responsibility to transfer all operation and maintenance related activities, including a funding mechanism to the new owner NH Laurel, LLC will be responsible to build the site and the maintenance of the post-developed BMPs. Bryan Avilla NH Laurel, LLC 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 BAvilla@newbridgehomes.com Telephone: (949) 344-2701 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-4 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 Bacteria and viruses are a potential pollutant for the commercial site. Due to the nature of the development the site will be treated using site and source and treatment control BMPs. Bacteria and virus can also be detected in pavement runoff, therefore, the site has incorporated treatment control throughout. All paved and hardened surfaces will flow through the proposed grate inlet pre-treatment units prior to discharge into the proposed infiltration basins as part of Low Impact Design (LID). Impacted Water Body: Declez Channel, San Sevaine Creek, Santa Ana River Reach 3. Nutrients/Noxious Aquatic Plants E N This commercial site includes landscaping area which will be the potential generation of this type of pollutants. Impacted Water Body: None Sediment / Total suspended solids / pH E N This commercial site which will be the potential generation of this type of pollutants. Metals E N Generates from parking lots Impacted Water Body: Santa Ana River Reach 3. Oil and Grease E N Generates from oil & grease from parked vehicle of the commercial project Trash/Debris E N Debris/trash is a potential pollutant from the commercial site. Trash/debris from paved surfaces will be intercepted in the proposed grate inlets with filtration devices as part of the source and treatment control BMPs. Impacted Water Body: None Pesticides / Herbicides E N This commercial site will use pesticides/herbicides for pest control purposes and will be the potential generation of this type of pollutants. Impacted Water Body: None Organic Compounds E N This commercial site includes the usage of solvents which will be the potential generation of this type of pollutants. Impacted Water Body: None Other: Nutrients E N Include nitrogen and phosphorus from usages of fertilizers in the proposed landscape area. Oxygen Demanding Compounds E N Include oxygen demand from the proposed landscape area. Other:E N Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-5 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-1 Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits 1 Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits:Select all that apply Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. [Credit = %impervious reduced] Higher density development projects Vertical density [20%] 7 units/ acre [5%] Mixed use development, (combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that demonstrate environmental benefits not realized through single use projects) [20%] Brownfield redevelopment (redevelop real property complicated by presence or potential of hazardous contaminants) [25%] Redevelopment projects in established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant core city center areas [10%] Transit-oriented developments (mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation) [20%] In-fill projects (conversion of empty lots & other underused spaces < 5 acres, substantially surrounded by urban land uses, into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas) [10%] Live-Work developments (variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs) [20%] 2 Total Credit % 0 (Total all credit percentages up to a maximum allowable credit of 50 percent) Description of Water Quality Credit Eligibility (if applicable) N/A Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-2 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 34.04367ᵒ N Longitude -117.47984ᵒ W Thomas Bros Map page PAGE ___ GRID _ _ 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 DA-1: DMA-1 through DMA-6 to Outlet 1 The proposed project site is a 7.5 acres. The proposed 7.5 acres of commercial development which is consist of a RV park and Self-Storage Facilities located in the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California. The site is located at the southwest corner of Village Drive and Declez Channel in the City of Fontana. Currently the parcel is undeveloped barren land. Currently the parcel is undeveloped barren land. In existing condition, the site is 100% pervious surface (Barren cover). The majority of the site drains in the northwesterly direction on existing terrain on to the village drive northwest of the site In the proposed condition, the project will be developed as a RV parking & Self Storage Facilities including driveways, alley drive, sidewalks, landscape areas which is approximately 90% impervious Outlet-1 24” Lateral To City Storm DA-1: DMA-1 Infiltration Basin (For WQ Infiltration Only) Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-3 (10% pervious). The proposed site drainage area consists of a single drainage management area (DMA-1) based on the proposed flow pattern onsite. DMA-1 (7.5 ac) include an Infiltration Basin for water quality volume infiltration, a network of storm drain pipes/ribbon gutter/drainage conveyance system including grate inlet with ADS Flexstorm Filter Inserts for pre-treatment. Stormwater will be conveyed to the Infiltration Basin via the proposed storm drain system for water quality volume infiltration only for upto 2-year storm event. For larger storm events up to 100-year, the flow will be drained out of the basin via the proposed lateral which is proposed to be tie in to the existing lateral which is the part of the existing drainage system in Village Drive. Water will finally drains to the Declez Channel via the existing storm drain system. The project site is located within the HCOC Exempt area and designated as commercial and will be maintained by the site owner. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-4 Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Area DMA-1 For Drainage Area 1 sub-watershed DMAs, provide the following characteristics DMA-1 1 DMA drainage area (ft2)326,700 sf 2 Existing site impervious area (ft2)0 sf 3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert areas, use http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2 0100412_map.pdf III 4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP D 5 Longest flowpath length (ft)975 6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft)3.7% 7 Current land cover type(s)Select from Fig C-3 of Hydrology Manual Open Brush 8 Pre-developed pervious area condition: Based on the extent of wet season vegetated cover good >75%; Fair 50-75%; Poor <50% Attach photos of site to support rating Poor Village Dr, F ontana W rite a des cription for your m ap. 100 ft N ➤➤ N © 2023 Google © 2023 Google © 2023 Google Village Dr, F ontana W rite a des cription for your m ap. 4.87 ft N ➤➤ N © 2023 Google © 2023 Google © 2023 Google © 2024 Google © 2024 Google © 2024 Google Village Dr, F ontana W rite a des cription for your m ap. 4.44 ft N ➤➤ N © 2023 Google © 2023 Google © 2023 Google © 2024 Google © 2024 Google © 2024 Google Village Dr, F ontana W rite a des cription for your m ap. 4.77 ft N ➤➤ N © 2023 Google © 2023 Google © 2023 Google © 2024 Google © 2024 Google © 2024 Google ea Civil Engineering - Land Surveying - Land Planning 16866 Seville Avenue Fontana, California 92335 ALLARD ENGINEERING Prepared By: PHONE (909) 356-1815 Fax (909) 356-1795 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 120 ft. ( IN FEET ) 12060060120 FONTANA RV AND SELF STORAGE CITY OF FONTANA APN 0237-411-27 VICINITY MAP 10 FREEWAY 60 FREEWAY SITE FG 970.0 (HP) Q = 0.0 CFS100 0 FG 934.0 Q = 13.9 CFS100 1 EXISTING DRAINAGE EXHIBIT Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-5 Form 3-3 Watershed Description for Drainage Area DA1 Receiving waters Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool - http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP See ‘Drainage Facilities” link at this website City Storm Drain System (Village Dr) Declez Channel San Sevaine Channel Prado Dam Santa Ana River Reach 3 Santa Ana River Reach 2 Santa Ana River Reach 1 Pacific Ocean Applicable TMDLs Refer to Local Implementation Plan Declez Channel: NONE San Sevaine Channel: NONE Santa Ana River Reach 3: Pathogens “Bacterial Indicator TMLDs for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Waterbodies (Bill Rice) Nitrate : Santa Ana River Reach 3 Nitrate TMDL (Hope Smythe) Prado Flood Control basin Pathogens “Bacterial Indicator TMLDs for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Waterbodies (Bill Rice) Santa Ana River Reach 2 NONE Santa Ana River Reach 1 NONE Tidal Prism, Santa Ana River NONE 303(d) listed impairments Refer to Local Implementation Plan and Watershed Mapping Tool – http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP and State Water Resources Control Board website – http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_iss ues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml Expected pollutants of concern include organic compounds, trash/debris and oil/grease. Potential pollutants of concern include bacteria vitus, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, and oxygen demanding substances. There is no evidence to suggest that any other pollutants will be produced from the project site other than these 303(d) listed impairment: . Prado Flood Control Basin: Pathogens and Nutrients Santa Ana River Reach 3: Pathogens, Metals (copper & lead) Santa Ana River Reach 2: Pathogens Santa Ana River Reach 1 and Tidal prism Santa Ana River : NONE Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP NONE Unlined Downstream Water Bodies Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP San Sevaine Channel: Susceptibility - No, Material - EHM Santa Ana River: Susceptibility - Yes Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-6 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. The site is located within the HCOC exempt area. 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 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-7 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-8 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, if not applicable, state reasonIncludedNot Applicable N1 Education of Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants on Stormwater BMPs Practical education materials will be provided to property Owner and Owner assigned maintenance staffs covering various water quality issues that will need to be addressed on their specific site. These materials will include general practices that contribute to the protection of storm water quality and BMP’s that eliminate or reduce pollution during property improvements. The developer will request these materials in writing at least 30 days prior to intended distribution and will then be responsible for publication and distribution. N2 Activity Restrictions Restrictions may be developed by property owner or other mechanisms. Pesticide applications will be performed by an applicator certified by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Vehicle washing will be prohibited. N3 Landscape Management BMPs Maintenance activities for landscape areas shall be consistent with City and manufacturer guidelines for fertilizer and pesticide use. Maintenance includes trimming, weeding and debris removal and vegetation planting and replacement. Stockpiled materials during maintenance activities shall be placed away from drain inlets and runoff conveyance devices. Wastes shall be properly disposed of or recycled. Maintenance for common areas and landscape parking islands is scheduled by future Owner assigned maintenance staffs. N4 BMP Maintenance Responsibility for implementation, inspection and maintenance of all BMPs (structural and non-structural) shall be consistent with the BMP Inspection and Maintenance Responsibilities Matrix provided in Section 5, Table 5.1 of this WQMP, with documented records of inspections and maintenance activities completed. Cleaning of all structural BMP Facilities is scheduled by future Owner assigned maintenance staffs. N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Not applicable, This site will not generate any hazardous waste of any kind. N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances Comply with any applicable local water quality ordinances through this WQMP. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-9 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs N7 Spill Contingency Plan The spill contingency plan shall be provided in accordance with Section 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Onsite spill contingency includes: Store material indoor, label containers, check for leaks and spills, follow proper disposal procedure, train employee’s prevention control and counter measure plan, identify and notify to key spill response authorities/personnel. Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, if not applicable, state reasonIncludedNot Applicable N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No underground storage tank on the site. N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance No hazardous materials in the site. N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation Comply local regulations & tied to fire code compliances regarding storage and handling of flammable materials in the site. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-10 N11 Litter/Debris Control Program Litter control onsite will include the use of litter patrols, violation reporting and clean up during landscaping maintenance activities and as needed to ensure good housekeeping of the project’s common areas. N12 Employee Training All employees, contractors and subcontractors of the property management shall be trained on the proper use and staging of landscaping and other materials with the potential to impact runoff and proper clean up of spills and materials. N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Not applicable N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program As required by the TGD, at least 80% of the project’s private drainage facilities shall be inspected, cleaned/maintained annually, with 100% of facilities inspected and maintained within a two-year period. Drainage facilities include catch basins (storm drain inlets), detention basins, retention basins, open drainage channel. N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and Parking Lots Parking lot and onsite pavement will be vacuum swept by the owner assigned landscape contractor. At a minimum all paved areas shall be swept, in late summer or early fall. Prior to the start of the rainy season or equivalent, as govern by the governing jurisdiction. N16 Other Non-structural Measures for Public Agency Projects No other non-structural measures required. N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES permits Yes, if verbiage of construction general permit, or swppp. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-11 Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, If not applicable, state reasonIncludedNot Applicable S1 Provide storm drain system stencilling and signage (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-13) Storm drain stencils or signage prohibiting dumping and discharge of materials (“No Dumping – Drains to Ocean”) shall be provided adjacent to each of the project’s proposed inlets. The stencils shall be inspected and re-stenciled as needed to maintain legibility. S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-34) Project does not propose outdoor storage areas. S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-32) Paved and permanently roofed Trash enclosure will be built, and will be maintained by the owner or owner assigned operator. 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) In conjunction with routine landscaping maintenance activities, inspect irrigation for signs of leaks, overspray and repair or adjust accordingly. Adjust system cycle to accommodate seasonal fluctuations in water demand and temperatures. Ensure use of native or drought tolerant/non-invasive plant species to minimize water consumption. S5 Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement New landscaped areas will be constructed at a minimum of 1 inch below existing paved areas S6 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) -Basin slopes and swale entry’s will be provided with rock rip rap. S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) No covered dock areas, Not applicable S8 Covered maintenance bays with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) No Bays, Not applicable S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No Vehicle Wash at the site, Not applicable Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-12 S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-36) No outdoor Processing, Not applicable Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, If not applicable, state reasonIncludedNot Applicable S11 Equipment wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No equipment wash areas, Not applicable S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-30) No Fueling Areas, Not applicable S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) No Hillside Landscaping, Not applicable S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas No food Preparation, Not applicable S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No Community Car Wash, Not applicable Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-13 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: We will build multiple landscapes/planter areas in addition to an infiltration/detention basin for infiltration. Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No Explanation: Infiltration/retention basin will be implemented on site. Roof drains will discharge runoff towards pervious area of each lot, indirectly connecting impervious areas before runoff reaches the onsite storm drain infrastructure. Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No Explanation: Drainage patterns of all the tributaries that drain through the project will remain unchanged. The time of concentration resulting from the project improvements will be mitigated, if not enhanced, through retention by the proposed detention basin. Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No Explanation: Where feasible, runoff from the pads is drained towards pervious areas. Runoff from the roof is collected by downspouts and discharged over pervious planter area. Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No Explanation: There are no environmentally sensitive portions onsite and existing vegetation will be kept as much as possible. Re-vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No Explanation: Part of the disturbed areas will be revegeated, see landscape plan. Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No Explanation: No compaction will be performed within the area where the Infiltration/detention basin/landscape area are proposed. Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No Explanation: Not Proposed instead providing Inf/Det Basin. Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction: Yes No Explanation: No compaction will be performed within the area where landscape areas are proposed. 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 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-14 4.2 Project Performance Criteria The purpose of this section of the Project WQMP is to establish targets for post-development hydrology based on performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID design capture volume), and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection of any downstream waterbody segments with a HCOC.If the project has more than one outlet for stormwater runoff, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet. Methods applied in the following forms include: For LID BMP Design Capture Volume (DCV), the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires use of the P6 method (MS4 Permit Section XI.D.6a.ii) – Form 4.2-1 For HCOC pre- and post-development hydrologic calculation, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires the use of the Rational Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section D). Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 calculate hydrologic variables including runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff from the project site pre- and post-development using the Hydrology Manual Rational Method approach. For projects greater than 640 acres (1.0 mi2), the Rational Method and these forms should not be used. For such projects, the Unit Hydrograph Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section E) shall be applied for hydrologic calculations for HCOC performance criteria. Refer to Section 4 in the TGD for WQMP for detailed guidance and instructions. Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DA 1) 1 Project area DMA 1 (ft2): 326,700 2 Imperviousness after applying preventative site design practices (Imp%): 0.9% 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): 0.515 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 0.7627 (Using C1=1.481) 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): 29,767 (Using C2=1.963) 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 Refer to the attached design capture volume calculations for drainage management area DMA-1. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-15 Project site located within HCOC Exempt Area per San Bernardino County Stormwater Facility Mapping (attached). Also the project in developed condition will discharge runoff, less than in its existing condition runoff rate after mitigation (detention routing) on site to the Existing Storm Drain System in Village Drive, for up to 100-yr storm event. Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment Does project have the potential to cause or contribute to an HCOC in a downstream channel: Yes No Project site is located within the HCOC exempt area. Go to:http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/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 5 – Item 2 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 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-16 Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume Weighted Curve Number Determination for: Pre-developed DA 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 C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H 1b Land Cover type 2b Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) 3b DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of DMA should equal area of DA 4b Curve Number (CN)use Items 5 and 6 to select the appropriate CN from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for WQMP 5 Pre-Developed area-weighted CN:7 Pre-developed soil storage capacity, S (in S = (1000 / Item 5) – 10 9 Initial abstraction, Ia (in): Ia = 0.2 * Item 7 6 Post-Developed area-weighted CN:8 Post-developed soil storage capacity, S (in) S = (1000 / Item 6) – 10 10 Initial abstraction, Ia (in): Ia = 0.2 * Item 8 11 Precipitation for 2 yr, 24 hr storm (in): Go to:http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 12 Pre-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 9)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 9 + Item 7) 13 Post-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 10)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 10 + Item 8) 14 Volume Reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement, (ft3): VHCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 12 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-17 Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration 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 DA 1 DMA B DMA C DMA D DA 1 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): 14 Post-developed time of concentration (min): 15 Additional time of concentration needed to meet HCOC requirement (min): Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-18 Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff 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 (ft2) For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 3 Ratio of pervious area to total area For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 4 Pervious area infiltration rate (in/hr) Use pervious area CN and antecedent moisture condition with Appendix C-3 of the TGD for WQMP 5 Maximum loss rate (in/hr) Fm = Item 3 * Item 4 Use area-weighted Fm from DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 6 Peak Flow from DMA (cfs) Qp =Item 2 * 0.9 * (Item 1 - Item 5) 7 Time of concentration adjustment factor for other DMA to site discharge point Form 4.2-4 Item 12 DMA / Other DMA upstream of site discharge point (If ratio is greater than 1.0, then use maximum value of 1.0) DMA A n/a n/a DMA B n/a n/a DMA C n/a n/a 8 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Qp = Item 6DMAA + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAA/2] + [Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAA/3] 9 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: Qp = Item 6DMAB + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAB/1] + [Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAB/3] 10 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: Qp = Item 6DMAC + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAC/1] + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAC/2] 10 Peak runoff from pre-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs):Maximum of Item 8, 9, and 10 (including additional forms as needed) 11 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Same as Item 8 for post-developed values 12 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: Same as Item 9 for post-developed values 13 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: Same as Item 10 for post-developed values 14 Peak runoff from post-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs):Maximum of Item 11, 12, and 13 (including additional forms as needed) 15 Peak runoff reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement (cfs):Qp-HCOC = (Item 14 * 0.95) – Item 10 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-19 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-20 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility (DMA 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 9 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-21 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-22 Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DMA 1) 1 Implementation of Impervious Area Dispersion BMP (i.e. routing runoff from impervious to pervious areas), excluding impervious areas planned for routing to on-lot infiltration BMP: Yes No If yes, complete Items 2-5; If no, proceed to Item 6 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 2 Total impervious area draining to pervious area (ft2) 3 Ratio of pervious area receiving runoff to impervious area 4 Retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3)V = Item2 * Item 3 * (0.5/12), assuming retention of 0.5 inches of runoff 5 Sum of retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 4 for all BMPs 6 Implementation of Localized On-lot Infiltration BMPs (e.g. on-lot rain gardens): Yes No If yes, complete Items 7- 13 for aggregate of all on-lot infiltration BMP in each DA; If no, proceed to Item 14 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 7 Ponding surface area (ft2) 8 Ponding depth (ft) 9 Surface area of amended soil/gravel (ft2) 10 Average depth of amended soil/gravel (ft) 11 Average porosity of amended soil/gravel 12 Retention volume achieved from on-lot infiltration (ft3) Vretention = (Item 7 *Item 8) + (Item 9 * Item 10 * Item 11) 13 Runoff volume retention from on-lot infiltration (ft3):Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-23 Form 4.3-2 cont. Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DMA 1) 14 Implementation of evapotranspiration BMP (green, brown, or blue roofs): Yes No If yes, complete Items 15-20. If no, proceed to Item 21 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 15 Rooftop area planned for ET BMP (ft2) 16 Average wet season ET demand (in/day) Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 17 Daily ET demand (ft3/day) Item 15 * (Item 16 / 12) 18 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 19 Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Item 17 * (Item 18 / 24) 20 Runoff volume retention from evapotranspiration BMPs (ft3): 0 ft3 Vretention =Sum of Item 19 for all BMPs 21 Implementation of Street Trees: Yes No If yes, complete Items 20-2. If no, proceed to Item 24 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 22 Number of Street Trees 23 Average canopy cover over impervious area (ft2) 24 Runoff volume retention from street trees (ft3) Vretention = Item 22 * Item 23 * (0.05/12) assume runoff retention of 0.05 inches 25 Runoff volume retention from street tree BMPs (ft3): 0 ft3 Vretention = Sum of Item 24 for all BMPs 26 Implementation of residential rain barrels/cisterns: Yes No If yes, complete Items 27-28; If no, proceed to Item 29 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 ft3 Vretention =Sum of Item 28 for all BMPs 30 Total Retention Volume from Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs: 0 ft3 Sum of Items 5, 13, 20, 25 and 29 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-24 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). Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-25 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP (DMA 1) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): 29,767 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: Inf. Basin-1 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 42.1 3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 2.8 4 Design percolation rate (in/hr)Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 15.04 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr)Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 48 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft)BMP specific, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details 2.0 Basin Inf Water Depth 7 Ponding Depth (ft)dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 2.0 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 7,113 9 Amended soil depth,dmedia (ft)Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 in the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details - 10 Amended soil porosity - 11 Gravel depth,dmedia (ft)Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details - 12 Gravel porosity 0.4 13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 3 14 Above Ground Retention Volume (ft3)Vretention = Item 8 * [Item7 + (Item 9 * Item 10) + (Item 11 * Item 12)+ (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 58,896 15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3)Volume determined using manufacturer’s specifications and calculations -- 16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: ft3 58,896 (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan) 17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 198%Retention% = Item 16 / Form 4.2-1 Item 7 18 Is full LID DCV retained on-site with combination of hydrologic source control and LID retention and 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-26 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 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC or infiltration BMP (ft3): Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16 BMP Type(s)Compute runoff volume retention from proposed harvest and use BMP (Select BMPs from Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 2 Describe cistern or runoff detention facility 3 Storage volume for proposed detention type (ft3)Volume of cistern 4 Landscaped area planned for use of harvested stormwater (ft2) 5 Average wet season daily irrigation demand (in/day) Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 in/day 6 Daily water demand (ft3/day)Item 4 * (Item 5 / 12) 7 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 8Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Minimum of (Item 3) or (Item 6 * (Item 7 / 24)) 9 Total Retention Volume (ft3) from Harvest and Use BMP Sum of Item 8 for all harvest and use BMP included in plan 10 Is the full DCV retained with a combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-27 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 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP for potential biotreatment (ft3): 0 Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16- Form 4.3-4 Item 9 List pollutants of concern Copy from Form 2.3-1. 2 Biotreatment BMP Selected (Select biotreatment BMP(s) necessary to ensure all pollutants of concern are addressed through Unit Operations and Processes, described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP) Volume-based biotreatment Use Forms 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 to compute treated volume Flow-based biotreatment Use Form 4.3-8 to compute treated volume Bioretention with underdrain Planter box with underdrain Constructed wetlands Wet extended detention Dry extended detention Vegetated swale Vegetated filter strip Proprietary biotreatment 3 Volume biotreated in volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3):Form 4.3- 6 Item 15 + Form 4.3-7 Item 13 4 Compute remaining LID DCV with implementation of volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3):Item 1 – Item 3 5 Remaining fraction of LID DCV for sizing flow based biotreatment BMP: %Item 4 / Item 1 6 Flow-based biotreatment BMP capacity provided (cfs):Use Figure 5-2 of the TGD for WQMP to determine flow capacity required to provide biotreatment of remaining percentage of unmet LID DCV (Item 5), for the project’s precipitation zone (Form 3-1 Item 1) 7 Metrics for MEP determination: Provided a WQMP with the portion of site area used for suite of LID BMP equal to minimum thresholds in Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP for the proposed category of development:If maximized on-site retention BMPs is feasible for partial capture, then LID BMP implementation must be optimized to retain and infiltrate the maximum portion of the DCV possible within the prescribed minimum effective area. The remaining portion of the DCV shall then be mitigated using biotreatment BMP. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-28 Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment– Bioretention and Planter Boxes with Underdrains Biotreatment BMP Type (Bioretention w/underdrain, planter box w/underdrain, other comparable BMP) DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP 2 Amended soil infiltration rate Typical ~ 5.0 3 Amended soil infiltration safety factor Typical ~ 2.0 4 Amended soil design percolation rate (in/hr)Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr)Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 7 Ponding Depth (ft)dBMP = Minimum of (1/12 * Item 4 * Item 5) or Item 6 8 Amended soil surface area (ft2) 9 Amended soil depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 10 Amended soil porosity,n 11 Gravel depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 12 Gravel porosity,n 13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 14 Biotreated Volume (ft3)Vbiotreated = Item 8 * [(Item 7/2) + (Item 9 * Item 10) +(Item 11 * Item 12)+ (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 15 Total biotreated volume from bioretention and/or planter box with underdrains BMP: Sum of Item 14 for all volume-based BMPs included in this form Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-29 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment– Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention Biotreatment BMP Type Constructed wetlands, extended wet detention, extended dry detention, or other comparable proprietary BMP. If BMP includes multiple modules (e.g. forebay and main basin), provide separate estimates for storage and pollutants treated in each module. DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) Forebay Basin Forebay Basin 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP forebay and basin List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP 2 Bottom width (ft) 3 Bottom length (ft) 4 Bottom area (ft2)Abottom = Item 2 * Item 3 5 Side slope (ft/ft) 6 Depth of storage (ft) 7 Water surface area (ft2) Asurface =(Item 2 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) * (Item 3 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) 8 Storage volume (ft3)For BMP with a forebay, ensure fraction of total storage is within ranges specified in BMP specific fact sheets, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details V =Item 6 / 3 * [Item 4 + Item 7 + (Item 4 * Item 7)^0.5] 9 Drawdown Time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 2.1 10 Outflow rate (cfs) QBMP = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) / (Item 9 * 3600) 11 Duration of design storm event (hrs) 12 Biotreated Volume (ft3) Vbiotreated = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) +( Item 10 * Item 11 * 3600) 13 Total biotreated volume from constructed wetlands, extended dry detention, or extended wet detention : (Sum of Item 12 for all BMP included in plan) Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-30 Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment 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 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-31 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 (DMA 1) 1 Total LID DCV for the Project DMA-1 (ft3): 29,767 ft3 Copy Item 7 in Form 4.2-1 2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0 ft3 Copy Item 30 in Form 4.3-2 3 On-site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 58,896 ft3 Copy Item 16 in Form 4.3-3 4 On-site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0 ft3 Copy Item 9 in Form 4.3-4 5 On-site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0 ft3 Copy Item 3 in Form 4.3-5 6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0 ft3 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 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-32 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. The site area located within the HCOC exempt area. Therefore Hydromodification Control BMPs not required. Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMPs 1 Volume reduction needed for HCOC performance criteria (ft3): (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 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-33 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). Fontana RV & Self Storage 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. Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-2 Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance (use additional forms as necessary) BMP Reponsible Party(s)Inspection/ Maintenance Activities Required Minimum Frequency of Activities Infiltration Basin Newbridge Homes, LLC Remove accumulated trash and debris in the basin at the start and end of the wet season. Inspect for standing water at the end of the wet season. Trim vegetation at the beginning and end of the wet season to prevent establishment of woody vegetation and for aesthetic and vector reasons. Remove accumulated sediment and regrade when the accumulated sediment volume exceeds 10% of the basin. If erosion is occurring within the basin, re-vegetate immediately and stabilize with an erosion control mulch or mat until vegetation cover is established ” 2 times a year at the beginning and end of the rainy season (October to March) Education of Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants on Stormwater BMPs (N1) Newbridge Homes, LLC Practical education materials will be provided to property owners covering various water quality issues that will need to be addressed on their specific site. These materials will include general good house keeping practices that contribute to the protection of storm water quality and BMP’s that eliminate or reduce pollution during property improvements. Ongoing Landscape maintenance (N3) Newbridge Homes, LLC Landscape planning is implemented to reduce groundwater and storm water contamination. This will be accomplished through an infiltration basin, and landscape areas. Monthly BMP maintenance (N4) Newbridge Homes, LLC See BMP fact sheets and Table 5-1 details hereon Ongoing Litter debris control program (N11) Newbridge Homes, LLC Litter debris will be cleared and inspected by the Landscaping contractor assigned by the owner By weekly Employee training (N12) Newbridge Homes, LLC Employee training will be developed by the Owner Within three months of hire, annually then Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-3 after. Catch basin inspection program (N14) Newbridge Homes, LLC Catch basins will be inspected a minimum of once every three months during the dry season and a minimum of once every two months during the rainy season. Inspect once a year FloGard Catch basin insert filter (N14) Newbridge Homes, LLC Inspect catch basin visually for defects and illegal dumping. Removal of collected materials in filter liner using an industrial vacuum. Inspect for defects and serviceability of the filter medium pouches and the pouch tethers. A minimum of once every three months during the dry season and a minimum of once every two months during the rainy season. Provide storm drain system stencilling and signage (S1) Newbridge Homes, LLC Signs will be placed above storm drain inlets to warn the public of prohibitions against waste disposal Place at grate installation and inspect once a year Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control (S4) Newbridge Homes, LLC Rain sensors will be incorporated into the onsite sprinkler system so that no unnecessary watering of landscaped areas occurs after storm events. Once a year or according to Manufacturer Manuals Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement (S5) Newbridge Homes, LLC New landscaped areas will be constructed at a minimum of 1 inch below existing paved areas Once a year Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-4 Street Sweeping/Va cuuming (N15) Newbridge Homes, LLC Vaccum sweeping for parking lot and yard area will be done by the owner.Bi Monthly Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 6-5 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 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 6-6 Section 6 WQMP Certification 6.1 Certification “This Water Quality Management Plan has been prepared for Newbridge Homes, LLC. by Allard Engineering. It is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana requiring the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The undersigned is aware that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are enforceable pursuant to the City’s Water Quality Ordinance No. 3587. 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 Stormwater 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.” Newbridge Homes, LLC By:________________________ Date: ________________________ Name:Bryan Avilla Its:Manager, Newbridge Homes, LLC Applicant’s Telephone Number: (949) 344-2705 Fontana RV & Self Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 6-7 Certifications I certify under penalty of law that this document and all the attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations Developer’s Project Engineer Signature _____________________________________________________ Signature Date I/we certify that I/we am/are the legal owner of the project and hereby accept the responsibility for the implementation of the provisions of the SWQMP as long as I/we retain ownership of this property and that upon the sale of this land, I/we will deliver this plan to the future owner and inform him of the requirement to implement the plan. Owner(s) Signature Newland Homes, LLC By:________________________ Date: ________________________ Name:Bryan Avilla Its:Manager, Newland Homes, LLC Applicant’s Telephone Number: (949) 344-2705 For the use by City of Fontana Environmental Section Approval of SWQMP I, and /or personnel acting under my direction and supervision, have reviewed this SWQMP and find that it meets the requirements set forth in the City of Fontana’s Storm Water Ordinance. Acceptance or approval of this Storm Water Quality Management Plan in no way precludes the authority of this agency to require modification to the plan as conditions warrant nor does this agency take responsibility for performance of BMP’s provided for in the plan. _______________________________ _______________________ Signature Date of SWQMP approval APN 0237-411-14 NAP APN 0237-411-15 NAP APN 0237-411-09 NAPTRACT NO. 16120 NAP LIVE OAK AVENUE CO N I F E R C O U R T DECLEZ CHANNEL C O N I F E R C O U R T APN 0237-411-28 APN 02 STORAGE BUILDING 7 STORAGE BUILDING 6 STORAGE BUILDING 5 O F FIC E ST O R A G E B U I L D I N G 3 . 1 STORAGE BUILDING 1.1 ST O R A G E B U I L D I N G 9 . 3 ST O R A G E B U I L D I N G 9 . 2 ST O R A G E B U I L D I N G 9 . 1 S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 9 .4 STORAGE BUILDING 8.1 STORAGE BUILDING 9.5 STORAGE BUILDING 3.2 STORAGE BUILDING 3.4 S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 2 .2 S T O R A G E B U I L DI N G 2.1 S T O R A G E B U I L DI N G 4.1 S T O R A G E B U I L DI N G 1.2 STORAGEBLDG 8.2 B L D G 3.3 Civil Engineering - Land Surveying - Land Planning 16866 Seville Avenue Fontana, California 92335 ALLARD ENGINEERING Prepared By: PHONE (909) 356-1815 Fax (909) 356-1795 Prepared For:ea DRAINAGE AREA SUMMARY D M A -1 = 7 .5 A C 200 100 0 100 200 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 200 ft. GRAPHIC SCALE Educational Material BMP Fact Sheets 1) Calculate the "Watershed Imperviousness Ratio", I which is equal to the percent of impervious area in the BMP Drainage Area divided by 100 Imperviousness(i)=0.9 Proposed Land Cover Total Acreage(A) =7.50 326,700 sf 2) Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient Cbmp for the drainage area Cbmp = 0.858i3-0.78i2+0.774i+0.04 Cbmp =0.73 3) Determine which Regression Coefficient to use by region the project is located in Valley 1.481 Mountain 1.909 Desert 1.237 Regression coefficient for this project is:1.481 4) Determine the area averaged "6 hour Mean Storm Rainfall" , P6 2 yr 1 Hr Rainfall Depth per NOAA Atlas 14=0.515 inches P6 = 2 yr 1 hr Rainfall x Regression coefficient P6 =0.7627 inches 5) Determine Regression Constant (a) for 48 hour drawdown a for 24 hour = 1.582 a for 48 hour = 1.963 a =1.963 6) Calculate the Maximized Detention Volume, P0 P0 = C x a x P6 Po(inches) = 1.0934 7) Calculate the Target Capture Volume, V0, in acre feet V0 = (P0 * A)/12 V0 =0.68 acre-feet V0 =29,767 CF Target Captured Volume Drainage Management Area DMA-1 (Parcel 1) MCN24-0063 "E" SECTION "C" WQMP BASIN Infiltration Basin-1 Volume Capacity Calculation Surface Area 6621.5 SF Basin Surface Area at halfway water depth Rock Depth 6.3 FT Surface Depth 1.5 FT Ponding water depth: 1.5-ft Infiltration 3.76 FT [Inf. rate 15.04"/12)*3] Design Inf Rate: 15.04"/hr (From Inf Test) Infiltration (3 hr) Volume Provided 51515 CF Basin Infiltration Capacity Volume Needed 29,767 CF Mitigation Volume required Difference 21,748 CF Infiltration Drawdown Time Calculation: Inf Surface Area: 6621.5 SF Infiltration Surface Area Provided:6,621.5 SF Infiltration Rate per Soil Report 15.04 in/hr Inf. Rate per Inf Test 1.25 ft/hr Facor of Safety 2.8 Design Infiltration Rate 0.448 ft/hr Volume needed to be Infiltrated 51515 cu.ft Infiltration Volume per hour 2963.91 cu.ft/hr (6621.5 sft * 0.448 ft/hr) Infiltration Draw Down Time 17.38 Hours (51515 cu.ft / 2963.91 cu.ft/hr) 18 < 48 hr draw down time. OK / Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.) 1 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 2 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.)(min/in.) 1 1.30 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.11 2 1.47 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.12 3 1.53 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.13 4 1.57 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.13 5 1.62 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 6 1.68 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 7 1.63 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 8 1.63 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 9 1.60 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.13 10 1.67 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 Ho = DT - Do Hf = DT - Df Reference: Boring/Test Number: P-1 TEST RESULTS** Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2)(min/in.) 478.00.14 Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]# (inches/hour) 42.1 Time Interval Δt (min.) 489.7 498.9 Trial No. Depth to Water, Dw Change in Water Level ΔH (in.) Diameter of Casing, d (in): Depth of Slotted Casing (ft): Trial No. Time Interval Δt (min.) Depth to Water, Dw Porosity of Annulus Material, n : Tested By: USCS Soil Type: **Raw Results. Does Not Include a Factor of Safety 508.5 492.8 475.2 489.7 478.0 4 tests minimum with at least two borings per basin COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY Conifer Court Project Factor of Safety per Reference # Where Infiltration Rate, It = ΔH (60r) / Δt (r + 2Havg) PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Option 2 Testing Requirements FACTOR OF SAFETY DATE: Dec. 2024 3 Fontana, California Appendix BJ.N.: 24-229 Costa Mesa, California 92626 PHONE: (714) 549-8921 RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 Testing Option r = D / 2 3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K ΔH = ΔD = Ho - Hf Havg = (Ho + Hf) / 2 Test Date: Change in Height of Water Greater Than or Equal to 6"? (Yes/No)* SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST yes yes PERCOLATION TEST Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2) 614.1 543.0 521.7 304.75 Depth from Existing Ground Surface to Bottom of Prop. Inflitration System (ft): Total Depth of Boring, DT (ft): Diameter of Hole, D (in): Depth to Groundwater (ft): Ground Elevation (msl ft): Change in Water Level ΔD (in.) existing ground surface  12.0 11/27/2024 8.0 SS 3.0 SM 12.0 / 0.44 / / Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.) 1 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 2 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.)(min/in.) 1 0.72 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.06 2 0.82 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.07 3 0.87 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.07 4 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 5 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 6 0.87 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.07 7 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 8 0.92 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 9 0.92 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 10 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 Ho = DT - Do Hf = DT - Df Reference: Test Date: Change in Height of Water Greater Than or Equal to 6"? (Yes/No)* SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST yes yes PERCOLATION TEST Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2) 1108.7 973.5 917.6 304.75 Depth from Existing Ground Surface to Bottom of Prop. Inflitration System (ft): Total Depth of Boring, DT (ft): Diameter of Hole, D (in): Depth to Groundwater (ft): Ground Elevation (msl ft): Change in Water Level ΔD (in.) r = D / 2 3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K ΔH = ΔD = Ho - Hf Havg = (Ho + Hf) / 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY DATE: Dec. 2024 3 Fontaana, California Appendix BJ.N.: 24-229 Costa Mesa, California 92626 PHONE: (714) 549-8921 RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 Testing Option **Raw Results. Does Not Include a Factor of Safety 887.0 887.0 917.6 887.0 887.0 4 tests minimum with at least two borings per basin COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY Conifer Court Project Factor of Safety per Reference # Where Infiltration Rate, It = ΔH (60r) / Δt (r + 2Havg) PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Option 2 Testing Requirements Boring/Test Number: P-2 TEST RESULTS** Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2)(min/in.) 887.00.08 Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]# (inches/hour) 78.2 Time Interval Δt (min.) 867.7 867.7 Trial No. Depth to Water, Dw Change in Water Level ΔH (in.) Diameter of Casing, d (in): Depth of Slotted Casing (ft): Trial No. Time Interval Δt (min.) Depth to Water, Dw Porosity of Annulus Material, n : Tested By: USCS Soil Type: existing ground surface  12.0 11/27/2024 8.0 SS 3.0 SM 12.0 / 0.44 / / Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.) 1 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 2 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.)(min/in.) 1 1.30 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.11 2 1.47 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.12 3 1.53 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.13 4 1.57 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.13 5 1.62 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 6 1.68 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 7 1.63 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 8 1.63 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 9 1.60 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.13 10 1.67 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.14 Ho = DT - Do Hf = DT - Df Reference: Boring/Test Number: P-1 TEST RESULTS** Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2)(min/in.) 478.00.14 Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]# (inches/hour) 42.1 Time Interval Δt (min.) 489.7 498.9 Trial No. Depth to Water, Dw Change in Water Level ΔH (in.) Diameter of Casing, d (in): Depth of Slotted Casing (ft): Trial No. Time Interval Δt (min.) Depth to Water, Dw Porosity of Annulus Material, n : Tested By: USCS Soil Type: **Raw Results. Does Not Include a Factor of Safety 508.5 492.8 475.2 489.7 478.0 4 tests minimum with at least two borings per basin COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY Conifer Court Project Factor of Safety per Reference # Where Infiltration Rate, It = ΔH (60r) / Δt (r + 2Havg) PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Option 2 Testing Requirements FACTOR OF SAFETY DATE: Dec. 2024 3 Fontana, California Appendix BJ.N.: 24-229 Costa Mesa, California 92626 PHONE: (714) 549-8921 RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 Testing Option r = D / 2 3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K ΔH = ΔD = Ho - Hf Havg = (Ho + Hf) / 2 Test Date: Change in Height of Water Greater Than or Equal to 6"? (Yes/No)* SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST yes yes PERCOLATION TEST Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2) 614.1 543.0 521.7 304.75 Depth from Existing Ground Surface to Bottom of Prop. Inflitration System (ft): Total Depth of Boring, DT (ft): Diameter of Hole, D (in): Depth to Groundwater (ft): Ground Elevation (msl ft): Change in Water Level ΔD (in.) existing ground surface  12.0 11/27/2024 8.0 SS 3.0 SM 12.0 / 0.44 / / Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.) 1 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 2 25 10.50 12.00 18.00 Initial, Do (ft.)Final, Df (ft.)(min/in.) 1 0.72 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.06 2 0.82 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.07 3 0.87 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.07 4 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 5 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 6 0.87 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.07 7 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 8 0.92 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 9 0.92 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 10 0.90 10.50 11.50 12.00 0.08 Ho = DT - Do Hf = DT - Df Reference: Test Date: Change in Height of Water Greater Than or Equal to 6"? (Yes/No)* SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST yes yes PERCOLATION TEST Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2) 1108.7 973.5 917.6 304.75 Depth from Existing Ground Surface to Bottom of Prop. Inflitration System (ft): Total Depth of Boring, DT (ft): Diameter of Hole, D (in): Depth to Groundwater (ft): Ground Elevation (msl ft): Change in Water Level ΔD (in.) r = D / 2 3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K ΔH = ΔD = Ho - Hf Havg = (Ho + Hf) / 2 FACTOR OF SAFETY DATE: Dec. 2024 3 Fontaana, California Appendix BJ.N.: 24-229 Costa Mesa, California 92626 PHONE: (714) 549-8921 RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 Testing Option **Raw Results. Does Not Include a Factor of Safety 887.0 887.0 917.6 887.0 887.0 4 tests minimum with at least two borings per basin COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY Conifer Court Project Factor of Safety per Reference # Where Infiltration Rate, It = ΔH (60r) / Δt (r + 2Havg) PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Option 2 Testing Requirements Boring/Test Number: P-2 TEST RESULTS** Percolation Rate (gal/day/ft^2)(min/in.) 887.00.08 Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]# (inches/hour) 78.2 Time Interval Δt (min.) 867.7 867.7 Trial No. Depth to Water, Dw Change in Water Level ΔH (in.) Diameter of Casing, d (in): Depth of Slotted Casing (ft): Trial No. Time Interval Δt (min.) Depth to Water, Dw Porosity of Annulus Material, n : Tested By: USCS Soil Type: existing ground surface  12.0 11/27/2024 8.0 SS 3.0 SM 12.0 / 0.44 / Afu: 0-3’ Kgr: 3.5’ Afu: 0-7’ Qal:7’-55’ Kgr:56’ Afu –Artificial Fill Qal –Alluvium Kgr –Granitic Bedrock SM/ML/SP –Sandy Silt, Sand/Silt, Poorly Graded Sand Afu:0-5’ Qal: 5’-10’ SM/ML/SP: 10’-26’ Afu:0-7’ Kgr:7.5’ Topsoil: 0’-1’ Kgr:2’ Topsoil: 0’-3’ Kgr:3’ Afu:0’-10.5’+ Caving at 10.5’, refusal on nested boulders Afu:0’-11’ Kgr:11.5’ Afu: 0’-14’ Qal: 14’ –20’ Kgr: 20’ Afu: 0’-3.5’ Kgr: 3.5’ Afu: 0’-21.5’+ Caving at 21.5’ Afu: 0’-11.5’+ Caving at 11.5’, refusal on nested boulders Conifer Court Boring/Trench Location and Exploration Log Overlay ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE 40880 County Center Drive, Suite M, Temecula, CA 92591 T: 951.600.9271 F: 951.719.1499 For more information visit us online at www.petra-inc.com August 4, 2022 J.N. 22-237 CONIFER COURT LLC 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. J. Rob Meserve Subject: Feasibility/Due Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment: Conifer Ridge Property, 14.5 Acres of Vacant Land South of Conifer Court and Village Drive, APN 0237-411- 27-0000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 92337 References: See Attached List Dear Mr. Meserve: In accordance with your request, Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is providing this geotechnical due- diligence review of the subject vacant property in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). This report presents our findings and professional opinions with respect to the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development, geotechnical constraints that should be taken into consideration during design and development of the site, and potential mitigation measures to bring the site to compliance from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. It must be emphasized that this report is intended as a feasibility-level geotechnical assessment only and is based solely on a review of the referenced geotechnical reports, background geologic literature and our limited subsurface exploration and soil test data. As such, the contents of this report are not suitable for submittal to regulatory agencies, nor should the findings or conclusions provided herein be relied upon for earthwork, quantity calculation or procedure, or structural engineering design. It should be further noted that this geotechnical evaluation does not address soil contamination or other environmental issues potentially affecting the property which was provided under separate cover. SITE GENERAL OVERVIEW The subject property consists of an irregular-shaped 14.5-acre vacant site south of the intersection of Conifer Court and Village Drive in the City of Fontana, California. The subject site is comprised of vacant land identified by San Bernardino County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0237-411-27-0000. CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 2 The subject property, situated east of Live Oak Avenue, is bounded by vacant land to the west (Southridge property), Village Drive on the north, an improved drainage channel on the east (Declez Channel), and an abandoned rock quarry on the south. A site location map is included as Figure 1. The subject property was previously developed as a part of the Declez Granite Quarries near the former community of Declezville. The north-northwest orientated face of the quarry is situated south of the subject property boundary, with an exposed cut of approximately 225 feet in height (Google Earth, 2022). The highly irregular surface of the subject property has been disturbed by quarry activities, which includes a large rectangular-shaped stockpile of soil and rock on the northern portion of the site and a partially excavated ridge on the west edge. The southwest and southeast property boundaries abut natural ascending slopes. The eastern portion of the subject property, beyond the large stockpile, appears to consist of undisturbed alluvium deposited at the outlet of a natural drainage extending upslope into the Jurupa Mountains. Existing elevation provided on Google Earth (2022) are on the order of approximately 945± to 990± feet above mean sea level (msl). DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT Literature Review Petra was not provided any geotechnical report on the subject property. In addition, we reviewed available online aerial imagery, historical aerials photographs by EDR, and background geologic maps and literature in the vicinity of the project site (see References). Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Assessment A representative of Petra conducted a site reconnaissance and performed photo documentation on May 27, 2022 to evaluate the conditions of the property. The surface of the subject property is covered mostly with dense native vegetation (i.e., brush and bushes), which covers the dumped piles of rock and concrete. The eastern portion of the subject property, beyond the stockpiles of rock and concrete, is mantled with thick grasses. Dumped piles of trash and debris are common along the central dirt road loop. Petra conducted field exploration to evaluate subsurface conditions within the subject property, as well as to collect samples for laboratory testing and analysis also on May 27, 2022. The field assessment included the excavation of eight exploratory test pits (T-1 thru T-8) with a John Deer 470 Excavator to depths ranging from 2 to 21.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Additionally, one boring was advanced on June 3 and three were advanced on June 15, 2022 utilizing a 4- wheel drive, truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter augers. The borings CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 3 were drilled and sampled to depths ranging from approx. to approximately 3.5 to 56.5 feet below existing grades. Relatively undisturbed ring and disturbed, representative bulk samples of soil were collected from the borings for laboratory testing and the locations are depicted on Figure 2. Laboratory Testing The limited laboratory program consisted of testing select undisturbed ring specimens and/or bulk samples of FINDINGS Proposed Development An aerial photographic map provided by the client (undated) and the APN parcel map depict the outline of the subject site. It is our understanding, however, that a conceptual development plan is not available at this time. Based upon discussions with the client, development of the subject property may be either a self- storage facility or residential. Site Reconnaissance and Aerial Photo Review Petra conducted a site reconnaissance of the subject property on May 27, 2022. The surface of the subject property is covered mostly with dumped piles of boulders, boulders mixed with sandy soil, concrete, and to a lesser extent asphalt. A large rectangular-shaped stockpile within the northern portion of the subject site, consists of a soil and rock mixture that are likely remnants of the abandoned quarry operations. One centrally located, oblong-shaped dirt road provides entry to the site from an open chain-link gate. Most of the dumped trash and debris are found along this road. A second dirt road branches off the southwesterly edge of the main dirt road, traversing up and over the ridge in the southwestern corner of the subject property. A dirt road also exists along the southerly edge of Declez Channel, located on the east-northeast site boundary. Additionally, one trail was noted along the southerly edge of the large stockpile and another along the northwest corner of the property. Natural vegetation is well established within the subject property commonly covering dumped fill materials and boulders. Generally, that portion of the subject property disturbed by the former quarry activity slopes in a northerly direction. The eastern subject property, beyond the large rectangular stockpile, slopes to the north-northeast. The southern boundary, which locally appears to be a depression, encroaches slightly into the edges of the onsite soil materials collected from the borings for in-situ dry density and moisture content, expansion index, and general corrosion potential (sulfate and chloride content, pH, and resistivity). CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 4 abandoned quarry slopes, which ascend at a steep gradient above the subject property. Rockfall debris (talus) exists along the southern portion of the subject property. Rockfall hazards associated with the offsite bedrock slopes should be assessed by an experienced rockfall hazard engineer. Based upon historical aerial photographic and USGS topographic map assessment (EDR, 2022a, 2022b), the quarry operation appeared to be active from at least 1938. Topographic maps from 1896, 1898, and 1901 shown no development or use of the subject property at that time. A 1938 aerial photograph depicted an existing quarry face directly south of the subject property and what appeared to be small railroad spur lines within the west and southwest portions of the site. The large stockpile was visible covered with native vegetation in 1938. A main line, possibly extending east to the east end of the large rectangular stockpile on the north portion of the subject property, was not readily detectable until after 1948 and before 1953; however, clearing for the alignment was noted in 1938. It is reported that the quarry operation was active from before 1900 to the early part of 1950 (MacKevkett, 1951). Subsequently, it appears that boulder and concrete piles were placed onsite at various times after quarry operations ceased. Field Assessment Petra conducted limited field exploration with a John Deer 470 Excavator on May 27, 2022 to assess rock hardness and thickness and quality of stockpiled fill within the subject property. F ield work included the excavation of eight test pits (T-1 through T-8) to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Test pits were excavated to practical refusal on either extremely hard granitic bedrock, clustered boulders in fill, or caving sidewall conditions. Foll owing the logging of each test pit, the excavation was backfilled with spoils. Two representative bulk samples of soil materials were collected from the borings for laboratory testing. Additionally, Petra conducted field exploration with a truck-mounted hollow-stem drill rig on June 3 and 15, 2022 to evaluate the natural subsurface soils. Four borings were drilled and sampled (B-1 through B-4) to a maximum depth of 56.5 feet bgs. Three borings encountered granitic bedrock at depths of 3 feet bgs (B-1), 55 feet bgs (B-2), and 7 feet bgs (B-4). Relatively undisturbed ring and disturbed, representative bulk samples of soil were collected from the borings for laboratory testing. Following sampling, the borings were backfilled with spoils. The soil and weathered bedrock materials encountered in the exploratory trenches and borings were logged and field classified in accordance with the visual-manual procedures outlined in the Unified Soil Classification System and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Procedure D 2488 and ASTM D 2487. All field activities were performed and/or overseen by a State of California -licensed CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 5 Certified Engineering Geologist. The approximate locations of our exploratory trenches and borings are shown on the Exploration Location Map, Figure 2, and descriptive “Exploration Logs” for each of the trenches and borings are presented in Appendix A. Relatively undisturbed ring and disturbed bulk samples of representative earth materials were collected from the exploratory borings for classification, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch outside diameter modified California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. The soil sampler was driven with successive 30-inch drops of a free-fall, 140-pound automatic trip hammer. The central portions of the driven-core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing. The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil were recorded for each 6-inch driving increment; however, the number of blows required to drive the sampler for the final 12 inches was noted in the boring logs as Blows per Foot. Groundwater The subject site is located within the Chino Sub-basin (8-002.01) of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (Department of Water Resources, [DWR], 2022). In general, groundwater depth varies within the area and though flow direction specifically beneath the subject property is unknown, it is reasonable to estimate flow to follow regional topography in a southwesterly direction toward the Santa Ana River. Boring B-2, located in the eastern portion of the subject property, did not encountered groundwater to the maximum depth of 56.5 feet. Groundwater depths in wells located in the vicinity of the subject property were reviewed on the California Department of Water Resources website (DWR, 2022). One active observation well, identified as local well number Chino-1207068, is mapped near the northwest corner of Jurupa Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, approximately 1,600 feet north-northwest of the subject property. Between January 2000 and October 2021 groundwater depths were reported to vary from approximately 225 to 250 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Subsurface Conditions Boring Data Four exploratory borings were drilled within the subject property (designated B-1 through B-4) to a maximum depth of 56.5 feet bgs. Independent of the surface stockpiles and dumped fill materials on site, near-surface fills were encountered in all of our recent borings at thicknesses of: 3 feet in B -1; 7 feet in B- 2; 5 feet in B-3; and 7 feet in B-4. Based on our observations and sampling conducted from the exploratory hollow-stem auger borings, undocumented fill materials are underlain by granitic bedrock in B-1 and B-4, CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 6 and alluvium in B-2 and B-3. Bedrock was not encountered at a depth of 26.5 feet in B-3. The locations of our borings are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the borings are provided in Appendix A. Test Pits To assess the general characteristics of undocumented fill materials and bedrock depths onsite, eight exploratory test pits (designated T-1 through T-8) were excavated within the subject property to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet bgs. Where excavated, limited buried debris was encountered, including metal cable and an iron rail fragment in T-7 and sandbags in T-4. Heavy sidewall caving hindered continuing excavation in the thickest fill areas. Granitic bedrock was encountered at a depth of 2 feet in T-1; 3.5 feet in T-2; 11 feet in T-4; 19.5 feet in T-5; and 2.5 feet in T-6. Where encountered, the underlying granitic bedrock was dense and extremely hard, hindering continued excavation after 0.5 to 1 foot. Fill thicknesses ranged from 2.5 feet to over 21.5 feet bgs. Locations of our test pits are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the test pits are provided in Appendix A. Undocumented Fill Much of the subject property is either mantled by stockpiled fill or underlain by undocumented fill. Fills were more than likely placed during historic quarry operations within to the subject property to create a level working area for equipment and rail spurs. Where encountered onsite, the thickness of this material was found to be greater than 10.5 feet in T-3; 11 feet in T-4; 14 feet in T-5; 2.5 feet in T-6; greater than 21.5 feet in T-7; and greater than 11.5 feet in T-8. Alluvial soils were found between the fill and the underlying bedrock in T-5. Test pits not encountering bedrock encountered practical refusal on what appeared to be clustered boulders and/or sloughing trench sidewalls, thereby preventing the determination of total fill thickness. Where encountered, fill materials consisted of a dry, loose, silty sand matrix with angular gravels, cobbles, and boulders up to 5 feet in one dimension. Concentrations of coarse gravels, cobbles and boulders ranged from 10 to 60 percent. Most of the surface piles of boulders, concrete rubble, and to a lesser extent asphalt, appear to have been dumped well after quarry activity. Two test pits, T-5 and T-6, we excavated in the large stockpile along the northerly portion of the subject property. T-5 encountered 14 feet of undocumented fill overlying alluvium. T-6 encountered 2.5 feet of undocumented fill overlying granitic bedrock. CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 7 Over-Size Rock Large boulders are commonly buried, nested, and/or scattered throughout the subject property, typically exceeding 3 feet in one dimension. Boulders up to 5 feet in one dimension were encountered in test pits excavated within the subject site. Boulders exceeding 3 feet in one dimension will require special handling, consisting of breaking, isolated burial in fills, or offsite disposal. Compressible Soils Young alluvial soils were encountered locally at depth in borings B-2 and B-3, and test pit T-5. Where excavated, the upper 5 to 6 feet of the alluvial soils were loose and dry to damp. These soils, underlying undocumented fills within the subject property, are deemed to be compressible due to low sample low counts. In addition to all undocumented fill materials, buried compressible native soils will require removal and recompaction. Laboratory Testing Limited laboratory testing of various representative samples collected from the drill rig locations for classification and engineering analysis purposes. Testing included in-situ density and moisture content, maximum density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, and soil corrosivity. Results of in situ density and moisture content are provided on the boring logs, Appendix A. Results of limited in-house testing of a representative sample indicates that the expansion index (EI) of the soils is in the Very Low EI range (0-20). General Corrosivity Screening As a screening level study, limited chemical and electrical tests were performed on samples considered representative of the onsite soils to identify potential corrosive characteristics of these soils. The common indicators that are generally associated with soil corrosivity, among other indicators, include water-soluble sulfate (a measure of soil corrosivity on concrete), water-soluble chloride (a measure of soil corrosivity on metals embedded in concrete), pH (a measure of soil acidity), and minimum electrical resistivity (a measure of corrosivity on metals embedded in soils). Test methodology and results are presented below in Table 1. It should be noted that Petra does not practice corrosion engineering; therefore, the test results, opinion and engineering judgment provided herein should be considered as general guidelines only. Additional analyses, and/or determination of other indicators, would be warranted, especially, for cases where buried metallic building materials (such as copper and cast or ductile iron pipes) in contact with site soils are planned for the project. In many cases, the project CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 8 geotechnical engineer may not be informed of these choices. Therefore, for conditions where such elements are considered, we recommend that other, relevant project design professionals (e.g., the architect, landscape architect, civil and/or structural engineer, etc.) to be involved. We also recommend considering a qualified corrosion engineer to conduct additional sampling and testing of near-surface soils during the final stages of site grading to provide a complete assessment of soil corrosivity. Recommendations to mitigate the detrimental effects of corrosive soils on buried metallic and other building materials that may be exposed to corrosive soils should be provided by the corrosion engineer as deemed appropriate. In general, a soil’s water-soluble sulfate levels and pH relate to the potential for concrete degradation; water-soluble chloride in soils impact ferrous metals embedded or encased in concrete, e.g., reinforcing steel; and electrical resistivity is a measure of a soil’s corrosion potential to a variety of buried metals used in the building industry, such as copper tubing and cast or ductile iron pipes. Table 1, below, presents test results with an interpretation of current code approach and guidelines that are commonly used in building construction industry. The table includes the code-related classifications of the soils as they relate to the various tests, as well as a general recommendation for possible mitigation measures in view of the potential adverse impact of corrosive soils on various components of the proposed structures in direct contact with site soils. The guidelines provided herein should be evaluated and confirmed, or modified, in their entirety by the project structural engineer, corrosion engineer and/or the contractor responsible for concrete placement for structural concrete used in exterior and interior footings, interior slabs on-ground, garage slabs, wall foundations and concrete exposed to weather such as driveways, patios, porches, walkways, ramps, steps, curbs, etc. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 9 TABLE 1 Soil Corrosivity Screening Results Sample ID Test (Test Method) Test Results Classification General Recommendations B-1` @ 0-3’ Soluble Sulfate (Cal 417) SO42- > 2.00 % by weight S3(1) - Very Severe Type V cement plus pozzolan or slag cement; maximum water/cement ratio of the fresh concrete should not exceed 0.45; fc’(2) should not be less than 4,500 psi. B-1 @ 0-3’ pH (Cal 643) 7.9 – 8.4 Moderately Alkaline(3) No special recommendations B-1` @ 0-3’ Soluble Chloride (Cal 422) < 500 ppm C1(1) - Moderate Residence: No special recommendations; fc’(2) should not be less than 2,500 psi. < 500 ppm C2(4) - Severe Pools/Decking: Increase concrete cover thickness; maximum water/cement ratio of the fresh concrete should not exceed 0.40; fc’(2) should not be less than 5,000 psi. B-1` @ 0-3’ Resistivity (Cal 643) 1,000 – 3,000 Highly Corrosive(5) Consult a corrosion engineer Notes: 1. ACI 318-14, Section 19.3 2. fc,’ 28-day unconfined compressive strength of concrete 3. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, formerly Soil Conservation Service 4. Exposure classification C2 applies specifically to swimming pools and appurtenant concrete elements 5. Pierre R. Roberge, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering” Strong Ground Motions The site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and will likely be subjected to very strong seismically related ground shaking during the anticipated life span of the project. Structures within the site should therefore be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong ground motion in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC). Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Potential Based on San Bernadino County hazard maps, the site is located in an area not susceptible to liquefaction potential (San Bernardino County, 2007). Further, based on groundwater being deeper than 100 feet below the site and most of the subject property is underlain by very dense granitic, liquefaction or dynamic settlement should not be considered as a major geotechnical concern for site development. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our site reconnaissance, limited subsurface exploration/laboratory testing, and literature review of readily available data, development of the proposed project within this subject site is feasible from a CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 10 geotechnical standpoint, provided rockfall hazards associated with the offsite rock quarry can be mitigated, and that the following geotechnical issues be considered by the Client during this due diligence period. Primary Geotechnical Issues Our professional opinion, from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, regarding various aspects of site condition and/or proposed development is presented herein. The following presents the salient points of our due diligence assessment that we recommend be considered for future site development. • Grading Plan Review: The City will require a review of the latest grading plans and any updated report needed at that time should include recommendations for rough grading, post-grading improvements, and preliminary building foundation design. • Rockfall Hazard: The exposed quarry face is comprised of large, angular granitic bedrock outcrops that are naturally and/or mechanically fractured. Open fractures are visible in some locations related to near-vertical overhangs. One of the prominent fracture orientations is out-of-slope toward the proposed development. Below the large angular outcrops are fan-shaped slopewash/talus deposits that are covered with vegetation. These deposits consist of variable mixtures of sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders. It is difficult to distinguish boulders at the toe of slope from rockfall versus stockpiled boulders; however, the blocky nature of exposed outcrops suggest that dislodged rocks are not likely to bounce as compared to rounded boulders. Rockfall hazards should be evaluated by an experienced rockfall hazard professional. • Undocumented Fill: Much of the subject property is either mantled by stockpiled boulders and concrete rubble or underlain by undocumented rock fill likely placed during historic quarry operations or after abandonment of the quarry. Where encountered in borings onsite, the thickness of this material was found as 3 feet (B-1), 7 feet (B-2), 5 feet (B-3), and 7 feet (B-4) within the northern portion of the subject property. The absence of residual soil and/or young alluvial soils found between the fill and the underlying bedrock suggests the southern portion of the site may have been lowered to create a level working surface. Where encountered in test pits, undocumented fill materials consisted of dry, loose silty sand with angular rock fragments up to 5 feet in one dimension. Where encountered onsite, the thickness of this material was found to be greater than 10.5 feet in T-3; 11 feet in T-4; 14 feet in T-5; 2.5 feet in T-6; greater than 21.5 feet in T-7; and greater than 11.5 feet in T-8. Test pits not encountering bedrock found practical refusal on what appeared to be clustered boulders and/or sloughing trench sidewalls, thereby preventing the determination of total fill thickness. Based upon the dry and loose nature of the undocumented fill materials (and the upper portion of alluvial soils) encountered onsite, these materials are considered unsuitable to support settlement sensitive improvements in their present condition and should be completely removed. Based upon the limited existing data, undocumented and dumped fill thicknesses appear to be irregular but is anticipated to the thickest within the north central portion of the subject property (T-7 and T-8). Additional subsurface exploration is recommended to further characterize remedial earthwork limits once conceptual development plans are available. CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 11 • Over-Size Rock: Large boulders are commonly scattered throughout the subject property, typically consisting of clusters and piles. Boulders up to 5 feet in one dimension were encountered in test pits excavated within the subject site. Boulders exceeding 3 feet in one dimension will require special handling, consisting of breaking, isolated burial in fills, or offsite disposal. Over-size rock buried in engineering fills within the site shall be at least 10 feet below finish pad grade and 15 feet from the face of finished slope grade. Additional recommendations can be provided upon request. • Settlement: Based upon the dry and loose nature of the undocumented fill materials encountered onsite, as well as the likely presence of voids in buried rock clusters, these materials are susceptible to piping and seismically induced settlement in their present condition and should be completely removed and replaced as compacted (engineered) fill. Additional subsurface exploration is recommended to further characterize remedial earthwork limits once conceptual development plans are available. • Clearing and Grubbing: The subject site has a moderate to heavy amount of vegetation growth throughout, and scattered trash and debris along the dirt road loop. All vegetation, debris, trash etc. should be cleared and hauled offsite. Voids created by removal of large bushes and trees shall be cleaned of loose soil and the backfill compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction with reference to ASTM D 1557. • Suitability of Onsite Soils for Fill: All onsite soils consisting of “clean” fill are considered suitable for use in engineering fill provided they are free of all organics, deleterious construction materials or debris, as well as any oversize rocks. • Importing of Fill: Preliminary grading plans and quantities are currently unknown at this time. It is our understanding that excess rock fill and oversize rock generated from the adjacent Southridge Village project may be imported to the subject property to raise grades. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate these materials relative to placement prior to import. As with any grading job, contingences should be made to account for variations in both shrinkage and compaction percent during future grading and calculating grading quantities. • Expansion Potential of Soils / Foundations: Limited testing by this office found soils within the subject tract indicated a Very Low expansion potential. It is expected that graded building pads finished with native soil will likely exhibit Very Low expansion potential. Such expansion conditions typically are accommodated by conventional slab-on-ground foundation systems. Additional laboratory testing would be required at the completion of rough grading to confirm the as-built expansion conditions prior to finalizing foundation recommendations. • Corrosion Potential: Our limited corrosion testing indicates site soils have a very severe exposure to soluble sulfates, moderate exposure to soluble chlorides and are extremely corrosive to metallic elements such as copper, iron, and brass. We recommend enlisting a corrosion engineer to provide corrosion protection recommendations, in addition to sampling and testing of pad grade soils during future precise grading. • Building Foundation Design: Development of the subject property is unknown at this time. Seismic and foundation design recommendations for the future development of the subject property should be provided once a conceptual plan is available, in accordance with the most recently approved California Building Code (CBC), which is currently the 2019 CBC. Proposed structures should also be designed in accordance with the most recently approved CBC. CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 12 REPORT LIMITATIONS This report is based on the existing conditions of the subject property and the geotechnical observations made during our site reconnaissance, limited field exploration, and limited laboratory testing. However, note that soil and groundwater/moisture conditions can vary in characteristics between points of excavations, both laterally and vertically. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the described geotechnical evaluations and represent our professional judgment. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. 8/4/22 Edward Lump Grayson R. Walker Associate Geologist Principal Engineer CEG 1924 GE 871 EL/GRW/lv Attachments: References Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Field Exploration Map Appendix A – Boring and Test Pit Logs W:\2020-2025\2022\200\22-237\Reports\22-237 100 Due Diligence Report.docx CONIFER COURT LLC August 4, 2022 Village Project / Fontana J.N. 22-237 Page 13 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) – Standard – Section Four – Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock. Anicic, John Charles, Jr., 2005, Images of America Series - Eight, Ailea, San Sevaine, Declez, Declezville, and South Fontana, 1888 to Present, Arcadia Publishing. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42. California Building Code (2019), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Par 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2018 International Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. California Department of Water Resources, 2004, California Groundwater - Bulletin 118. , 2022, Water Data Library, accessed May, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/ County of San Bernardino, 2007, San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazards Overlay, Sheet FH29 C, Fontana, accessed May 2021. EDR, 2022a, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Village Property, Conifer Ct. & Village Dr., Fontana, CA 92337, Inquiry Number 6994915.11, dated May 25. ____, 2022b, The EDR Historical Topo Map Report, Village Property, Conifer Ct. & Village Dr., Fontana, CA 92337, Inquiry Number 6994915.4, dated May 25. Google Earth™ 2022, by Google Earth, Inc., http://www.google.com/earth/index.html, accessed May. International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada”, California Division of Mines and Geology. Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6. MacKevett, 1951, Geology of the Jurupa Mountains, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, San Francisco Special Report, dated February 5. Morton, D.T., 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, USGS Open-File Report 03-418. Site Location Map PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. COSTA MESA MURRIETA PALM DESERT SANTA CLARITA Figure 1J.N.: SCALE: August 2022 22-237 epl see map DATE: DWG BY: 40880 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE M TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 PHONE: (951) 600-9271 Village Project Fontana. San Bernardino County, California - Approximate Site Location LEGEND N N TP-15 - Approximate location of exploratory test pit - Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring LEGEND B-7 Af Qal - Artificial Fill - Quaternary Young Alluvium - Quaternary/Tertiary Sandstone Qls - Quaternary Landslide Deposits QTsw GEOLOGIC UNITS N SCALE 1 MILE0 SITE Base Map Reference: Google Earth, 2022, Photo dated August 2019. PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. 40880 County Center Drive, Suite M Temecula, California 92591 PHONE: (714) 549-8921 COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA Field Exploration Map Village Property, Conifer Court & Village Drive Fontana, San Bernardino County, California DATE: August 2022 J.N.: 22-237 Figure 2 N N TP-15 - Approximate location of exploratory test pit - Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring LEGEND B-7 Af Qal - Artificial Fill - Quaternary Young Alluvium - Quaternary/Tertiary Sandstone Qls - Quaternary Landslide Deposits QTsw GEOLOGIC UNITS GEOSCIENCES N 175 ft.0 LEGEND - Approximate Location of Exploratory Test Pit - Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 T-7 T-8 T-8 B-4 B-1 B-4 B-3 B-2 - Approximate Limits of Subject Property Live O a k A ven u e 175 ft. Scale - Approximate Limits of Large Stockpile Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Project No. KGT 22-50 Prepared by: KANE GeoTech, Inc. 7400 Shoreline Drive, Suite 6 Stockton, Calif ornia 95219 Prepared For: Newbridge Homes, LLC. 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, California 92660 January 31, 2023 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KANE GeoTech, Inc. Figure 1. Project Location, Fontana, California. 7400 Shoreline Drive Suite 6 Stockton, California 95219 Tel: 209-472-1822 www.kanegeotech.com 6080 Center Drive Suite 600 Los Angeles, California 90045 Tel: 323-331-9222 www.kanegeotech.com 1441 Kapiolani Boulevard Suite 1115 Honolulu, Hawai’i 96814 Tel: 808-468-9993 www.kanegeotech.com 200 Prosperity Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 3 7923 Tel: (865) 248-3051 www.kanegeotech.com Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Project No. KGT22-50 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 General KANE GeoTech, Inc. (KANE GeoTech) was retained by Newbridge Homes, LLC (Newbridge Homes) to investigate potential rockfall hazards that might affect commercial development on the currently undeveloped lot east of the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive in Fontana, San Bernardino California. This report was prepared by KANE GeoTech to provide information on the assessment of potential rockfall hazards at the Project site. The Project location is shown in Figure 1 with an aerial overview of the site in Figure 2. Plans call for the site to be developed as an RV and self storage area. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this Report is to present the results of analyses performed to assess the potential rockfall hazards at the Project site. The Report also provides probable rockfall source areas and trajectories and general options f or mitigation. 2.SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 Scope The scope of services provided by KANE GeoTech included the f ollowing: 1.Literature Review. KANE GeoTech reviewed available geotechnical information, reports, and maps provided by Newbridge Homes and others which were pertinent to the Project. This included, but was not limited to, soil (geotechnical) reports, surveys, geological and engineering studies. Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Page 2 Figure 2. Aerial overview of Project site. 2.Rockfall Analyses. Using available data and site plan information, KANE GeoTech constructed representative cross-sections of the existing slope and performed rockfall modeling analyses using the software modeling program RocFall by Rocscience, Inc. The purpose of modeling the rockfall was to determine the required height and kinetic energy impact resistance of any proposed m itigation measures. 3.Report of Findings. KANE GeoTech prepared this Report of Findings containing the results of our analyses and an engineering assessment of the rockfall hazards at the Project site. The Report provides recommendations to mitigate, treat, and/or remove any potential hazards. These recommendations include all areas w ithin the project limits. 3.SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Overview The project site is located south of Interstate 10, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California at approximately 34°02'33.1"N 117°28'48.7"W . East of the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive. The rockfall hazard area is approximately 830-ft wide with terrain rising to the south around 400-f t above the proposed self -storage units. Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) (2021) developed a geotechnical due-diligence review for the tract south of the proposed development area. This report included exploratory boring and susceptibility of rockfall in the area. The parameters used in the analyses presented in this Report are based on this study. KANE GeoTech, Inc. (KANE) (2021) developed a rockfall investigation report containing the results of analyses and engineering assessment of rockfall hazards within the tract south of the KANE GeoTech, Inc. Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Page 3 Figure 3. Aerial imagery of talus and loose boulders near toe of the slope. proposed development area. T his report included recom mendations for rockfall mitigation. 3.2 Geology The site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. Local geology includes topsoil and Quaternary alluvium consisting coarse-grained silty sand and gravel (Petra, 2021). The ridges of the project site are composed of Cretaceous granitic rocks, primarily consist of tonalite (Morton, 1973). Locally, materials at the site include granitic boulders, sand, and topsoil. At the base of the slope is a thick layer of undocumented artificial fill, Figure 3. Although landslides are unlikely, the vertical extent of the slope and overhanging tonalite boulders present a rockfall hazard. Our review of aerial images suggest rock blocks as large as 5- ft in diameter have to the potential to topple and roll down slope face. The area is seismically active and ground shaking due to seismic activity can trigger rockfall hazards from the outcrops above the project area. 3.3 Site Characteristics KANE GeoTech personnel reviewed the photographs and drone imagery provided by Newbridge Homes. The site, a former quarry, appeared to be vacant and undeveloped, cleared of all vegetation including the low grasses and chaparral. Large boulders and several smaller rocks were scattered throughout the site and some grading has been done to accommodate the transit of vehicles, as shown in Figure 3. The base of the project is currently located at about elevation 940-ft MSL with the crest of the cut at approximately 1,200-f t MSL for a total vertical relief of 260-ft. Slope angles vary from approximately 90E near the crest to about 45 on the talus at the base. 4.ROCKFALL ANALYSES 4.1 Rockfall Analyses The aerial imagery and topographic map were used to develop the likely rockfall sources and trajectories. Seven rockfall trajectories, A through F, were selected for analyses, Figure 4 and Appendix A. These rockfall trajectories consisted of rockfall source area, potential chutes, and associated run-out areas. The observed rockfall outcrops and potential rockfall boulders are similar in size and shape to those described in the KANE (2021) report on the sit e to the south. KANE GeoTech, Inc. Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Page 4 Figure 4. Topographic map showing rockfall profiles A-F and paths analyzed. The rockfall kinetic energies and bounce heights presented in this Report are based on 1,000 rockfall simulations for each potential rockf all chute and source. To simulate site conditions as closely as possible, large, 5-ft diameter and smaller 1-ft diameter hexagonally-shaped boulders were modeled (KANE, 2021). The large boulders generally provide the maximum energy required to be mitigated while the small boulders tend to bounce higher and give better results as to required barrier heights. Collectors (analyses points where predicted rockfall bounce heights and energies are calculated) were located on the downslope side of the property line. At least (1) collector was used for each slope profile based on the project limits and property lines supplied by Newbridge Homes. 4.2 Rocscience RocFall 2021 Rockfall analyses were performed using Rocscience RocFall 2021 (RocFall) software program. RocFall is a 2-dimensional rockfall simulation program that predicts statistical rockfall behavior on slopes to assist in the design of rockfall mitigation. RocFall has becom e the standard-of- practice rockfall modeling software in the geohazard industry. By modeling a slope using RocFall, it is possible to make reasoned judgments on the need for, or the design of, a rockfall barrier or an earthen berm . It is routinely used as a design tool by the government and private practice. RocFall uses a statistical computer algorithm based on actual rockfall tests to predict the rockfall kinetic energy, velocity, and bounce height distribution along the entire slope profile. The program also predicts the rockfall traveling and stop distances along the slope profile surface. Analysis points, called collectors, are placed at locations along the slope profile surface to determine the KANE GeoTech, Inc. Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Page 5 probable rockfall behavior statistical data at that point. This information is used to assist in determining the capacity, size, and location of the rockfall mitigation. The RocFall program contains two types of analyses methods that can be used for rockfall modeling. The Rigid Body model considers the impulse reaction of the rock during the instantaneous contact period with the slope to determine the critical events of the rock (slip, sticking, reversal) behavior during restitution. The normal coefficient of restitution is used during the two phases of the contact period to calculate the terminal impulse. W ith the terminal impulse, the outgoing velocities at the contact point can be calculated. The Rigid Body Model uses a particle analysis with three sections: the particle algorithm, the projectile algorithm, and the sliding algorithm. The particle algorithm ensures that the simulation parameters are valid, sets up the initial conditions, and starts the projectile algorithm. The Rigid Body Models were used for the analyses for this Project. The RocFall program includes two types of probability sampling methods used for statistical data distributions. The Monte Carlo Method uses random numbers to sample from the input data probability distributions. The Monte Carlo Method is commonly applied to a variety of sampling involving random behavior in geotechnical engineering. The Latin Hypercube Method provides similar results as the Monte Carlo Method, but with fewer samples. The method is based upon "stratified" sampling with random selection within each stratum. This results in a smoother sampling of the probability distributions. The Monte Carlo Method was used for the analyses for this Project. RocFall requires a 2-dimensional slope profile and the geotechnical material parameters such as rock unit weight, size, and slope roughness. In addition, coefficients of restitution are also determined to depict the behavior of rocks rebounding from the slope. Numerical representations of these properties are termed the normal coefficient of restitution (Rn) and the tangential coefficient of frictional resistance (Rt), where the normal direction is perpendicular to the slope surface, and the tangential direction is parallel to the slope surface. In determining velocity components for a rock following impact, separate normal and tangential coefficients are necessary due to the different mechanisms involved in resisting motion normal and tangent to the slope. W hen a rock bounces on a slope, kinetic energy is lost due to inelastic components of the collision and friction. W hile the primary mechanism in resisting motion parallel to the slope is sliding or rolling friction, the elasticity of the slope determines the motion normal to the slope. The Rn is a measure of the degree of elasticity in a collision normal to the slope, and the Rt is a measure of frictional resistance to movement parallel to the slope. The friction angle used in the analyses is calculated when using the Lump Mass Model while using the selected Rt values. 5. RESULTS 5.1 Results Table 1 is a summary of the rockfall analyses that are presented in Appendix B. Bounce heights ranged from 2-ft to 10-ft and energies at the Collector location varied between 1-kJ for the 1-ft boulders to approximately 300-kJ for the 5-ft boulders. Table 2 presents the probability of rockfall for all analyzed boulder sizes. Majority of the simulated boulder sizes had a relatively low KANE GeoTech, Inc. Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Page 6 5-ft Boulders Slope Profile 75% Retention 90% Retention Bounce Height (ft)Kinetic Energy (kJ)Bounce Height (ft)Kinetic Energy (kJ) A-A’4.4 178 7.2 270 B-B’4.1 123 6.3 213 C-C’5.0 141 7.2 292 D-D’4.0 87 5.3 177 E-E’4.2 89 5.7 328 F-F’Did not reach Collector Did not reach Collector G-G’3.0 49 3.6 89 1-ft Boulders Slope Profile 75% Retention 90% Retention Bounce Height (ft)Kinetic Energy (kJ)Bounce Height (ft)Kinetic Energy (kJ) A-A’2.8 1 4.6 1.9 B-B’2.5 1 4.2 1.5 C-C’3.4 1 5.4 2.1 D-D’2.6 1 4.2 1.6 E-E’2.2 1 3.3 2.4 F-F’Did not reach Collector Did not reach Collector G-G’1 0.4 1.3 0.6 TABLE 1. SIMULATED ROCKFALL BOUNCE HEIGHTS AND ENERGIES probability of reaching the Collectors (Analyses Points) along the property easement. Rockfall simulated on the steeper slopes near the middle of the property resulted in higher probabilities (40%) of reaching the Collectors. Total summation resulted in 17% percent of the 5-ft boulders and 15% of boulders of 1-ft diameter reaching the Collectors. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions Based on the modeled probabilities, it is our conclusion that rockfall is a hazard that has a considerable potential to impact the proposed self storage area. W e also conclude that the rockfall hazards can be mitigated with conventionally available methodologies and materials. 6.2 Recommendations Due to the large footprint available near the toe of the slope, f or this project we recommend the installation of approximately 830 linear feet of compacted berm (2H:1V). As summarized in Table 3, the western section should be an approximately 600-ft long, 8-ft tall compacted berm (2H:1V) and the eastern section should be a 230-ft long and 6-ft tall compacted berm (2H:1V). The berm KANE GeoTech, Inc. Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Page 7 Cross-Sectional Slope Profile ID 1-ft Boulders 5-ft Boulders Number of Rocks Simulated for Analysis* TOTAL Number of Rocks at AP Percentage of Rocks Reaching AP Number of Rocks Simulated for Analysis* TOTAL Number of Rocks at AP Percentage of Rocks Reaching AP A-A'1,000 89 9%1,000 102 10% B-B'1,000 161 16%1,000 201 20% C-C'1,000 341 34%1,000 403 40% D-D'1,000 157 16%1,000 198 20% E-E'1,000 116 12%1,000 128 13% F-F'1,000 0 0%1,000 0 0% G-G'1,000 207 21%1,000 170 17% Notes * 1,000 Rocks for Each Size of Rock Analyzed AP = Analysis Point (Collector) Potential Barrier Locations Due to the RocScience RocFall models some rockfall simulation runs were removed due to invalid intersections between the slope, shape, collision, or geometry of the slope profile. TABLE 2. ROCKFALL PROBABILITIES Station ID Protection Type Height (ft) Approx. Length ft) STA 0+00 to STA 6+00 Berm with Runout Catchment Ditch (2H:1V)8 600 STA 6+00 to STA 8+30 Berm with Runout Catchment Ditch (2H:1V)6 230 830 *Estimated for planning purposes only. Actual engineered construction quantities may vary. TABLE 3. RECOMMENDED ROCKFALL MITIGATION should be combined with a 3-ft deep catchment ditch (2H:1V) along the property line at the base of the berm to contain the potential rockf all, Figure 5 and Appendix C. 7.REFERENCES KANE GeoTech, Inc. (KANE) (2021). Live Oak Project Rockfall Investigation. Fontana, California. KGT21-24. Morton, D. (1973)."Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California." Open-File Report 03-418. KANE GeoTech, Inc. Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation Fontana, California Page 8 Figure 5. Schematic of proposed rockfall protection berm and catchment ditch. Petra Geosciences, Inc. (2021). “Feasibility/Due Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment, Live Oak Project, Undeveloped Land Southeast of Live Oak Drive and Village Drive, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0237-411-14, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.” Project No. JN.21-177. June 22, 2021. 8.LIMITATIONS Slope instability and rockfall can be sporadic and unpredictable. Causes range from human construction to environmental (e.g., weather, wildfire, groundwater fluctuations) effects. Because the multiplicity of factors affecting it, it is not, and cannot be, an exact science. Therefore, the safety of individuals and property cannot be guaranteed. However, when sound engineering principles are applied to a predictable range of geodynamics, the risk of injury and property loss can be substantially reduced by the use of properly designed mitigation in identif ied risk areas. The analyses, conclusions and recommendatio ns contained in this report are based on the observed site conditions and derived from the information provided. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of our report and the start of any work at the site, or if conditions have changed due to natural causes, or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, we urge that our report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. This report is applicable only for the project and sites studied. T his report should not be used af ter three years. Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations proposed in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. Findings and statements of professional opinion do not constitute a g uarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. Yours truly, KANE GeoTech, Inc. W illiam F. Kane, PhD, PG, PE President and Principal Eng ineer California Licensed Civil Engineer No. 55714 KANE GeoTech, Inc. APPENDIX A TOPOGRAPHIC LAYOUT ROCKFALL SLOPE PROFILE PATHS KANE GeoTech, Inc. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KANE GeoTech, Inc. MH MH MH MHMH MH N70° 0 9 ' 2 5 " W 4 4 6 . 9 8 ' N60° 5 8 ' 3 2 " W 6 6 . 8 0 ' N63°1 0 ' 2 6 " E 1 7 2 . 7 0 ' N66°34 ' 1 8 " E 2 4 3 . 8 0 ' N83°29'08"W 78. 2 2 ' N3 3 ° 5 7 ' 1 8 " E 5 2 . 1 7 ' N4 0 ° 2 6 ' 5 0 " E 1 0 4 . 8 7 ' N83°06'50"E 53.68' N2 7 ° 5 1 ' 5 0 " E 14 . 7 8 ' N67°11 ' 5 0 " E 6 4 . 6 9 ' CONIFER COURT ROCKFALL TRAJECTORIES 0'43'86'129'43'21.5' TOPOGRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1 INCH = 43 FEET DA T E : DR A W N B Y : KA N E P R O J E C T N O : DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : OF SH E E T PR E P A R E D A T T H E R E Q U E S T O F REVISIONS © 2 0 2 2 KA N E G e o T e c h , I n c . CH E C K E D B Y : So u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e 60 8 0 C e n t e r D r i v e Su i t e 6 0 0 Lo s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 4 5 (3 2 3 ) 3 3 1 - 9 2 2 2 Ha w a i ' i O f f i c e 14 4 1 K a p i o l a n i B o u l e v a r d Su i t e 1 1 1 5 Ho n o l u l u , H I 9 6 8 1 4 (8 0 8 ) 4 6 8 - 9 9 9 3 Ge o T e c h , I n c . Ge o e n g i n e e r i n g C o n s u l t a n t s No r t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e 74 0 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 6 St o c k t o n , C A 9 5 2 1 9 (2 0 9 ) 4 7 2 - 1 8 2 2 Te n n e s s e e O f f i c e 20 0 P r o s p e r i t y D r i v e Kn o x v i l l e , T N 3 7 9 2 3 (8 6 5 ) 2 4 8 - 3 5 0 1 ML C / P P WF K WF K 1" = 5 5 ' - 0 " 20 2 2 1 2 - 0 9 KG T 2 2 - 5 0 Co n i f e r C o u r t R o c k f a l l Ro c k f a l l M i t i g a t i o n Sa n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y , C a l i f o r n i a Ne w b r i d g e H o m e s 50 0 N e w p o r t C e n t e r D r i v e , S u i t e 5 7 0 Ne w p o r t B e a c h , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 6 0 X X N THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KANE GeoTech, Inc. APPENDIX B ROCKFALL ANALYSES ROCSCIENCE ROCFALL RESULTS KANE GeoTech, Inc. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KANE GeoTech, Inc. Rock Name Color Mass (lbm)Density (lbm/Ō3)Shapes 5-Ō Blocks 10472 160 Polygon Hexagon, Polygon Rectangle (5:6) Seeder Name Number of Rocks Rock Types Horizontal Velocity (Ō/s) IniƟal RotaƟon (deg) Seeder 1 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 Material Name Color Normal ResƟtuƟon TangenƟal ResƟtuƟon Dynamic FricƟon Rolling FricƟon Quartz Diorite Normal Mean: 0.33 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.83 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.55 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.4 Std Dev: 0.02 Rel. Min: 0.06 Rel. Max: 0.06 ArƟfical Fill 0.25 0.6 0.56 0.75 Talus 0.3 0.81 0.56 0.65 Berm (2H:1V) Height = 8'-0" Top Width = 20'-0" Bottom Width = 52'-0" Ditch (2H:1V) Depth = 3'-0" Top Width = 17'-0" Bottom Width = 5'-0" P.L. 11 0 0 10 5 0 10 0 0 95 0 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Analysis Description Rigid Body - Profile A-A' Company KANE GeoTech, Inc.Drawn By PP/MLC File Name Profile A-A'.fal8Date1/16/2023 Project Conifer Court Rockfall Analysis ROCFALL 8.020 Material Name Color Normal ResƟtuƟon TangenƟal ResƟtuƟon Dynamic FricƟon Rolling FricƟon Quartz Diorite Normal Mean: 0.33 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.83 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.55 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.4 Std Dev: 0.02 Rel. Min: 0.06 Rel. Max: 0.06 ArƟfical Fill 0.25 0.6 0.56 0.75 Talus 0.3 0.81 0.56 0.65 Rock Name Color Mass (lbm)Density (lbm/Ō3)Shapes 5-Ō Blocks 10472 160 Polygon Hexagon, Polygon Rectangle (5:6) Seeder Name Number of Rocks Rock Types Horizontal Velocity (Ō/s) IniƟal RotaƟon (deg) Seeder 1 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 Berm (2H:1V) Height = 8'-0" Top Width = 20'-0" Bottom Width = 52'-0" Ditch (2H:1V) Depth = 3'-0" Top Width = 17'-0" Bottom Width = 5'-0" P.L. 12 0 0 11 5 0 11 0 0 10 5 0 10 0 0 95 0 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Analysis Description Rigid Body - Profile B-B' Company KANE GeoTech, Inc.Drawn By PP/MLC File Name Profile B-B'.fal8Date1/16/2023 Project Conifer Court Rockfall Analysis ROCFALL 8.020 Rock Name Color Mass (lbm)Density (lbm/Ō3)Shapes 5-Ō Blocks 10472 160 Polygon Hexagon, Polygon Rectangle (5:6) Seeder Name Number of Rocks Rock Types Horizontal Velocity (Ō/s) IniƟal RotaƟon (deg) Seeder 1 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 Berm (2H:1V) Height = 8'-0" Top Width = 20'-0" Bottom Width = 52'-0" Ditch (2H:1V) Depth = 3'-0" Top Width = 17'-0" Bottom Width = 5'-0" Material Name Color Normal ResƟtuƟon TangenƟal ResƟtuƟon Dynamic FricƟon Rolling FricƟon Quartz Diorite Normal Mean: 0.33 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.83 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.55 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.4 Std Dev: 0.02 Rel. Min: 0.06 Rel. Max: 0.06 ArƟfical Fill 0.25 0.6 0.56 0.75 Talus 0.3 0.81 0.56 0.65 P.L. 12 0 0 11 5 0 11 0 0 10 5 0 10 0 0 95 0 -500 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Analysis Description Rigid Body - Profile C-C' Company KANE GeoTech, Inc.Drawn By PP/MLC File Name Profile C-C'.fal8Date1/16/2023 Project Conifer Court Rockfall Analysis ROCFALL 8.020 Material Name Color Normal ResƟtuƟon TangenƟal ResƟtuƟon Dynamic FricƟon Rolling FricƟon Quartz Diorite Normal Mean: 0.33 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.83 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.55 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.4 Std Dev: 0.02 Rel. Min: 0.06 Rel. Max: 0.06 ArƟfical Fill 0.25 0.6 0.56 0.75 Talus 0.3 0.81 0.56 0.65 Rock Name Color Mass (lbm)Density (lbm/Ō3)Shapes 5-Ō Blocks 10472 160 Polygon Hexagon, Polygon Rectangle (5:6) Seeder Name Number of Rocks Rock Types Horizontal Velocity (Ō/s) IniƟal RotaƟon (deg) Seeder 1 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 Seeder 2 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 P.L. Berm (2H:1V) Height = 8'-0" Top Width = 20'-0" Bottom Width = 52'-0" Ditch (2H:1V) Depth = 3'-0" Top Width = 17'-0" Bottom Width = 5'-0" 12 5 0 12 0 0 11 5 0 11 0 0 10 5 0 10 0 0 95 0 -500 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Analysis Description Rigid Body - Profile D-D' Company KANE GeoTech, Inc.Drawn By PP/MLC File Name Profile D-D'.fal8Date1/16/2023 Project Conifer Court Rockfall Analysis ROCFALL 8.020 Rock Name Color Mass (lbm)Density (lbm/Ō3)Shapes 5-Ō Blocks 10472 160 Polygon Hexagon, Polygon Rectangle (5:6) Seeder Name Number of Rocks Rock Types Horizontal Velocity (Ō/s) IniƟal RotaƟon (deg) Seeder 1 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 Berm (2H:1V) Height = 8'-0" Top Width = 20'-0" Bottom Width = 52'-0" Ditch (2H:1V) Depth = 3'-0" Top Width = 17'-0" Bottom Width = 5'-0" Material Name Color Normal ResƟtuƟon TangenƟal ResƟtuƟon Dynamic FricƟon Rolling FricƟon Quartz Diorite Normal Mean: 0.33 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.83 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.55 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.4 Std Dev: 0.02 Rel. Min: 0.06 Rel. Max: 0.06 ArƟfical Fill 0.25 0.6 0.56 0.75 Talus 0.3 0.81 0.56 0.65 P.L. 12 0 0 11 5 0 11 0 0 10 5 0 10 0 0 95 0 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Analysis Description Rigid Body - Profile E-E' Company KANE GeoTech, Inc.Drawn By PP/MLC File Name Profile E-E'.fal8Date1/17/2023 Project Conifer Court Rockfall Analysis ROCFALL 8.020 Ditch (2H:1V) Depth = 3'-0" Top Width = 17'-0" Bottom Width = 5'-0" Material Name Color Normal ResƟtuƟon TangenƟal ResƟtuƟon Dynamic FricƟon Rolling FricƟon Quartz Diorite Normal Mean: 0.33 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.83 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.55 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.4 Std Dev: 0.02 Rel. Min: 0.06 Rel. Max: 0.06 ArƟfical Fill 0.25 0.6 0.56 0.75 Talus 0.3 0.81 0.56 0.65 Rock Name Color Mass (lbm)Density (lbm/Ō3)Shapes 5-Ō Blocks 10472 160 Polygon Hexagon, Polygon Rectangle (5:6) Seeder Name Number of Rocks Rock Types Horizontal Velocity (Ō/s) IniƟal RotaƟon (deg) Seeder 1 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 Berm (2H:1V) Height = 8'-0" Top Width = 20'-0" Bottom Width = 52'-0" P.L. 11 0 0 10 5 0 10 0 0 95 0 -225 -200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 Analysis Description Rigid Body - Profile F-F' Company KANE GeoTech, Inc.Drawn By PP/MLC File Name Profile F-F'.fal8Date1/17/2023 Project Conifer Court Rockfall Analysis ROCFALL 8.020 Material Name Color Normal ResƟtuƟon TangenƟal ResƟtuƟon Dynamic FricƟon Rolling FricƟon Quartz Diorite Normal Mean: 0.33 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.83 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.55 Std Dev: 0.04 Rel. Min: 0.12 Rel. Max: 0.12 Normal Mean: 0.4 Std Dev: 0.02 Rel. Min: 0.06 Rel. Max: 0.06 ArƟfical Fill 0.25 0.6 0.56 0.75 Talus 0.3 0.81 0.56 0.65 Rock Name Color Mass (lbm)Density (lbm/Ō3)Shapes 5-Ō Blocks 10472 160 Polygon Hexagon, Polygon Rectangle (5:6) Seeder Name Number of Rocks Rock Types Horizontal Velocity (Ō/s) IniƟal RotaƟon (deg) Seeder 1 1000 5-Ō Blocks -1 Uniform Mean: 0 Rel. Min: 0 Rel. Max: 360 Berm (2H:1V) Height = 6'-0" Top Width = 20'-0" Bottom Width = 44'-0" P.L. Ditch (2H:1V) Depth = 3'-0" Top Width = 17'-0" Bottom Width = 5'-0" 10 4 0 10 2 0 10 0 0 98 0 96 0 94 0 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 Analysis Description Rigid Body - Profile G-G' Company KANE GeoTech, Inc.Drawn By PP/MLC File Name Profile G-G'.fal8Date1/17/2023 Project Conifer Court Rockfall Analysis ROCFALL 8.020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KANE GeoTech, Inc. APPENDIX C TOPOGRAPHIC LAYOUT COMPACTED BERM AND CATCHMENT DITCH KANE GeoTech, Inc. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KANE GeoTech, Inc. MH MH MH MHMH MH N70° 0 9 ' 2 5 " W 4 4 6 . 9 8 ' N60 ° 5 8 ' 3 2 " W 6 6 . 8 0 ' N63°1 0 ' 2 6 " E 1 7 2 . 7 0 ' N66°34 ' 1 8 " E 2 4 3 . 8 0 ' N83°29'08"W 78. 2 2 ' N3 3 ° 5 7 ' 1 8 " E 5 2 . 1 7 ' N4 0 ° 2 6 ' 5 0 " E 1 0 4 . 8 7 ' N83°06'50"E 53.68' N2 7 ° 5 1 ' 5 0 " E 14 . 7 8 ' N67°11 ' 5 0 " E 6 4 . 6 9 ' ST A 6 + 0 0 STA 7 + 0 0 STA 5+00STA 4+0 0 STA 3 + 0 0 STA 2 + 0 0 STA 1 + 0 0 STA 8+30 STA 0+0 0 CONIFER COURT TOPOGRAPHIC LAYOUT 0'43'86'129'43'21.5' TOPOGRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1 INCH = 43 FEET DA T E : DR A W N B Y : KA N E P R O J E C T N O : DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : OF SH E E T PR E P A R E D A T T H E R E Q U E S T O F REVISIONS © 2 0 2 2 KA N E G e o T e c h , I n c . CH E C K E D B Y : So u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e 60 8 0 C e n t e r D r i v e Su i t e 6 0 0 Lo s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 4 5 (3 2 3 ) 3 3 1 - 9 2 2 2 Ha w a i ' i O f f i c e 14 4 1 K a p i o l a n i B o u l e v a r d Su i t e 1 1 1 5 Ho n o l u l u , H I 9 6 8 1 4 (8 0 8 ) 4 6 8 - 9 9 9 3 Ge o T e c h , I n c . Ge o e n g i n e e r i n g C o n s u l t a n t s No r t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e 74 0 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 6 St o c k t o n , C A 9 5 2 1 9 (2 0 9 ) 4 7 2 - 1 8 2 2 Te n n e s s e e O f f i c e 20 0 P r o s p e r i t y D r i v e Kn o x v i l l e , T N 3 7 9 2 3 (8 6 5 ) 2 4 8 - 3 5 0 1 ML C / P P WF K WF K 1" = 5 5 ' - 0 " 20 2 3 0 1 - 1 7 KG T 2 2 - 5 0 Co n i f e r C o u r t R o c k f a l l Ro c k f a l l M i t i g a t i o n Sa n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y , C a l i f o r n i a Ne w b r i d g e H o m e s 50 0 N e w p o r t C e n t e r D r i v e , S u i t e 5 7 0 Ne w p o r t B e a c h , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 6 0 X X N ROCKFALL MITIGATION - MATERIAL LEGEND ROCKFALL IMPACT BERM STA 0+00 -> STA 6+00 ROCKFALL CATCHMENT DITCH STA 0+00 -> STA 8+30 ROCKFALL IMPACT BERM HEIGHT: 8-FT (2H:1V) STA 6+00 -> STA 8+30 ROCKFALL IMPACT BERM HEIGHT: 6-FT (2H:1V) ROCKFALL CATCHMENT DITCH (2H:1V) DEPTH: 3-FT TOP WIDTH: 17-FT BOTTOM WIDTH: 5-FT END OF DOCUMENT KANE GeoTech, Inc. APPENDIX A BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand (SM): Gray brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains sub angular fine to coarse grained gravel. Granitic Bedrock Gray, dry, hard, crystalline bedrock. Refusal at 3.5 feet on hard bedrock. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings. 50 Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:B-1 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client:Newbridge Date:June 3, 2022 Drill Method:Truck Mounted Hollowstem Driving Weight:140 lbs Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 3.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand (SM): Brown, dry, loose, fine to medium grained, contains angular and sub angular fine- to coarse-grain gravels. Brown, damp, loose, fine to medium sand, micaceous. Brown to dark brown, damp, loose, fine- to medium-grain. Alluvium (Qal) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Brown, damp, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains sub angular fine- to coarse-grain gravel. Brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained, micaceous. Poorly Graded Sand (SP): Gray brown, damp, medium dense, fine- to medium-grain. Gray brown, damp, medium dense, fine- to coarse-grain, broken cobble lodged in tip of sampler. Contains sub rounded fine to coarse gravels. Gray, damp, dense, fine- to coarse-grain, contains 20 to 30 percent sub rounded fine to coarse gravel. Olive brown, damp, lose, fine-grain, contains 5 percent sub rounded fine gravel. No recovery (SPT). 5 7 7 5 5 6 5 5 7 7 7 8 6 9 19 10 14 22 20 33 43 4 5 7 27 36 38 9 Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:B-2 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:June 15, 2022 Drill Method:Truck Mounted Hollowstem Driving Weight:140lbs Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 116.12.6 3.7 109.2 3.0 109.5 4.3 115.3 3.0 109.5 1.8 115.3 1.6 2.5 127.7 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Silty Sand (SM): Gray to dark gray, damp, fine- to coarse-grain, very dense, contains 10 percent sub rounded fine to coarse gravels. Clayey Sand (SC): Brown to dark brown, damp to moist, very dense, fine- to coarse -grain, contains 10 to 20 percent fine to coarse sub rounded gravel. Dark gray to black, moist, very dense, fine- to coarse-grain, some visible water. Contains 10 to 20 percent sub angular fine to coarse grained gravel. Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) Light Gray, dry, hard, crystalline bedrock. Total depth 56.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings. 14 17 50/5" 22 25 45 50/5" 32 50/4" Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:B-2 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:June 15, 2022 Drill Method:Truck Mounted Hollowstem Driving Weight:140lbs Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 4.7 121.1 6.0 131.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand (SM): Brown to dark gray brown, dry, loose, fine- to medium- grain, porous,. Gray brown, damp, loose, micaceous. Alluvium (Qal) Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, dry to damp, medium dense, fine grained, micaceous. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Gray brown, damp, dense, fine- to coarse-grain, contains 10 percent sub rounded fine to coarse gravels and fine cobbles. very dense. Interbedded Sand and Silt (SM/ML): Olive gray, damp, medium dense to dense, interbedded silty fine sand and poorly graded fine to coarse sand that contains 10 percent fine to coarse sub rounded gravels. Poorly Graded Sand (SP): Gray, damp, very dense, fine -to coarse- grain, contains 5 to 10 percent sub rounded fine to coarse gravels. Total depth 26.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings. 4 5 6 4 8 12 17 25 20 29 43 46 15 18 23 13 24 50/5" 7 14 20 Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:B-3 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:June 15, 2022 Drill Method:Truck Mounted Hollowstem Driving Weight:140lbs Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 2.6 111.9 3.9 106.6 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand (SM): Gray brown, dry, fine- to medium- grain. Brown, damp, loose, fine- to medium-grain, Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) Gray to light gray, dry, hard, crystalline bedrock. Total depth 8.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings. 10 11 14 10 14 15 14 22 30 Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:B-4 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:June 15, 2022 Drill Method:Truck Mounted Hollowstem Driving Weight:140 lbs Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 8.4 109.4 3.6 119.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Topsoil Silty Sand and Gravel (SM/GM): Light gray brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains 10 to 15 percent angular fine to coarse gravels, cobbles, and boulders. Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) Dark gray, dry, crystalline bedrock, very hard. Refusal on rock at 2.0 feet. No caving. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings.. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-1 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Topsoil Silty Sand and Gravel (SM/GM): Gray brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains 30 to 40 percent gravels , cobbles, and boulders up to approximately 3 feet in largest diameter. Porous with rootlets. Fill lifts are inclined toward slope. Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) Dark gray, dry, crystalline bedrock, very hard. Refusal on rock at 3 feet. Caving from 0 to 3 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings.. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-2 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand and Gravel (SM/GM): Gray brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains 40 percent angular fine to coarse gravels, cobbles, and boulders up to 4 feet in largest diameter.. Practical refusal at 10.5 feet due to caving and large nested boulders at bottom of excavation. No groundwater or seepage. Caving conditions from 0 to 10.5 feet. Backfilled with cuttings.. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-3 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand and Gravel (SM/GM): Gray brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains 30 to 35 percent gravels cobbles and boulders up to 5 feet in largest dimension. Porous. layer of sandbags. damp. Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) Dark gray, dry, crystalline bedrock, very hard. Refusal on rock at 11.5 feet. Caving from 0 to 11 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings.. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-4 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:Br Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand and Gravel (SM/GM): Dark gray brown to gray brown, dry to damp, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains 25 to 35 percent angular fine to coarse grained gravels, cobbles, and boulders.. Alluvium (Qal) Poorly Graded Sand (SP): Dark gray, damp, fine to coarse grained, sub angular fine to coarse grained gravel. Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) Dark gray, dry, crystalline bedrock, very hard. Refusal on rock at 20.0 feet. Caving from 0 to 14 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-5 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand (SM/GM): Light gray brown to brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains 10 to 20 percent angular fine to coarse gravels, cobbles, and boulders up to approximately 3 feet in largest diameter.. Granitic Bedrock (Kgr) Dark gray, dry, crystalline bedrock, very hard. Refusal on rock at 3.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings.. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-6 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Light brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained, contains 15 to 20 percent angular fine to coarse grained gravels, cobbles, and boulders up to approximately 3 feet in largest diameter.. Gray brown. Pieces of steel and cable. damp. Refusal due to caving at 21.5 feet. Caving from 0 to 21.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-7 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Undocumented Fill (Afu) Silty Sand and Gravel (SM/GM): Gray brown, dry, loose, fine to coarse grained. 50 to 60 percent angular fine to coarse gravels, cobbles, and boulders. 40 percent angular fine to coarse gravels, cobbles, and boulders.. 50 to 60 percent angular fine to coarse gravels, cobbles and boulders. Refusal due to caving conditions and nested boulders at 11.5 feet. Caving from 0 to 11.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. Backfilled with cuttings. Project:Conifer Court Boring No.:T-8 Location:Fontana, California Elevation: Job No.:22-237 Client: Conifer Court LLC Date:May 26, 2022 Drill Method:John Deere 470 Excavator Driving Weight:N/A Logged By:BR Depth (Feet) Lith- ology Material Description W A T E R Blows per 6 in. Samples C o r e B u l k Moisture Content (%) Laboratory Tests Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Petra Geosciences, Inc.PLATE 9 4 8 9 4 9 9 5 0 9 5 1 9 5 2 9 5 3 9 5 4 9 5 5 9 5 6 9 5 6 947 94 5 EN T R Y / EXI T ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY/ EXIT Owner: CONIFER COURT 24 x 3 6 01-07-25 STAMP ARCHITECT: UCILLA ROUP RCHITECTURE RCHITECTUREA LANNINGP NTERIOR DESIGN I ISTORIC PRESERVATIONH EEDL ALUE ENGINEERINGV B U C I L L A G R O U P A R C H I T E C T U R E , I N C . h e r e b y expressly reserves its common law copywright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be copied, reproduced or changed in any f orm or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and co nse nt of BUCIL LA GROUP ARCH ITECTURE, INC. 1601 Dove Street, Suite 187, Newport Beach, Ca 92660 TEL 949. 851. 9080 info@bg-architecture.com https://www.bg-architecture.com Project : ATTEST TO ARCHITECTURAL ONLY Project Number : Sheet No. : Sheet Title : C 2025, BUCILLA GROUP ARCHITECTURE INC. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS DATENO.DESCRIPTION DD SUBM. DATE: PERMIT NO: PP SUBM. DATE: PLOT DATE: 082824 Prelim. Planning Submittal 09/05/24 (Planning Sub.) BGA No. 24020 08/28/24 (PRELIM.) SELF STORAGE FACILITY with ACCESSORY RV STORAGE 09/06/24 (Planning Sub.) BD SUBM. DATE: DD-1A SELF STORAGE - ENL. SITE KEYPLAN with Roof Plan (Bldg. 0, & 1 ~ 8) I. SITE KEYPLAN NTS SELF STORAGE SELF STORAGE - ENLARGED SITE KEYPLAN * with ROOF PLAN (BLDG. 0, & 1 ~ 8) SCALE : NTS AC UNIT SUMMARY *AC location: At the end of the building Bldg 5x10 Unit 101x10 Unit Total SF No AC Units 5 57 36 2850 sf 3600 sf 6450 sf 6 units 18"x 30" 6 47 31 2750 sf 3100 sf 5850 sf 6 units 18"x 30" 7 37 26 1850 sf 2600 sf 4450 sf 4 units 18"x 30" 8 13 14 650 sf 1400 sf 2050 sf 2 units 18"x 30" ST O . ST O . B-9.2 B-9.1 B-9.3 B-9.5 B-9.4 957 958 95 3 95 2 95 1 94 9 94 8 94 7 ENTRY/ EXIT Owner: CONIFER COURT 24 x 3 6 01-07-25 STAMP ARCHITECT: UCILLA ROUP RCHITECTURE RCHITECTUREA LANNINGP NTERIOR DESIGN I ISTORIC PRESERVATIONH EEDL ALUE ENGINEERINGV B U C I L L A G R O U P A R C H I T E C T U R E , I N C . h e r e b y expressly reserves its common law copywright and other property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be copied, reproduced or changed in any f orm or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without first obtaining the express written permission and co nse nt of BUCIL LA GROUP ARCH ITECTURE, INC. 1601 Dove Street, Suite 187, Newport Beach, Ca 92660 TEL 949. 851. 9080 info@bg-architecture.com https://www.bg-architecture.com Project : ATTEST TO ARCHITECTURAL ONLY Project Number : Sheet No. : Sheet Title : C 2025, BUCILLA GROUP ARCHITECTURE INC. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS DATENO.DESCRIPTION DD SUBM. DATE: PERMIT NO: PP SUBM. DATE: PLOT DATE: 082824 Prelim. Planning Submittal 09/05/24 (Planning Sub.) BGA No. 24020 08/28/24 (PRELIM.) SELF STORAGE FACILITY with ACCESSORY RV STORAGE 09/06/24 (Planning Sub.) BD SUBM. DATE: DD-9A II. RV STORAGE - ENL. SITE KEYPLAN with Roof Plan (Bldg. 9.1~9.5) RV STORAGE - ENLARGED SITE KEYPLAN * with ROOF PLAN (BLDG. 9.1 ~ 9.5) SCALE 1/16 " = 1'-0" SITE KEYPLAN NTS SELF STORAGE Civil Engineering - Land Surveying - Land Planning 16866 Seville Avenue Fontana, California 92335 ALLARD ENGINEERING Prepared By: PHONE (909) 356-1815 Fax (909) 356-1795 ea OFFSITE TRIBUTARY EXHIBIT 120 60 0 60 120 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 120 ft. GRAPHIC SCALE