HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix F - Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP Enclave)Preliminary
Water Quality Management Plan
For:
Tract 20690
THE ENCLAVE
CITY OF FONTANA
Prepared for:
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Ave.
Upland, Ca 91786
(909) 949-6716
Prepared by:
Engineering, Inc.
357 N. Sheridan Street, Suite 117
Corona, CA 92880
(951) 279-1800
JN: 325-1104
Submittal Date: Feb. 2024
Approval Date:_____________________
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Owner’s Certification
Project Owner’s Certification
This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Insert Owner/Developer Name by
K&A Engineering. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana, County
of San Bernardino and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of a WQMP.
The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the
provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date
conditions on the site consistent with San Bernardino County’s Municipal Storm Water Management
Program and the intent of the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San
Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the
property, its successors in interest and the city/county shall be notified of the transfer. The new owner will
be informed of its responsibility under this WQMP. A copy of the approved WQMP shall be available on
the subject site in perpetuity.
“I certify under a penalty of law that the provisions (implementation, operation, maintenance, and funding)
of the WQMP have been accepted and that the plan will be transferred to future successors.”
Project Data
Permit/Application
Number(s): Grading Permit Number(s):
Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): 20690 Building Permit Number(s):
CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract):
Owner’s Signature
Owner Name: Stacey Sassaman
Title Authorized Agent
Company Lewis Management Corp.
Address 1156 N. Mountain Ave., Upland, Ca 91786
Email stacey.sassaman@lewismc.com
Telephone # (909) 949-6716
Signature Date
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Contents
Preparer’s Certification
Project Data
Permit/Application
Number(s): Grading Permit Number(s):
Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): 20690 Building Permit Number(s):
CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract):
“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: Amir Fallahi, P.E. PE Stamp Below
Title Principal
Company K&A Engineering, Inc.
Address 357 N. Sheridan St, 117 Corona, CA 92880
Email AmirF@kaengineering.com
Telephone # 951-279-1800
Signature
Date
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Contents ii
Table of Contents
Section 1 Discretionary Permits ......................................................................................... 1-1
Section 2 Project Description ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Information ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Property Ownership / Management .............................................................. 2-2
2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants ................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Water Quality Credits ........ ……………………………………………………………………………. 2-4
Section 3 Site and Watershed Description ......................................................................... 3-1
Section 4 Best Management Practices ................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Source Control BMP ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Pollution Prevention ................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices ....................................................... 4-6
4.2 Project Performance Criteria......................................................................... 4-7
4.3 Project Conformance Analysis ....................................................................... 4-12
4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP .............................................. 4-14
4.3.2 Infiltration BMP .......................................................................................... 4-16
4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP .................................................................................. 4-18
4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP....................................................................................... 4.19
4.3.5 Conformance Summary ............................................................................... 4-23
4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP ............................................................... 4-24
4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable) ................................................. 4-25
Section 5 Inspection & Maintenance Responsibility Post Construction BMPs ................. 5-1
Section 6 Site Plan and Drainage Plan ................................................................................ 6-1
6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan.......................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Electronic Data Submittal ............................................................................. 6-1
Forms
Form 1-1 Project Information ............................................................................................... 1-1
Form 2.1-1 Description of Proposed Project ......................................................................... 2-1
Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management ..................................................................... 2-2
Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern ......................................................................................... 2-3
Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits ......................................................................................... 2-4
Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features ................................................................. 3-1
Form 3-2 Hydrologic Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-2
Form 3-3 Watershed Description .......................................................................................... 3-3
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMP ................................................................... 4-2
Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMP .......................................................................... 4-4
Form 4.1-3 Site Design Practices Checklist ........................................................................... 4-6
Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume ............................. 4-7
Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment .......................................................................... 4-8
Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume ............................................................... 4-9
Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration .................................................. 4-10
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Contents iii
Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff .................................................................... 4-11
Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility ................................................................................ 4-13
Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP ..................................................... 4-14
Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP ........................................................................................... 4-17
Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMP ......................................................................................... 4-18
Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP ................................................ 4-19
Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment – Bioretention and Planter Boxes w/Underdrains 4-20
Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment- Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention 4-21
Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment ................................................................................... 4-22
Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative Compliance Volume Estimate .......... 4-23
Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMP ..................................................................... 4-24
Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5-1
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Aerial with Boundary of Project Site
3. The Enclave WQMP/BMP Site Plan
4. Conceptual Grading Plan TTM 20690
5. Landuses, Hydrologic Soil Group, Receiving Waters, Precipitation
6. Soils Report
7. Attachment A - Pre-Approved LID BMP Factsheets
8. Attachment B - BMP Information Form for BMPs that are not Pre-Approved
9. Attachement C - Memorandum of Agreement
10. Attachement D - BMP Istallation and Inspection Schedule WQMP BMP Punch Card
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
1-1
Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s)
Form 1-1 Project Information
Project Name The Enclave
Project Owner Contact Name: Stacey Sassaman
Mailing
Address: 1156 N. Mountain Ave., Upland, Ca 91786 E-mail
Address:
stacey.sassaman@lewismc.
com Telephone: (909) 949-
6716
Permit/Application Number(s): Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): 20690
Additional Information/
Comments: This is a Preliminary WQMP
Description of Project:
The Enclave Development - Tract 20690 is approximately 12 acres and located on the
north side of Curtis Avenue between Catawba Avenue and Citrus Avenue in the City of
Fontana. The project site is surrounded by existing residential homes. Except for a modular
trailer located on the southwest corner, the existing site is a vacant field covered with native
grasses, weeds and shrubs that will be removed at the time grading and construction. There
is a chain link fence on the south and west sides of the project.
This development proposes 153 condominium style units with private alleys and a half-
acre park along with small landscape areas and parkways adjacent to buildings and drive
aisles that is to be maintained by the future Home Owner Association (HOA). All storm drain
on site will be private facilities.
The project proposes the use of Contech Underground Detention systems as well as
Maxwell Infiltration dry wells to for water quality and mitigation before joining the public
storm drain. The proposed project drainage will connect to an existing 54” storm drain line
located within Curtis Avenue.
Provide summary of Conceptual
WQMP conditions (if previously
submitted and approved). Attach
complete copy.
The Enclave has been designed with Low Impact Development water quality design
principles into the project for retention and infiltration of daily nuisance flows and 85th
percentile storm event after the project is constructed and homes are occupied.
This project will address Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP and on-lot infiltration
BMPs. The site will drain indirectly to the on-site structural treatment control BMPs
composed of underground detention storage as well as Maxwell Infiltration Dry Well units.
All DCV will be treated, and no Alternative Compliance Plan is required.
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): 522,720 SF 3 Number of Dwelling Units: 153 4 SIC Code: N/A
5 Is Project going to be phased? Yes No If yes, ensure that the WQMP evaluates each phase as a distinct DA, requiring LID
BMPs to address runoff at time of completion.
6 Does Project include roads? Yes No If yes, ensure that applicable requirements for transportation projects are addressed (see
Appendix A of TGD for WQMP)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2-2
2.2 Property Ownership/Management
Describe the ownership/management of all portions of the project and site. State whether any infrastructure
will transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caltrans, etc.) after project completion. State if a homeowners or
property owners association will be formed and be responsible for the long-term maintenance of project
stormwater facilities. Describe any lot-level stormwater features that will be the responsibility of individual
property owners.
Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management
Describe property ownership/management responsible for long-term maintenance of WQMP stormwater facilities:
The Enclave development is a project that is proposing 153 condominium style units with private alleys and a half-
acre park.
A master Home Owners Association (HOA) will be formed for this new community to maintain common area, alleys
private driveways, etc. and proposed Maxell Infiltration Dry Wells with Underground Detentin for Water Quality
Treatment Control.
Property owner/Developer for The Enclave - Tract Map 20690 is:
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Ave.
Upland, Ca 91786
(909) 949-6716
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2-3
2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants
Determine and describe expected stormwater pollutants of concern based on land uses and site activities (refer
to Table 3-3 in the TGD for WQMP).
Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Please check:
E=Expected, N=Not
Expected
Additional Information and Comments
Pathogens (Bacterial / Virus) E N Source - Paved surfaces and landscaping runoff
Nutrients - Phosphorous E N Source - Landscape areas
Nutrients - Nitrogen E N Source - Landscape areas
Noxious Aquatic Plants E N N/A
Sediment E N Source - Landscape area erosion and asphalt degradation - different
than sediment
Metals E N Source - Aluminum, cadium, copper, lead, zinc and nickel
Source - Public roads and driveways
Oil and Grease E N Hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Source - Public roads and driveways
Trash/Debris E N Source - Roadways and landscaped areas
Pesticides / Herbicides E N Source - Landscaped areas runoff
Organic Compounds E N Source - Roadways
Other: Total suspended solids E N Source - Pavement and Landscaping
Other: E N
Other: E N
Other: E N
Other: E N
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2-4
2.4 Water Quality Credits
A water quality credit program is applicable for certain types of development projects if it is not feasible to meet
the requirements for on-site LID. Proponents for eligible projects, as described below, can apply for water
quality credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMP or
participating in other alternative compliance programs. Refer to Section 6.2 in the TGD for WQMP to
determine if water quality credits are applicable for the project.
Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits
1 Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits: Select all that apply
Redevelopment projects that
reduce the overall impervious
footprint of the project site.
[Credit = % impervious reduced]
Higher density
development projects
Vertical density [20%]
7 units/ acre [5%]
Mixed use development,
(combination of residential,
commercial, industrial, office,
institutional, or other land uses
which incorporate design principles
that demonstrate environmental
benefits not realized through single
use projects) [20%]
Brownfield
redevelopment
(redevelop real property
complicated by presence
or potential of hazardous
contaminants) [25%]
Redevelopment projects in
established historic district,
historic preservation area, or
similar significant core city center
areas [10%]
Transit-oriented
developments (mixed use
residential or commercial
area designed to maximize
access to public
transportation) [20%]
In-fill projects (conversion of
empty lots & other underused
spaces < 5 acres, substantially
surrounded by urban land uses, into
more beneficially used spaces, such
as residential or commercial areas)
[10%]
Live-Work
developments (variety of
developments designed
to support residential and
vocational needs) [20%]
2 Total Credit % (Total all credit percentages up to a maximum allowable credit of 50 percent)
Description of Water Quality
Credit Eligibility (if applicable)
The Enclave meets the requirements for on-site LID so Water Quality Credits do not need to be
considered.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3-1
Section 3 Site and Watershed Description
Describe the project site conditions that will facilitate the selection of BMP through an analysis of the physical
conditions and limitations of the site and its receiving waters. Identify distinct drainage areas (DA) that collect
flow from a portion of the site and describe how runoff from each DA (and sub-watershed DMAs) is conveyed
to the site outlet(s). Refer to Section 3.2 in the TGD for WQMP. The form below is provided as an example.
Then complete Forms 3.2 and 3.3 for each DA on the project site. If the project has more than one
drainage area for stormwater management, then complete additional versions of
these forms for each DA / outlet.
Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features
Site coordinates take GPS
measurement at approximate
center of site
Latitude 34.1442 Longitude -117.4565 Thomas Bros Map page
1 San Bernardino County climatic region: Valley Mountain
2 Does the site have more than one drainage area (DA): Yes No If no, proceed to Form 3-2. If yes, then use this form to show a
conceptual schematic describing DMAs and hydrologic feature connecting DMAs to the site outlet(s). An example is provided below that can be
modified for proposed project or a drawing clearly showing DMA and flow routing may be attached
Example only – modify for project specific WQMP using additional form
Conveyance Briefly describe on-site drainage features to convey runoff that is not retained within a DMA
DA1 DMA C flows to
DA1 DMA A
Ex. Bioretention overflow to vegetated bioswale with 4’ bottom width, 5:1 side slopes and bed slope of 0.01. Conveys
runoff for 1000’ through DMA 1 to existing catch basin on SE corner of property
DA1 DMA A to Outlet 1
DA1 DMA B to Outlet 1
DA2 to Outlet 2
Outlet 1
DA1 DMA A
DA1 DMA C
DA 1 DMA B
Outlet 2
DA2
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3-2
Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Area 1
For Drainage Area 1’s sub-watershed DMA,
provide the following characteristics DMA A
1 DMA drainage area (ft2) 522,720 sf
2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 0
3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert
areas, use
http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2
0100412_map.pdf
2
4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed
Mapping Tool –
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/
A
5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 1,795 ft
6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) 0.0179
7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3
of Hydrology Manual Natural - Barren
8 Pre-developed pervious area condition:
Based on the extent of wet season vegetated cover
good >75%; Fair 50-75%; Poor <50% Attach photos
of site to support rating
Fair
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3-3
Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Area 1
(use only as needed for additional DMA w/in DA 1)
For Drainage Area 1’s sub-watershed DMA,
provide the following characteristics
1 DMA drainage area (ft2) N/A
2 Existing site impervious area (ft2)
3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert
areas, use
http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2
0100412_map.pdf
4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed
Mapping Tool –
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/
5 Longest flowpath length (ft)
6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft)
7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3
of Hydrology Manual
8 Pre-developed pervious area condition:
Based on the extent of wet season vegetated cover
good >75%; Fair 50-75%; Poor <50% Attach photos
of site to support rating
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3-4
Form 3-3 Watershed Description for Drainage Area
Receiving waters
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool -
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/
See ‘Drainage Facilities” link at this website
Highland Channel, Etiwanda Creek Channel (north of Foothill Blvd.),
Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel, Santa Ana River Reach 3, Prado Basin,
Santana River Reach 2, Santana Ana Reach 1, Pacific Ocean
Applicable TMDLs
Refer to Local Implementation Plan
Satana Ana Reach 3 - Nitrate & Pathogens
Prado Dam (Prado Park Lake) - Pathogens
303(d) listed impairments
Refer to Local Implementation Plan and Watershed
Mapping Tool –
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ and State
Water Resources Control Board website –
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_iss
ues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml
Pathogens, Copper, Lead, Nutrients, Indicator Bacteria
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool –
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/
Unlined Downstream Water Bodies
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool –
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/
Mill Creek (Prado Area)
Santa Ana River - Reach 3
Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
Yes Complete Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Assessment. Include Forms
4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 and Hydromodification BMP Form 4.3-10 in submittal
No
Watershed–based BMP included in a RWQCB
approved WAP
Yes Attach verification of regional BMP evaluation criteria in WAP
• More Effective than On-site LID
• Remaining Capacity for Project DCV
• Upstream of any Water of the US
• Operational at Project Completion
• Long-Term Maintenance Plan
No
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-1
Section 4 Best Management Practices (BMP)
4.1 Source Control BMP
4.1.1 Pollution Prevention
Non-structural and structural source control BMP are required to be incorporated into all new development
and significant redevelopment projects. Form 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 are used to describe specific source control BMPs
used in the WQMP or to explain why a certain BMP is not applicable. Table 7-3 of the TGD for WQMP provides
a list of applicable source control BMP for projects with specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities.
The source control BMP in this table must be implemented for projects with these specific types of potential
pollutant sources or activities.
The preparers of this WQMP have reviewed the source control BMP requirements for new development and
significant redevelopment projects. The preparers have also reviewed the specific BMP required for project as
specified in Forms 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. All applicable non-structural and structural source control BMP shall be
implemented in the project.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-2
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
if not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
N1 Education of Property Owners, Tenants
and Occupants on Stormwater BMPs
The homebuilder will provide the Educational materials included in Section 6.4 to first-
time home-owners. HOA staff members shall also be familiar with the education
materials and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm drain system.
N2 Activity Restrictions Encourage homeowners, with flyers, against washing vehicles and other equipment in
the street areas and proper disposal of household waste. Provided by Builder to first
homebuyer
N3 Landscape Management BMPs The HOA and their maintenance contractor shall regularly clean and remove landscape
waste and litter and prevent discharges of mowing, trimmings, cuttings, fertilizers and
pesticides into the storm drain from common landscape areas.
N4 BMP Maintenance The HOA and their maintenance contractor shall maintain structural BMPs as needed.
See section 5, form 5.1 for BMP maintenance.
N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance
(How development will comply)
No hazardous waste management will be handled within project site.
N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances Homeowners and the HOA shall be responsible for comlying with City of Fontana
Municipal Code.
N7 Spill Contingency Plan HOA shall prohibit the storage of hazardous compounds within project in quantities
requiring a Spill Contingency Plan.
N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance
N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure
Compliance
No hazardous materials or waste will not be handled or stored within project site.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-3
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
if not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation Flammable, corrosive or reactive materials are prohibited to be handled, stored or used
on this project site.
N11 Litter/Debris Control Program Landscape maintenace crews shall regularly clean and remove landscape waste and
litter from common areas. Maintenance crews should note and report trash disposal
violations to HOA for investigation.
N12 Employee Training Educational materials and training will be provided to HOA maintenance staff members
including education material and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the
sstorm drain system.
N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks No loading docks within project.
N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program HOA maintenance staff members to regularly maintain stormwater inlets and
conveyance structures to remove pollutants, prevent cloggingand ensure the system
functions hydaulically.
N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and
Parking Lots
Vacuuming and sweeping of private streets and parking spaces to be done regularly to
prevent or reduce discharge of pollutants.
N16 Other Non-structural Measures for Public
Agency Projects
Privately owned project.
N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES
permits
During construction, the homebuilder (developer) will apply for coverage under the
California General Construction NPDES permit and obtain a WDID# and comply with all
General Stormwater Permit requirements as necessary.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-4
Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
If not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
S1 Provide storm drain system stencilling and signage
(CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-13)
Stencilling and signage will be placed and maintained legible at all inlets to warn
public of prohibitions against waste and illegal dumping.
S2
Design and construct outdoor material storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA
New Development BMP Handbook SD-34)
No outdoor material storage areas are existing within project.
S3
Design and construct trash and waste storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA
New Development BMP Handbook SD-32)
Covered trash enclosures will be provided.
S4
Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape
design, water conservation, smart controllers, and
source control (Statewide Model Landscape
Ordinance; CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-12)
The irrigation system for common landscape areas will include devices to prevent
low head drainage, overspray and runoff through the use of pressure regulating
devices, check valves, flow sensors, proper spacing and ET or weather based
controllers. Recycled water shall be used to irrigate parks and parkways. Employ
rain-trigger shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation. Design
irrigation system to each landscape area's specific water requirements.
S5
Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of
1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or
pavement
All landscaped areas within project shall be finish graded at 1"-2" below pavement
grade, adjacent to paved areas.
S6
Protect slopes and channels and provide energy
dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-10)
No slopes or earthen chnnels within project.
S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development
BMP Handbook SD-31)
No covered dock areas within the project site.
S8
Covered maintenance bays with spill containment
plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook
SD-31)
No maintenance bays included within project site.
S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans
(CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33)
No vehicle wash areas within the project site.
S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD-36)
No outdoor processing areas within the project site.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-5
Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
If not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
S11
Equipment wash areas with spill containment
plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook
SD-33)
No equipment wash areas within the project site.
S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-30)
No fueling areas within the project site.
S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development
BMP Handbook SD-10)
No hillside landscaping within the project site.
S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas No wash water control for food preparation areas within the project site.
S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD-33)
No community car wash racks within project site.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-6
4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices
Site design practices associated with new LID requirements in the MS4 Permit should be considered in the earliest
phases of a project. Preventative site design practices can result in smaller DCV for LID BMP and hydromodification
control BMP by reducing runoff generation. Describe site design and drainage plan including:
Refer to Section 5.2 of the TGD for WQMP for more details.
Form 4.1-3 Preventative LID Site Design Practices Checklist
Site Design Practices
If yes, explain how preventative site design practice is addressed in project site plan. If no, other LID BMPs must be selected to meet targets
Minimize impervious areas: Yes No
Explanation: Landscaped areas, a park and a drywell will be within project.
Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No
Explanation: Runoff from impervious surfaces will be conveyed through depressed landscape areas which provide ponding and
promote infiltration/evapotranspiration. There will be a park and other landscaped areas as well.
Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No
Explanation: Where practicable, the project is flowing southwest simialr to exisiting drainge patterns.
Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No
Explanation: All roof downspouts directed into storm drain.
Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No
Explanation: There is no environmentally sensitive or significant native vegeation.
Re-vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No
Explanation: All unpaved or non-building foundation areas will be landscaped by developer.
Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No
Explanation: The proposed project incorporates depressed landscaping which provides ponding areas and promotes
infiltration/evapotranspiration.
Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No
Explanation: Encourage builder to provide vegetated drainage swales within landscaped areas to be maintained by home
owner assosiation.
Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction: Yes No
Explanation: Proposed landscape areas to be staked off to minimize compaction.
A narrative of site design practices utilized or rationale for not using practices
A narrative of how site plan incorporates preventive site design practices
Include an attached Site Plan layout which shows how preventative site design practices are included in
WQMP
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-7
4.2 Project Performance Criteria
The purpose of this section of the Project WQMP is to establish targets for post-development hydrology based on
performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control
(referred to as LID design capture volume), and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for
protection of any downstream waterbody segments with a HCOC. If the project has more than one
outlet for stormwater runoff, then complete additional versions of these forms for each
DA / outlet.
Methods applied in the following forms include:
For LID BMP Design Capture Volume (DCV), the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires use of
the P6 method (MS4 Permit Section XI.D.6a.ii) – Form 4.2-1
For HCOC pre- and post-development hydrologic calculation, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program
requires the use of the Rational Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section D). Forms 4.2-2
through Form 4.2-5 calculate hydrologic variables including runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak
runoff from the project site pre- and post-development using the Hydrology Manual Rational Method approach.
For projects greater than 640 acres (1.0 mi2), the Rational Method and these forms should not be used. For such
projects, the Unit Hydrograph Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section E) shall be applied
for hydrologic calculations for HCOC performance criteria.
Refer to Section 4 in the TGD for WQMP for detailed guidance and instructions.
Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume
(DA 1)
1 Project area DA 1 (ft2):
522,720 sf
2 Imperviousness after applying preventative
site design practices (Imp%): 63
3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): _0.43
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): 0.712 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html
5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 1.05
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): 38,996 cf
DCV = 1/12 * [Item 1* Item 3 *Item 5 * C2], where C2 is a function of drawdown rate (24-hr = 1.582; 48-hr = 1.963)
Compute separate DCV for each outlet from the project site per schematic drawn in Form 3-1 Item 2
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-8
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-9
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-10
4.2-2 HCOC ASSESSMENT
Based upon the City of Fontana Water Quality Management Plan Handbook August 2021, page 7 Figure
2-2 The Enclave Development project is located in an area that is HCOC Exempt. Therefore, The
Enclave does not potentially contribute to hydromodifications impacts in downstream waterways and
hydromodification impacts do not need to be considered further.
See figure below.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-12
Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment (DA 1)
Does project have the potential to cause or contribute to an HCOC in a downstream channel: Yes No
Go to: http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/
If “Yes”, then complete HCOC assessment of site hydrology for 2yr storm event using Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 and insert results below
(Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 may be replaced by computer software analysis based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual)
If “No,” then proceed to Section 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis
Condition Runoff Volume (ft3) Time of Concentration (min) Peak Runoff (cfs)
Pre-developed
1
Form 4.2-3 Item 12
2
Form 4.2-4 Item 13
3
Form 4.2-5 Item 10
Post-developed
4
Form 4.2-3 Item 13
5
Form 4.2-4 Item 14
6
Form 4.2-5 Item 14
Difference
7
Item 4 – Item 1
8
Item 2 – Item 5
9
Item 6 – Item 3
Difference
(as % of pre-developed)
10 %
Item 7 / Item 1
11 %
Item 8 / Item 2
12 %
Item 9 / Item 3
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-13
Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume (DA 1)
Weighted Curve Number
Determination for:
Pre-developed DA
DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H
1a Land Cover type N/A
2a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
3a DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of
DMA should equal area of DA
4a Curve Number (CN) use Items
1 and 2 to select the appropriate CN
from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for
WQMP
Weighted Curve Number
Determination for:
Post-developed DA
DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H
1b Land Cover type
2b Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
3b DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of
DMA should equal area of DA
4b Curve Number (CN) use Items
5 and 6 to select the appropriate CN
from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for
WQMP
5 Pre-Developed area-weighted CN: 7 Pre-developed soil storage capacity, S (in):
S = (1000 / Item 5) - 10
9 Initial abstraction, Ia (in):
Ia = 0.2 * Item 7
6 Post-Developed area-weighted CN: 8 Post-developed soil storage capacity, S (in):
S = (1000 / Item 6) - 10
10 Initial abstraction, Ia (in):
Ia = 0.2 * Item 8
11 Precipitation for 2 yr, 24 hr storm (in):
Go to: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html
12 Pre-developed Volume (ft3):
Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 9)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 9 + Item 7)
13 Post-developed Volume (ft3):
Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 10)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 10 + Item 8)
14 Volume Reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement, (ft3):
VHCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 12
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-14
Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration (DA 1)
Compute time of concentration for pre and post developed conditions for each DA (For projects using the Hydrology Manual complete the
form below)
Variables
Pre-developed DA1
Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA
Post-developed DA1
Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA
DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D
1 Length of flowpath (ft) Use Form 3-2
Item 5 for pre-developed condition
N/A
2 Change in elevation (ft)
3 Slope (ft/ft), So = Item 2 / Item 1
4 Land cover
5 Initial DMA Time of Concentration
(min) Appendix C-1 of the TGD for WQMP
6 Length of conveyance from DMA
outlet to project site outlet (ft)
May be zero if DMA outlet is at project
site outlet
7 Cross-sectional area of channel (ft2)
8 Wetted perimeter of channel (ft)
9 Manning’s roughness of channel (n)
10 Channel flow velocity (ft/sec)
Vfps = (1.49 / Item 9) * (Item 7/Item 8)^0.67
* (Item 3)^0.5
11 Travel time to outlet (min)
Tt = Item 6 / (Item 10 * 60)
12 Total time of concentration (min)
Tc = Item 5 + Item 11
13 Pre-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 pre-developed DMA
14 Post-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 post-developed DMA
15 Additional time of concentration needed to meet HCOC requirement (min): TC-HCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 14
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-15
Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff (DA 1)
Compute peak runoff for pre- and post-developed conditions
Variables
Pre-developed DA to Project
Outlet (Use additional forms if
more than 3 DMA)
Post-developed DA to Project
Outlet (Use additional forms if
more than 3 DMA)
DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA A DMA B DMA C
1 Rainfall Intensity for storm duration equal to time of concentration
Ipeak = 10^(LOG Form 4.2-1 Item 4 - 0.6 LOG Form 4.2-4 Item 5 /60)
N/A
2 Drainage Area of each DMA (Acres)
For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example
schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C)
3 Ratio of pervious area to total area
For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example
schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C)
4 Pervious area infiltration rate (in/hr)
Use pervious area CN and antecedent moisture condition with Appendix C-3 of the TGD
for WQMP
5 Maximum loss rate (in/hr)
Fm = Item 3 * Item 4
Use area-weighted Fm from DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream
DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C)
6 Peak Flow from DMA (cfs)
Qp =Item 2 * 0.9 * (Item 1 - Item 5)
7 Time of concentration adjustment factor for other DMA to
site discharge point
Form 4.2-4 Item 12 DMA / Other DMA upstream of site discharge
point (If ratio is greater than 1.0, then use maximum value of 1.0)
DMA A n/a n/a
DMA B n/a n/a
DMA C n/a n/a
8 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A:
Qp = Item 6DMAA + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAA - Item
5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAA/2] +
[Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC -
Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAA/3]
9 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B:
Qp = Item 6DMAB + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAB - Item
5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAB/1] +
[Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC -
Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAB/3]
10 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C:
Qp = Item 6DMAC + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAC - Item
5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAC/1] +
[Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB
- Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAC/2]
10 Peak runoff from pre-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 8, 9, and 10 (including additional forms as needed)
11 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A:
Same as Item 8 for post-developed values
12 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B:
Same as Item 9 for post-developed values
13 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C:
Same as Item 10 for post-developed
values
14 Peak runoff from post-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 11, 12, and 13 (including additional forms as
needed)
15 Peak runoff reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement (cfs): Qp-HCOC = (Item 14 * 0.95) – Item 10
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-16
4.3 Project Conformance Analysis
Complete the following forms for each project site DA to document that the proposed LID BMPs conform to the
project DCV developed to meet performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit (WQMP Template Section
4.2). For the LID DCV, the forms are ordered according to hierarchy of BMP selection as required by the MS4
Permit (see Section 5.3.1 in the TGD for WQMP). The forms compute the following for on-site LID BMP:
Site Design and Hydrologic Source Controls (Form 4.3-2)
Retention and Infiltration (Form 4.3-3)
Harvested and Use (Form 4.3-4) or
Biotreatment (Form 4.3-5).
At the end of each form, additional fields facilitate the determination of the extent of mitigation provided by
the specific BMP category, allowing for use of the next category of BMP in the hierarchy, if necessary.
The first step in the analysis, using Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP, is to complete Forms 4.3-1 and 4.3-3)
to determine if retention and infiltration BMPs are infeasible for the project. For each feasibility criterion in
Form 4.3-1, if the answer is “Yes,” provide all study findings that includes relevant calculations, maps, data
sources, etc. used to make the determination of infeasibility.
Next, complete Forms 4.3-2 and 4.3-4 to determine the feasibility of applicable HSC and harvest and use BMPs,
and, if their implementation is feasible, the extent of mitigation of the DCV.
If no site constraints exist that would limit the type of BMP to be implemented in a DA, evaluate the use of
combinations of LID BMPs, including all applicable HSC BMPs to maximize on-site retention of the DCV. If no
combination of BMP can mitigate the entire DCV, implement the single BMP type, or combination of BMP
types, that maximizes on-site retention of the DCV within the minimum effective area.
If the combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs are unable to mitigate the
entire DCV, then biotreatment BMPs may be implemented by the project proponent. If biotreatment BMPs are
used, then they must be sized to provide sufficient capacity for effective treatment of the remainder of the
volume-based performance criteria that cannot be achieved with LID BMPs (TGD for WQMP Section 5.4.4.2).
Under no circumstances shall any portion of the DCV be released from the site without effective
mitigation and/or treatment.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-17
Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility (DA 1)
Feasibility Criterion – Complete evaluation for each DA on the Project Site
1 Would infiltration BMP pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Yes No
Refer to Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
2 Would installation of infiltration BMP significantly increase the risk of geotechnical hazards? Yes No
(Yes, if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert):
The location is less than 50 feet away from slopes steeper than 15 percent
The location is less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback.
A study certified by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study determines that stormwater infiltration
would result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards.
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
3 Would infiltration of runoff on a Project site violate downstream water rights? Yes No
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on hydrologic soil group (HSG) D soils or does the site geotechnical investigation indicate
presence of soil characteristics, which support categorization as D soils? Yes No
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
5 Is the design infiltration rate, after accounting for safety factor of 2.0, below proposed facility less than 0.3 in/hr (accounting for
soil amendments)? Yes No
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
6 Would on-site infiltration or reduction of runoff over pre-developed conditions be partially or fully inconsistent with watershed
management strategies as defined in the WAP, or impair beneficial uses? Yes No
See Section 3.5 of the TGD for WQMP and WAP
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
7 Any answer from Item 1 through Item 3 is “Yes”: Yes No
If yes, infiltration of any volume is not feasible onsite. Proceed to Form 4.3-4, Harvest and Use BMP. If no, then proceed to Item 8
below.
8 Any answer from Item 4 through Item 6 is “Yes”: Yes No
If yes, infiltration is permissible but is not required to be considered. Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP.
If no, then proceed to Item 9, below.
9 All answers to Item 1 through Item 6 are “No”:
Infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, LID infiltration BMP must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the MEP.
Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-18
4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP
Section XI.E. of the Permit emphasizes the use of LID preventative measures; and the use of LID HSC BMPs
reduces the portion of the DCV that must be addressed in downstream BMPs. Therefore, all applicable HSC
shall be provided except where they are mutually exclusive with each other, or with other BMPs. Mutual
exclusivity may result from overlapping BMP footprints such that either would be potentially feasible by itself,
but both could not be implemented. Please note that while there are no numeric standards regarding the use of
HSC, if a project cannot feasibly meet BMP sizing requirements or cannot fully address HCOCs, feasibility of all
applicable HSC must be part of demonstrating that the BMP system has been designed to retain the maximum
feasible portion of the DCV. Complete Form 4.3-2 to identify and calculate estimated retention volume from
implementing site design HSC BMP. Refer to Section 5.4.1 in the TGD for more detailed guidance.
Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1)
1 Implementation of Impervious Area Dispersion BMP (i.e.
routing runoff from impervious to pervious areas), excluding
impervious areas planned for routing to on-lot infiltration
BMP: Yes No If yes, complete Items 2-5; If no,
proceed to Item 6
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
2 Total impervious area draining to pervious area (ft2)
3 Ratio of pervious area receiving runoff to impervious area
4 Retention volume achieved from impervious area
dispersion (ft3) V = Item2 * Item 3 * (0.5/12), assuming retention
of 0.5 inches of runoff
5 Sum of retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 4 for all BMPs
6 Implementation of Localized On-lot Infiltration BMPs (e.g.
on-lot rain gardens): Yes No If yes, complete Items 7-
13 for aggregate of all on-lot infiltration BMP in each DA; If no,
proceed to Item 14
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
7 Ponding surface area (ft2)
8 Ponding depth (ft)
9 Surface area of amended soil/gravel (ft2)
10 Average depth of amended soil/gravel (ft)
11 Average porosity of amended soil/gravel
12 Retention volume achieved from on-lot infiltration (ft3)
Vretention = (Item 7 *Item 8) + (Item 9 * Item 10 * Item 11)
13 Runoff volume retention from on-lot infiltration (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-19
Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1)
Form 4.3-2 cont. Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1)
14 Implementation of evapotranspiration BMP (green,
brown, or blue roofs): Yes No
If yes, complete Items 15-20. If no, proceed to Item 21
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
15 Rooftop area planned for ET BMP (ft2)
16 Average wet season ET demand (in/day)
Use local values, typical ~ 0.1
17 Daily ET demand (ft3/day)
Item 15 * (Item 16 / 12)
18 Drawdown time (hrs)
Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1
19 Retention Volume (ft3)
Vretention = Item 17 * (Item 18 / 24)
20 Runoff volume retention from evapotranspiration BMPs (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 19 for all BMPs
21 Implementation of Street Trees: Yes No
If yes, complete Items 22-25. If no, proceed to Item 26
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
22 Number of Street Trees
23 Average canopy cover over impervious area (ft2) N/A
24 Runoff volume retention from street trees (ft3)
Vretention = Item 22 * Item 23 * (0.05/12) assume runoff retention of
0.05 inches
25 Runoff volume retention from street tree BMPs (ft3): Vretention = Sum of Item 24 for all BMPs
26 Implementation of residential rain barrel/cisterns: Yes
No If yes, complete Items 27-29; If no, proceed to Item 30
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
27 Number of rain barrels/cisterns
28 Runoff volume retention from rain barrels/cisterns (ft3)
Vretention = Item 27 * 3
29 Runoff volume retention from residential rain barrels/Cisterns (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 28 for all BMPs
30 Total Retention Volume from Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs: Sum of Items 5, 13, 20, 25 and 29
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-20
4.3.2 Infiltration BMPs
Use Form 4.3-3 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed retention and infiltration BMPs. Volume
retention estimates are sensitive to the percolation rate used, which determines the amount of runoff that can
be infiltrated within the specified drawdown time. The infiltration safety factor reduces field measured
percolation to account for potential inaccuracy associated with field measurements, declining BMP
performance over time, and compaction during construction. Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP provides
guidance on estimating an appropriate safety factor to use in Form 4.3-3.
If site constraints limit the use of BMPs to a single type and implementation of retention and infiltration BMPs
mitigate no more than 40% of the DCV, then they are considered infeasible and the Project Proponent may
evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs lower in the LID hierarchy of use (Section 5.5.1 of the TGD for WQMP)
If implementation of infiltrations BMPs is feasible as determined using Form 4.3-1, then LID infiltration BMPs
shall be implemented to the MEP (section 4.1 of the TGD for WQMP).
.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-21
Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP - including underground BMPs (DA 1)
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30
BMP Type Use columns to the right to compute runoff volume retention
from proposed infiltration BMP (select BMP from Table 5-4 in TGD for
WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs
DA DMA
BMP Type Drywell
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
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
22.8
3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 3.13
4 Design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 7.27
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
N/A
7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 N/A
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
1,434 SF
9 Amended soil depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types,
see Table 5-4 in the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
N/A
10 Amended soil porosity N/A
11 Gravel depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see
Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details
45 FT
12 Gravel porosity .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))]
0
15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3) Volume determined using
manufacturer’s specifications and calculations
39,000 CF
16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: 39,000 CF (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan)
17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 100%% Retention% = Item 16 / Form 4.2-1 Item 7
18 Is full LID DCV retained onsite with combination of hydrologic source control and LID retention/infiltration BMPs? Yes No
If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10; If no, then reduce Item 3, Factor of Safety to 2.0 and increase Item 8, Infiltrating Surface Area, such that
the portion of the site area used for retention and infiltration BMPs equals or exceeds the minimum effective area thresholds (Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP)
for the applicable category of development and repeat all above calculations.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-22
4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP
Harvest and use BMP may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing infiltration BMPs.
Use Form 4.3-4 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed harvest and use BMPs.
Volume retention estimates for harvest and use BMPs are sensitive to the on-site demand for captured
stormwater. Since irrigation water demand is low in the wet season, when most rainfall events occur in San
Bernardino County, the volume of water that can be used within a specified drawdown period is relatively low.
The bottom portion of Form 4.3-4 facilitates the necessary computations to show infeasibility if a minimum
incremental benefit of 40 percent of the LID DCV would not be achievable with MEP implementation of on-site
harvest and use of stormwater (Section 5.5.4 of the TGD for WQMP).
Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMPs (DA 1)
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC or infiltration BMP (ft3): N/A
Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16
BMP Type(s) Compute runoff volume retention from proposed
harvest and use BMP (Select BMPs from Table 5-4 of the TGD for
WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
2 Describe cistern or runoff detention facility
3 Storage volume for proposed detention type (ft3) Volume of
cistern
4 Landscaped area planned for use of harvested stormwater
(ft2)
5 Average wet season daily irrigation demand (in/day)
Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 in/day
6 Daily water demand (ft3/day) Item 4 * (Item 5 / 12)
7 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1
8Retention Volume (ft3)
Vretention = Minimum of (Item 3) or (Item 6 * (Item 7 / 24))
9 Total Retention Volume (ft3) from Harvest and Use BMP Sum of Item 8 for all harvest and use BMP included in plan
10 Is the full DCV retained with a combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest & use BMPs? Yes No
If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10. If no, then re-evaluate combinations of all LID BMP and optimize their implementation
such that the maximum portion of the DCV is retained on-site (using a single BMP type or combination of BMP types). If the full DCV cannot
be mitigated after this optimization process, proceed to Section 4.3.4.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-23
4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP
Biotreatment BMPs may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing retention and
infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs. A key consideration when using biotreatment BMP is the effectiveness
of the proposed BMP in addressing the pollutants of concern for the project (see Table 5-5 of the TGD for
WQMP).
Use Form 4.3-5 to summarize the potential for volume based and/or flow based biotreatment options to
biotreat the remaining unmet LID DCV w. Biotreatment computations are included as follows:
Use Form 4.3-6 to compute biotreatment in small volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioretention w/underdrains);
Use Form 4.3-7 to compute biotreatment in large volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. constructed wetlands);
Use Form 4.3-8 to compute sizing criteria for flow-based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioswales)
Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP (DA 1)
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC,
infiltration, or harvest and use BMP for potential
biotreatment (ft3): Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2
Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16- Form 4.3-4 Item 9
List pollutants of concern Copy from Form 2.3-1.
2 Biotreatment BMP Selected
(Select biotreatment BMP(s)
necessary to ensure all pollutants of
concern are addressed through Unit
Operations and Processes, described
in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP)
Volume-based biotreatment
Use Forms 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 to compute treated volume
Flow-based biotreatment
Use Form 4.3-8 to compute treated volume
Bioretention with underdrain
Planter box with underdrain
Constructed wetlands
Wet extended detention
Dry extended detention
Vegetated swale
Vegetated filter strip
Proprietary biotreatment
3 Volume biotreated in volume based
biotreatment BMP (ft3): Form 4.3-
6 Item 15 + Form 4.3-7 Item 13
4 Compute remaining LID DCV with
implementation of volume based biotreatment
BMP (ft3): Item 1 – Item 3
5 Remaining fraction of LID DCV for
sizing flow based biotreatment BMP:
% Item 4 / Item 1
6 Flow-based biotreatment BMP capacity provided (cfs): Use Figure 5-2 of the TGD for WQMP to determine flow capacity required to
provide biotreatment of remaining percentage of unmet LID DCV (Item 5), for the project’s precipitation zone (Form 3-1 Item 1)
7 Metrics for MEP determination:
Provided a WQMP with the portion of site area used for suite of LID BMP equal to minimum thresholds in Table 5-7 of the
TGD for WQMP for the proposed category of development: If maximized on-site retention BMPs is feasible for partial capture,
then LID BMP implementation must be optimized to retain and infiltrate the maximum portion of the DCV possible within the prescribed
minimum effective area. The remaining portion of the DCV shall then be mitigated using biotreatment BMP.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-24
Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) –
Bioretention and Planter Boxes with Underdrains
Biotreatment BMP Type
(Bioretention w/underdrain, planter box w/underdrain, other
comparable BMP)
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that
will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and
Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP
N/A
2 Amended soil infiltration rate Typical ~ 5.0
3 Amended soil infiltration safety factor Typical ~ 2.0
4 Amended soil design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 /
Item 3
5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1
6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP
for reference to BMP design details
7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12 * Item 4 * Item 5) or
Item 6
8 Amended soil surface area (ft2)
9 Amended soil depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for
reference to BMP design details
10 Amended soil porosity, n
11 Gravel depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference
to BMP design details
12 Gravel porosity, n
13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs
14 Biotreated Volume (ft3) Vbiotreated = Item 8 * [(Item 7/2) + (Item 9
* Item 10) +(Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))]
15 Total biotreated volume from bioretention and/or planter box with underdrains BMP:
Sum of Item 14 for all volume-based BMPs included in this form
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-25
Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) –
Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention
Biotreatment BMP Type
Constructed wetlands, extended wet detention, extended dry detention,
or other comparable proprietary BMP. If BMP includes multiple modules
(e.g. forebay and main basin), provide separate estimates for storage
and pollutants treated in each module.
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
Forebay Basin Forebay Basin
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP forebay and basin
List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through
specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD
for WQMP
N/A
2 Bottom width (ft)
3 Bottom length (ft)
4 Bottom area (ft2) Abottom = Item 2 * Item 3
5 Side slope (ft/ft)
6 Depth of storage (ft)
7 Water surface area (ft2)
Asurface =(Item 2 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) * (Item 3 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6))
8 Storage volume (ft3) For BMP with a forebay, ensure fraction of
total storage is within ranges specified in BMP specific fact sheets, see
Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
V =Item 6 / 3 * [Item 4 + Item 7 + (Item 4 * Item 7)^0.5]
9 Drawdown Time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 2.1
10 Outflow rate (cfs) QBMP = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) / (Item 9 * 3600)
11 Duration of design storm event (hrs)
12 Biotreated Volume (ft3)
Vbiotreated = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) +( Item 10 * Item 11 * 3600)
13 Total biotreated volume from constructed wetlands, extended dry detention, or extended wet detention :
(Sum of Item 12 for all BMP included in plan)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-26
Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment (DA 1)
Biotreatment BMP Type
Vegetated swale, vegetated filter strip, or other comparable proprietary
BMP
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP
List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through
specific Unit Operations and Processes described in TGD Table 5-5
N/A
2 Flow depth for water quality treatment (ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP
design details
3 Bed slope (ft/ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP
design details
4 Manning's roughness coefficient
5 Bottom width (ft)
bw = (Form 4.3-5 Item 6 * Item 4) / (1.49 * Item 2^1.67 * Item 3^0.5)
6 Side Slope (ft/ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP
design details
7 Cross sectional area (ft2)
A = (Item 5 * Item 2) + (Item 6 * Item 2^2)
8 Water quality flow velocity (ft/sec)
V = Form 4.3-5 Item 6 / Item 7
9 Hydraulic residence time (min)
Pollutant specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to
BMP design details
10 Length of flow based BMP (ft)
L = Item 8 * Item 9 * 60
11 Water surface area at water quality flow depth (ft2)
SAtop = (Item 5 + (2 * Item 2 * Item 6)) * Item 10
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-27
4.3.5 Conformance Summary
Complete Form 4.3-9 to demonstrate how on-site LID DCV is met with proposed site design hydrologic source
control, infiltration, harvest and use, and/or biotreatment BMP. The bottom line of the form is used to describe
the basis for infeasibility determination for on-site LID BMP to achieve full LID DCV, and provides methods for
computing remaining volume to be addressed in an alternative compliance plan. If the project has more than
one outlet, then complete additional versions of this form for each outlet.
Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative
Compliance Volume Estimate (DA 1)
1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA-1 (ft3): N/A Copy Item 7 in Form 4.2-1
2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): Copy Item 30 in Form 4.3-2
3 On-site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): Copy Item 16 in Form 4.3-3
4 On-site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): Copy Item 9 in Form 4.3-4
5 On-site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): Copy Item 3 in Form 4.3-5
6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): Copy Item 6 in Form 4.3-5
7 LID BMP performance criteria are achieved if answer to any of the following is “Yes”:
Full retention of LID DCV with site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP: Yes No
If yes, sum of Items 2, 3, and 4 is greater than Item 1
Combination of on-site retention BMPs for a portion of the LID DCV and volume-based biotreatment BMP that
address all pollutants of concern for the remaining LID DCV: Yes No
If yes, a) sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is greater than Item 1, and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized; or b) Item 6 is greater than Form
4.3--5 Item 6 and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized
On-site retention and infiltration is determined to be infeasible and biotreatment BMP provide biotreatment for all
pollutants of concern for full LID DCV: Yes No
If yes, Form 4.3-1 Items 7 and 8 were both checked yes
8 If the LID DCV is not achieved by any of these means, then the project may be allowed to develop an alternative
compliance plan. Check box that describes the scenario which caused the need for alternative compliance:
Combination of HSC, retention and infiltration, harvest and use, and biotreatment BMPs provide less than full LID DCV
capture:
Checked yes for Form 4.3-5 Item 7, Item 6 is zero, and sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is less than Item 1. If so, apply water quality credits
and calculate volume for alternative compliance, Valt = (Item 1 – Item 2 – Item 3 – Item 4 – Item 5) * (100 - Form 2.4-1 Item 2)%
An approved Watershed Action Plan (WAP) demonstrates that water quality and hydrologic impacts of urbanization
are more effective when managed in at an off-site facility:
Attach appropriate WAP section, including technical documentation, showing effectiveness comparisons for the project site and
regional watershed
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-28
4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP
Use Form 4.3-10 to compute the remaining runoff volume retention, after LID BMP are implemented, needed to
address HCOC, and the increase in time of concentration and decrease in peak runoff necessary to meet targets
for protection of waterbodies with a potential HCOC. Describe hydromodification control BMP that address
HCOC, which may include off-site BMP and/or in-stream controls. Section 5.6 of the TGD for WQMP provides
additional details on selection and evaluation of hydromodification control BMP.
Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMPs (DA 1)
1 Volume reduction needed for HCOC
performance criteria (ft3): N/A
(Form 4.2-2 Item 4 * 0.95) – Form 4.2-2 Item 1
2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, and
harvest and use LID BMP (ft3): Sum of Form 4.3-9 Items 2, 3, and 4 Evaluate
option to increase implementation of on-site retention in Forms 4.3-2, 4.3-3, and 4.3-4 in
excess of LID DCV toward achieving HCOC volume reduction
3 Remaining volume for HCOC
volume capture (ft3): Item 1 –
Item 2
4 Volume capture provided by incorporating additional on-site or off-site retention BMPs
(ft3): Existing downstream BMP may be used to demonstrate additional volume capture (if
so, attach to this WQMP a hydrologic analysis showing how the additional volume would be retained
during a 2-yr storm event for the regional watershed)
5 If Item 4 is less than Item 3, incorporate in-stream controls on downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to
hydromodification Attach in-stream control BMP selection and evaluation to this WQMP
6 Is Form 4.2-2 Item 11 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No
If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below:
Demonstrate increase in time of concentration achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMP, and additional on-site
or off-site retention BMP
BMP upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate increased time of concentration through
hydrograph attenuation (if so, show that the hydraulic residence time provided in BMP for a 2-year storm event is equal or greater
than the addition time of concentration requirement in Form 4.2-4 Item 15)
Increase time of concentration by preserving pre-developed flow path and/or increase travel time by reducing slope
and increasing cross-sectional area and roughness for proposed on-site conveyance facilities
Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to
hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California
7 Form 4.2-2 Item 12 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No
If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below:
Demonstrate reduction in peak runoff achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMPs, and additional on-site or off-
site retention BMPs
BMPs upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate additional peak runoff reduction
through hydrograph attenuation (if so, attach to this WQMP, a hydrograph analysis showing how the peak runoff would be reduced
during a 2-yr storm event)
Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to
hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-29
4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable)
This project will capture and treat its full DCV.
Therefore, no alternative compliance plan is required.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-1
Section 5 Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility
for Post Construction BMP
All BMP included as part of the project WQMP are required to be maintained through regular scheduled
inspection and maintenance (refer to Section 8, Post Construction BMP Requirements, in the TGD for WQMP).
Fully complete Form 5-1 summarizing all BMP included in the WQMP. Attach additional forms as needed. The
WQMP shall also include a detailed Operation and Maintenance Plan for all BMP and may require a
Maintenance Agreement (consult the jurisdiction’s LIP). If a Maintenance Agreement is required, it must also
be attached to the WQMP.
Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance
(use additional forms as necessary)
BMP Reponsible Party(s) Inspection/ Maintenance
Activities Required
Minimum Frequency
of Activities
No. 1 - Education
for property
owners, tenants &
occupants
Property
Owners/HOA
The homebuilder will provide the educational materials
included in Section 6.4 to first-time homeowners. HOA staff
members shall also be familiar with the education materials
and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm
drain system.
Training and education
must be provided
within 1 month of hire
date and annually
thereafter.
No. 2 - Activity
Restrictions
Property
Owners/HOA
The HOA will establish the following policies and prohibit
these activites within this residential area:
- Discharges of fertilizer, pesticide or animal waste to street
or storm drain.
- Blowing or sweeping of debris (leaf litter, grass clipping,
litter etc.) into street or storm drain.
- Require trash bin lid to be closed at all times.
- Discharges of paint, masonry/concrete waste, chemicals,
solvents, cleaners or cleanup water from theses compounds
into streets or storm drains.
- Vehicle maintenance or repair, outdoors.
Daily Management of
Operation
No. 3 - Common
Area Landscape
Management
Property
Owners/HOA
The owner or HOA shall direct maintenance staff to employ
landscaping practices consistent with CASQA BMP SC-73
requirements for use of fertilizer, pesticides, and City
ordinances for water conservation.
Weekly, as seasonal
changes.
No. 4 - BMP
Maintenance
Property
Owners/HOA
The following BMPs and practices shall be employed and
regularly maintained:
Source Control BMPs:
- SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance
- SC-73 Landscape Maintenance
- SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance
- SC-75 Waste Handling and Disposal
Site Design BMPs:
- SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning
- SD-12 Efficient Irrigation & Planting
- SD-20 Storm Drain Signage
Varies by BMP
No. 11 - Litter
Control
Property
Owners/HOA
The owner/HOA shall direct maintenance staff to imlement
trash management and litter control procedures in common
area airmed to reduce pollution of drainage water.
Daily / Weekly
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-2
Activities entail litter patrol, emptying of trash receptacles,
noting trash disposal violatins and reporting violation for
investigation.
No. 12 - Employee
Training
Property
Owners/HOA
The owner / HOA shall provide employee training for
protections of stormwater.
Employee training shall be provided within 30 days of
employment and annually thereafter. Training materials will
entail review of WQMP information and BMP fact sheets.
Upon initial
employment, annually
thereafter
No. 14 - Catch
Basin Inspection
Property
Owners/HOA
On-site catch basins shall be cleaned by the HOA's
contractor. Drainage facilities include catch and storm drain
inlets.
As needed, minimally
annually
No. 15 - Vacuum
Sweep Private
Streets/Alleys and
Parking Lots
Property
Owners/HOA
Street sweeping shall be conducted in alleys and parking
areas. Waste shall be disposed of in trash receptacle which
is emptied at minimum once a week. Public streets shall be
swept by the City of Fontana on a bi-weekly schedule.
Monthly
Maxwell Infiltration
Wells
Property
Owners/HOA
The owner/HOA shall provide employee training for
protection of Water Quality Treatment Control Structure.
See Maxwell recommendations.
Per Maxwell
recommendation
As required
6-1
Section 6 WQMP Attachments
6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan
Include a site plan and drainage plan sheet set containing the following minimum information:
6.2 Electronic Data Submittal
Minimum requirements include submittal of PDF exhibits in addition to hard copies. Format must not
require specialized software to open. If the local jurisdiction requires specialized electronic document
formats (as described in their local Local Implementation Plan), this section will describe the contents (e.g.,
layering, nomenclature, geo-referencing, etc.) of these documents so that they may be interpreted
efficiently and accurately.
6.3 Post Construction
Attach all O&M Plans and Maintenance Agreements for BMP to the WQMP.
6.4 Other Supporting Documentation
BMP Educational Materials
Activity Restriction – C, C&R’s & Lease Agreements
Project location
Site boundary
Land uses and land covers, as applicable
Suitability/feasibility constraints
Structural Source Control BMP locations
Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP locations
LID BMP details
Drainage delineations and flow information
Drainage connections
6-2
6-3
Aerial with Boundary of Project Site
”
”
”
”
”
”
·
·
·
6-4
Landuses
6-5
6-6
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
CURTIS AVENUE DEVELOPMENT
CURTIS AND CITRUS AVENUES
FONTANA, CA
for
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC
1156 N. Mountain Avenue P.O. Box 670
Upland, CA 91785-0670
January 9, 2024
00-232887-01
Carson 310.684.4854 | Concord 925.243.6662 | Rancho Cucamonga 909.989.1751
Sacramento 916.631.7194 | San Diego 858.609.7138 | San Jose 408.362.4920
January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC
1156 N. Mountain Avenue P.O. Box 670
Upland, CA 91785-0670
Attention: Stacey Sassaman
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for
Curtis Avenue Development
Curtis and Citrus Avenues
Fontana, CA
Dear Ms. Sassaman:
In accordance with your request, a geotechnical investigation has been completed for the above referenced project.
The report addresses both engineering geologic and geotechnical conditions. The results of the investigation are
presented in the accompanying report, which includes a description of site conditions, results of our field
exploration, laboratory testing, conclusions, and recommendations.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions regarding this report,
please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
RMA Group
Ken Dowell, PG|CEG
Project Geologist
CEG 2470
Haitham Dawood, PhD|PE|GE
Engineering Manager
GE 3227
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.00 INTRODUCTION 1
1.01 Purpose 1
1.02 Scope of the Investigation 1
1.03 Site Location and Description 1
1.04 Current and Past Land Usage 2
1.05 Planned Usage 2
1.06 Investigation Methods 2
2.00 FINDINGS 2
2.01 Geologic Setting 2
2.02 Earth Materials 3
2.03 Expansive Soils 3
2.04 Surface and Groundwater Conditions 3
2.05 Faults 3
2.06 Historic Seismicity 5
2.07 Flooding Potential 6
2.08 Landslides 6
3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
3.01 General Conclusion 6
3.02 General Earthwork and Grading 6
3.03 Earthwork Shrinkage and Subsidence 6
3.04 Removals and Overexcavation 6
3.05 Rippability and Rock Disposal 7
3.06 Subdrains 7
3.07 Permanent Fill and Cut Slopes 8
3.08 Faulting 8
3.09 Seismic Design Parameters 8
3.10 Liquefaction and Secondary Earthquake Hazards 9
3.11 Foundations 10
3.12 Foundation Setbacks from Slopes 10
3.13 Slabs on Grade 11
3.14 Miscellaneous Concrete Flatwork 12
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
3.15 Footing Excavation and Slab Preparations 12
3.16 Lateral Load Resistance 13
3.17 Drainage and Moisture Proofing 14
3.18 Cement Type and Corrosion Potential 14
3.19 Temporary Slopes 15
3.20 Utility Trench Backfill 16
3.21 Pavement Sections 17
3.22 Soil Infiltration Testing 18
3.23 Plan Review 19
3.24 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Rough Grading 19
3.25 Post-Grading Geotechnical Observation and Testing 19
4.00 CLOSURE 19
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1 Site Location and Earthquake Fault Zone Map
Figure 2 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3 Exploration Map
Figure 4 Regional Depth to Groundwater Map
Figure 5 Regional Groundwater Elevation Map
Figure 6 Regional Geologic Cross Section
Figure 7 Rialto-Colton Groundwater Subbasin Map
Figure 8 Regional Fault Map
Table 1 Notable Faults within 100 Km
Table 2 Historical Strong Earthquakes
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Investigation A1
Appendix B Laboratory Tests B1
Appendix C General Earthwork and Grading Specifications C1
Appendix D References D1
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 1
1.00 INTRODUCTION
1.01 Purpose
A geotechnical investigation has been completed for proposed construction of a residential development. The
purpose of the investigation was to summarize geotechnical and geologic conditions at the site, to assess their
potential impact on the proposed development, and to develop geotechnical and engineering geologic design
parameters.
1.02 Scope of the Investigation
The general scope of this investigation included the following:
• Review of published and unpublished geologic, seismic, groundwater and geotechnical literature.
• Review of a prior geotechnical investigation completed for the site prepared by Leighton Consulting Inc. and
dated November 9, 2005.
• Examination of aerial photographs.
• Contacting of underground service alert to locate onsite utility lines.
• Logging, sampling and backfilling of 6 exploratory borings and 2 infiltration test borings drilled with a truck
mounted hollow stem auger drill rig.
• Performance of 2 infiltration tests in the area of the proposed storm water basin. The tests were done in
conformance with the San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management
Plans Manual, specifically the borehole test method.
• Laboratory testing of representative soil samples.
• Geotechnical evaluation of the compiled data.
• Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Our scope of work did not include a preliminary site assessment for the potential of hazardous materials onsite.
1.03 Site Location and Description
The approximately 12 acre site is located in northern portion area of the City of Fontana, California. Its
approximate location is shown on Site Location Map (Figure 1). The site is located on the north side of Curtis
Avenue and about 500 feet west of Citrus Avenue. Existing residential properties are located to the north, east
and west of the site.
At the time of our investigation the site consisted of a vacant field covered with native grasses and weeds. There
were no man-made improvements on the property besides a modular trailer in the southwest corner of the site and
a chain link fence along the south side of the site. A few fire breaks had been cut through the brush that covered
the property.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 2
Topographically, the property is a nearly planar surface that slopes to the southwest at an overall gradient of
about 3-4 percent to the southwest. Elevation of the site ranges from about 1,565 to 1,585 feet above sea level.
1.04 Current and Past Land Usage
The site is currently vacant. Based upon a review of historic aerial photographs the site has not previously been
developed and no prior usage is visible in the aerials as far back as 1938.
1.05 Planned Usage
It is our understanding that the proposed construction will consist of a residential development including parking
and other surface improvements and amenities.
Our investigation was performed prior to the preparation of grading or foundation plans. To aid in preparation of
this report, we utilized the following assumptions:
• Maximum foundation loads of 2 to 3 kips per linear foot for continuous footings and 60 kips for isolated
spread footings.
• Cuts and fills will be less than 5 feet.
1.06 Investigation Methods
Our investigation consisted of office research, field exploration, laboratory testing, review of the compiled data, and
preparation of this report. It has been performed in a manner consistent with generally accepted engineering and
geologic principles and practices, and has incorporated applicable requirements of California Building Code.
Definitions of technical terms and symbols used in this report include those of the ASTM International, the California
Building Code, and commonly used geologic nomenclature.
Technical supporting data are presented in the attached appendices. Appendix A presents a description of the
methods and equipment used in performing the field exploration and logs of our subsurface exploration. Appendix
B presents a description of our laboratory testing and the test results. Standard grading specifications and
references are presented in Appendices C and D, respectively.
2.00 FINDINGS
2.01 Geologic Setting
The site is located in northern Fontana on a broad, coalescing alluvial fan that emanates from the San Gabriel
Mountains and the Lytle Creek drainage to the north. These sediments fill the northern portion of a deep
structural depression known as the upper Santa Ana River Valley. According to Fife and others (1976), the alluvial
deposits beneath the site are approximately 500 to 600 feet thick and rest on crystalline basement bedrock.
The upper Santa Ana River Valley is bordered by the San Gabriel Mountains and the active Cucamonga fault to the
north, and the Puente Hills and active Chino fault to the west. To the south are the Jurupa Mountains and other
resistant granitic and metamorphic hills. The eastern boundary of the valley is the San Bernardino Mountains and
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 3
the active San Andreas fault.
The general geologic setting of the site is illustrated on the accompanying Regional Geologic Map (Figure 2).
2.02 Earth Materials
Regional geologic maps and field investigation revealed that the site is underlain by Holocene age alluvial fan
deposits. The alluvium, as encountered in our borings, consists of surficial layer of loose silty sand that extends for
the ground surface to depths of 1 to 3 feet and rests on poorly graded gravelly sand with silt.
The upper silty sand encountered in our borings, and based upon other investigations completed by this office in the
surrounding area, contained an estimated 5 to 25 percent gravel and approximately 0 to 5 percent cobbles.
Boulders were not encountered within the silty sand in our borings, although the possibility of boulders being
present within the silty sand elsewhere in the site cannot be ruled out. The lower poorly graded sand with gravel
unit encountered in our borings contained an estimated 15 to 40 percent gravel. Based on our prior experience and
a review of the trench logs from the Leighton report we would expect up to 5 to 10 percent cobbles and possibly a 2
to 3 percent boulders in the lower sand layer. We would also expect boulder sizes to range from approximately 12
to 26 inches in maximum dimension.
The subsurface soils encountered in the exploratory borings drilled at the site are described in greater detail on the
logs contained in Appendix A. Locations of exploratory borings are presented on Figure 3.
2.03 Expansive Soils
Expansion testing performed in accordance with ASTM D4829 indicates that earth materials underlying the site have
an expansion classification of very low.
2.04 Surface and Groundwater Conditions
No areas of ponding or standing water were present at the time of our study. Further, no springs or areas of natural
seepage were found.
Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration which extended to a maximum depth of 25.5
feet. According to Fife (1974) the depth to groundwater beneath the site was between 300 to 600 feet in 1960
(Figure 4). The map prepared by Fife also shows two subsurface groundwater barriers crossing very near the
site. They are the northeast-southwest trending Barrier J, is also mapped through the site, and the other being
the northwest-southeast trending Colton-Rialto fault. Current depth to groundwater is expected to be similar,
but nearby water well data is not available to confirm the present depth to groundwater. The Colton-Rialto fault
is considered to be the western boundary of the Colton-Rialto Groundwater Subbasin. Depth to groundwater
east of the fault is typically shallower than on the west side. Further discussion of these two features is included
in Section 2.05 Faults.
2.05 Faults
The site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault-rupture hazard as defined by the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The nearest Earthquake Fault Zone is located about 2 miles to the
northwest along the Cucamonga fault (see Figure 1). This is also the nearest fault with surface expression.
Two concealed faults are mapped near or through the site, “Barrier J” and the Rialto-Colton fault. Both faults are
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 4
mapped as concealed and are not defined as surface features by the State of California.
“Barrier J”, was mapped through the site by Dutcher and Garrett (1963) during a groundwater study of the San
Bernardino area (Figure 5) and by Woolfenden and Kadhim (1997). Maps contained in the report show “Barrier J” to
be approximately 4.5 miles (7 kilometers) long. The Dutcher and Garrett report also contains a geologic cross section
(C-C’) that was drawn in a north-south direction along Sierra Avenue located to the east side of the site. The cross
section shows that “Barrier J” offsets Tertiary age continental deposits, but is overlain by about 1 mile of unfaulted
younger and older alluvium (see Figure 6). The location of the cross section is shown about 1 mile east of the site.
The location of the site is projected on the cross section and therefore does not show the location of “Barrier J”
crossing the site. The cross section is included to illustrate that “Barrier J” offsets the Tertiary age deposits and is
overlain by nearly a mile of unfaulted sediments in the vicinity of the site and that there is not surface expression of
the feature at or near the site.
Hadley and Combs (1974) performed a micro-seismicity study of the Fontana-San Bernardino region in the early
1970s and recorded numerous small earthquakes that generally aligned with “Barrier J”. The magnitudes of these
earthquakes typically ranged from 1 to 3 and indicated a left-lateral strike-slip sense of motion with a possible dip-
slip component. The California Department of Water Resources (1970) reported that “Barrier J” is a normal fault
that has displaced the base of fresh groundwater upward about 100 feet. The Department of Water Resources also
reported that the formation of “Barrier J” was likely caused by uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains, that the fault has
no surface expression, and that groundwater cascades over the barrier. A gravity study performed by Anderson and
others (2000) did not identify gravity anomalies indicative of faulting along “Barrier J”.
The California Division of Mines and Geology (Burnett and Hart, 1994) evaluated “Barrier J” with respect to possible
inclusion in a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazards. They noted the following: 1)
Dutcher and Garrett (1963) inferred a concealed fault in older alluvium, 2) the barrier is inferred to offset the water
table about 200 feet (northwest side up), 3) microseismicity aligns with “Barrier J” suggesting to Hadley and Combs
(1974) it might be a fault related to the Cucamonga fault system, 4) small earthquakes reported by Magistrale and
Sanders (1994) align with “Barrier J”, and 5) the barrier is shown on an early map by Morton (1974) but not on later
maps by Morton and Matti (1987 and 1991). Burnett and Hart found no evidence to suggest that “Barrier J” is
surface feature and recommended that “Barrier J” not be included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
We reviewed several different ages of aerials photographs (both stereo and non-stereo) and did not observe any
lineaments along the mapped trace of “Barrier J.” and the Rialto-Colton fault near the site. In addition, we did not
observe any topographic or vegetation lineaments in the field along the mapped trace of “Barrier J” and the Rialto-
Colton fault. Consequently, we agree with the findings of the California Division of Mines and Geology (now the
California Geological Survey) that “Barrier J” is not a defined surface feature.
The Rialto-Colton fault is located on most maps to be just to the southwest of the site. Recent mapping by
Woolfenden and Kadhim (1997) indicate that the fault terminates at the intersection of Barrier J, just southwest of
the site and extends to the southeast. More recent mapping by Brandt (2022) indicates the termination of the
Rialto-Colton fault about 100-150 feet south of the site and does not include the Barrier J feature in his mapping
(Figure 7). As with “Barrier J” in the north end of the Rialto-Colton basin, the Rialto-Colton fault is described as a
groundwater barrier without surface expression. Woolfenden and Kadhim (1997) describe the Rialto-Colton fault as
“subparallel to the San Jacinto Fault and trends southeastward from Barrier J to the Badlands. Vertical
displacement along the Rialto-Colton Fault is reflected by the shallower depths to the basement complex in the
Chino basin in comparison with the Rialto-Colton basin. The Rialto-Colton Fault probably is an abandoned trace
of the San Jacinto Fault”. They also state that the groundwater level across the fault varies about 400 feet on either
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 5
side of the northern portion of the fault. The Fife (1974) groundwater contour map indicates groundwater in the
vicinity of the site varies from east side of the fault at about 300 feet below the ground surface to about 600 feet
west of the fault. Where the Rialto-Colton fault is shown in cross section in Dutcher and Garrett, it is covered by a
several hundred feet of alluvial soil. The Rialto-Colton is also not recognized as a defined surface feature.
To further evaluate the possibility of surface fault rupture along “Barrier J” in the area of the site, we considered
subsurface fault rupture, magnitude and displacement using data developed by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and
propagation of fault rupture through overlying soils based on experiments performed by Anastasopuolos and others
(2007). Wells and Coppersmith relate subsurface fault rupture length to earthquake magnitude. They indicate that
a fault with a length of 7 km (the total length of “Barrier J” according to Dutcher and Garrett) corresponds to a 5.6
magnitude earthquake. They also indicate subsurface displacement associated with a 5.6 magnitude earthquake is
approximately 0.025 meters (0.08 feet). Anastasopoulos and others report that subsurface rupture along a normal
fault propagating through sandy soils is not likely to reach the ground surface if the ratio of base fault offset to soil
thickness (h/H) is less than or equal to 0.075%. Using a displacement of 0.08 feet and a soil thickness of 280 feet,
h/H = 0.029%. Since this value is less than 0.075%, we conclude that possible future surface ground rupture
associated with seismic along “Barrier J” is not likely to occur within the site. Based upon the reviewed geologic
mapping the Rialto-Colton fault terminates either at Barrier J or south of the site. Since the site lies north of the
mapped terminus of the fault, we conclude that possible future surface ground rupture associated with seismic
along Rialto-Colton fault is not likely to occur within the site.
Barrier J and the Rialto-Colton faults are both mapped as concealed features and based upon the discussed research
above both are buried by several hundred feet of alluvial soil. The locations of these features have been inferred and
are based upon differences in measurements of well data across the features and by geophysical data. The exact
locations of these features are unknown. Based upon the lack of surface expression and limited paleoseismicity that
would indicate the more specific location of these features, it is our opinion that the possibility of surface rupture at
the site is minimal.
The accompanying Figures 1, 2 4, 5, 7 and 8 illustrate the location of the site with respect to major faults in the
region. The distance to notable faults within 100 kilometers of the site is presented on Table 1.
The accompanying Regional Fault Map (Figure 6) illustrates the location of the site with respect to major faults
in the region. The distance to notable faults within 100 kilometers of the site is presented on Table 1.
2.06 Historic Seismicity
The site is located in a seismically active area, as is the case throughout Southern California. At this time it is not
possible to state with certainty when and where future large magnitude earthquakes will occur, or what the
magnitude and intensity of these events will be. However, estimates can be made based on the tectonic data
and seismic history. The seismic setting of the site has been evaluated by review of historic seismicity, by
deterministic methods, by probabilistic methods and by code procedures.
The nearest historic strong earthquake was epicentered within about 11 miles northeast of the site. It was the
6.4 magnitude Manix Earthquake that occurred in 1899. It occurred prior to the development of seismic
monitoring networks, thus their locations and magnitudes are only approximate. Historic strong earthquakes in
the southern California region are summarized on Table 2.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 6
2.07 Flooding Potential and Wind Erosion
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (2008), the site is located within Flood Zone X, which is
defined as an “area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.”
The site is located near the mouth of Cajon Pass, which carries strong “Santa Ana” winds in the fall and during other
times of the year. These winds can cause significant surficial erosion of soils that are not protected by vegetation,
concrete or asphalt.
2.08 Landslides
Due to the low gradient of the site and surrounding area, Landsliding is not a hazard at this property.
3.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.01 General Conclusion
Based on specific data and information contained in this report, our understanding of the project and our general
experience in engineering geology and geotechnical engineering, it is our professional judgment that the proposed
development is geologically and geotechnically feasible. This is provided that the recommendations presented
below are fully implemented during design, grading and construction.
3.02 General Earthwork and Grading
All grading should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications outlined in
Appendix C, unless specifically revised or amended below. Recommendations contained in Appendix C are general
specifications for typical grading projects and may not be entirely applicable to this project.
It is also recommended that all earthwork and grading be performed in accordance with Appendix J of the 2022
California Building Code and all applicable governmental agency requirements. In the event of conflicts between this
report and Appendix J, this report shall govern.
3.03 Earthwork Shrinkage and Subsidence
Shrinkage is the decrease in volume of soil upon removal and recompaction expressed as a percentage of the
original in-place volume. Subsidence occurs as natural ground is densified to receive fill. These factors account for
changes in earth volumes that will occur during grading. Our estimates are as follows:
• Shrinkage factor = 7% - 12% for soil removed and replaced as compacted fill.
• Subsidence factor = 0.15 foot.
The degree to which fill soils are compacted and variations in the insitu density of existing soils will influence earth
volume changes. Consequently, some adjustments in grades near the completion of grading could be required to
balance the earthwork.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 7
3.04 Removals and Overexcavation
All vegetation, trash and debris should be cleared from the grading area and removed from the site. Prior to
placement of compacted fills, all non-engineered fills and loose, porous, or compressible soils will need to be
removed down to competent ground. Removal and requirements will also apply to cut areas, if the depth of cut is
not sufficient to reach competent ground. Removed and/or overexcavated soils may be moisture-conditioned and
recompacted as engineered fill, except for soils containing detrimental amounts of organic material. Estimated
depths of removals are as follows:
• Loose, porous and compressible native soils were encountered to depths of about 1 to 3 feet below
existing grades. The average depth of removal of these soils is expected to be 2 feet with some local
areas extending to 5 feet below the existing ground surface.
• It is expected that competent native soils will be encountered in cuts deeper than approximately 2 to 5
feet below existing grade. Provided competent soils are exposed, these cut surfaces should be scarified
to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density, provided that footing overexcavation requirements are met.
In addition to the above requirements, overexcavation will also need to meet the following criteria for the building
pads, concrete flatwork and pavement areas:
• All footing areas, both continuous and spread, shall be undercut, moistened, and compacted as necessary
to produce soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction to a depth equal to the width of the
footing below the bottom of the footing or to a depth of 3 feet below the bottom of the footing, whichever
is less. Footing areas shall be defined as the area extending from the edge of the footing for a distance of 5
feet.
• All floor slabs, and concrete flatwork shall be underlain by a minimum of 12 inches of soil compacted to a
minimum of 90% relative compaction.
• All paved areas shall be underlain by a minimum of 12 inches of soil compacted to a minimum of 90%
relative compaction.
The exposed soils beneath all overexcavation should be scarified an additional 12 inches, moisture conditioned
and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction.
The above recommendations are based on the assumption that soils encountered during field exploration are
representative of soils throughout the site. However, there can be unforeseen and unanticipated variations in
soils between points of subsurface exploration. Hence, overexcavation depths must be verified, and adjusted if
necessary, at the time of grading. The overexcavated materials may be moisture-conditioned and re-compacted as
engineered fill.
3.05 Rippability and Rock Disposal
Our exploratory trenches were advanced without difficulty. Accordingly we expect that all earth materials will be
rippable with conventional heavy duty grading equipment.
Based on the result of our subsurface exploration, it is expected that oversized materials (greater than 12 inches in
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 8
maximum dimension) will be generated from excavations made into alluvial soils underlying the site. Based upon
our past experience in the area, oversize materials encountered during our subsurface investigation ranged from
about 12 to 26 inches in maximum dimension and are estimated to be about 1% to 4% of the total soil profile.
Our guidelines for rock disposal are presented in Appendix C. Implementation of our guidelines will require
continuous testing and observation by a member of our staff. Oversized materials should not be placed within 10
feet of finish grade without the prior approval of the geotechnical consultant.
3.06 Subdrains
Groundwater and surface water were not encountered during the course of our investigation, the proposed
construction will not fill any large canyons or drainage features and the underlying soils are fairly permeable.
Consequently, installation of canyon subdrains is not expected to be necessary.
3.07 Permanent Fill and Cut Slopes
Fill and cut slopes, if necessary, should be constructed at inclinations of 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical, H:V) or flatter.
3.08 Faulting
Refer to Section 2.05 for discussion of area faults.
3.09 Seismic Design Parameters
The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity must be considered in the design of structures.
Mapped Design Parameters
Mapped seismic design parameters have been developed in accordance with Section 1613A of the 2022
California Building Code (CBC) using the online ACE 7 Hazard Tool (ASCE 7-16 Standard), a site location based on
latitude and longitude, and site characterization as Site Class D based on our preliminary geotechnical investigation.
The parameters generated for the subject site are presented below:
2022 California Building Code Seismic Parameters
Parameter Value
Site Location Latitude = 34.14408 degrees
Longitude = -117.45647 degrees
Site Class Site Class = D
Soil Profile Name = Stiff soil
Mapped Spectral Accelerations
(Site Class B)
Ss (0.2- second period) = 2.125g
S1 (1-second period) = 0.691g
Site Coefficients
(Site Class D)
Fa = 1.0
Fv = 1.7
Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake
Spectral Accelerations (Site Class D)
SMS (short, 0.2- second period) = 2.125g
SM1 (1-second period) = 1.762g*
Risk-Targeted Design Earthquake
Spectral Accelerations (Site Class D)
SDS (short, 0.2- second period) = 1.417g
SD1 (1-second period) = 1.175g*
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 9
*The values for SM1 and SD1 in the table above are calculated based upon Section 11.4.8
Exception 3 as revised by ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 where SM1 is determined by Equation
11.4-2 and is increased by 50%.
The above table shows that the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter a 0.2-second period (SDS) >
0.5g. Therefore, for the Seismic Design Category is D for all Risk Categories (CBC Section 1613.2.5).
Consequently, as required for Seismic Design Categories D through F by CBC Section 1803A.5.12, lateral
pressures for earthquake ground motions, liquefaction and soil strength loss have been evaluated (see Sections
3.10 and 3.16).
Peak earthquake ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) has been determine in accordance
with ASCE 7-16 Section 11.8.3 as follows: PGAM = FPGA x PGA = 1.1 x 0.866g = 0.953g.
3.10 Liquefaction and Secondary Earthquake Hazards
Potential secondary seismic hazards that can affect land development projects include liquefaction, tsunamis,
seiches, seismically induced settlement, seismically induced flooding and seismically induced landsliding.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground motions increase the pore pressure in saturated,
sand-like soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose
its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative
density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground motion. In order for
liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: underlying loose, sand-like soils, a groundwater depth of less than
about 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large-magnitude earthquake.
As ground water table was not encountered and is mapped at least 300 ft below the ground surface (Section 2.04),
the ground water table is expected to be at least 200 or deeper at the site, liquefaction at the site is unlikely to occur
and hence it is not a design concern.
Tsunamis and Seiches
Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes. When these waves
reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of
standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis and seiches do not pose
hazards due to the inland location of the site and lack of nearby bodies of standing water.
Seismically Induced Settlement
Seismically induced settlement occurs most frequently in areas underlain by loose, granular sediments. Damage as
a result of seismically induced settlement is most dramatic when differential settlement occurs in areas with large
variations in the thickness of underlying sediments. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non-uniformly
distributed, which can result in differential settlement.
Because loose near surface soils will be recompacted during site grading and deeper soils are denser and
essentially uniform in thickness, the potential for significant seismically induced settlement to occur is judged to
be unlikely.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 10
Seismically Induced Flooding
There are no up gradient water reservoirs or dams located in close proximity of the site. Consequently seismically
induced flooding at the site is unlikely.
Seismically Induced Landsliding
Due to the low gradient of the site, the potential for seismically induced landsliding is nil. This assumes that any
slopes created during development of the school site will be properly designed and constructed. It should be noted
that the California Geological Survey has not yet prepared a Seismic Hazard Zone Map of potential earthquake-
induced landslide hazards for the quadrangle in which the site is located.
3.11 Foundations
Isolated spread footings and/or continuous wall footings are recommended to support the proposed structures. If
the recommendations in the section on grading are followed and footings are established in firm native soils or
compacted fill materials, footings may be designed using the following allowable soil bearing values:
• Continuous Wall Footings:
Footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest
adjacent grade have allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This value may
be increased by 10% for each additional foot of width and/or depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf.
• Isolated Spread Footings:
Footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest
adjacent grade have allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. This value may be increased by 10% for
each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf.
• Retaining Wall Footings:
Footings for retaining walls should be founded a minimum depth of 12 inches and have a minimum
width of 12 inches. Footings may be designed using the allowable bearing capacity and lateral
resistance values recommended for building footings. However, when calculating passive resistance,
the upper 6 inches of the footings should be ignored in areas where the footings will not be covered
with concrete flatwork. This value may also be increased by 10% for each additional foot of width or
depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Reinforcement should be provided for structural considerations
as determined by the design engineer.
The above bearing capacities represent an allowable net increase in soil pressure over existing soil pressure and may
be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loads. The maximum expected settlement of footings
designed with the recommended allowable bearing capacity is expected to be on the order of ½ inch with
differential settlement on the order of ¼ inch.
Soils at the site are generally granular, non-plastic and have a very low expansion potential. Therefore,
reinforcement of footings to mitigate expansive soil is not required. However, in view of the seismic setting, a
nominal reinforcement consisting of one #4 bar placed within 3 inches of the top of footings and another placed
within 3 inches of the bottom of footings is recommended. The structural engineer may require heavier
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 11
reinforcement.
3.12 Foundation Setbacks from Slopes
Setbacks for footings adjacent to slopes should conform to the requirements of the California Building Code.
Specifically, footings should maintain a horizontal distance or setback between any adjacent slope face and the
bottom outer edge of the footing.
For slopes descending away from the foundation, the horizontal distance may be calculated by using h/3, where h is
the height of the slope. The horizontal setback should not be less than 5 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet
per the California Building Code. Where structures encroach within the zone of h/3 from the top of the slope the
setback may be maintained by deepening the foundations. Flatwork and utilities within the zone of h/3 from the
top of slope may be subject to lateral distortion caused by gradual downslope creep. Walls, fences and landscaping
improvements constructed at the top of descending slopes should be designed with consideration of the potential
for gradual downslope creep.
For ascending slopes, the horizontal setback required may be calculated by using h/2 where h is the height of the
slope. The horizontal setback need not be greater than 15 feet per the California Building Code.
3.13 Slabs on Grade
We recommend the use of unreinforced slabs on grade for structures. These floor slabs should have a minimum
thickness of 4 inches and should be divided into squares or rectangles using weakened plane joints (contraction
joints), each with maximum dimensions not exceeding 15 feet. Contraction joints should be made in accordance
with American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. If weakened plane joints are not used, then the slabs shall be
reinforced with at a minimum 6x6-10/10 welded wire fabric placed at mid-height of the slab. The project structural
engineer may require additional reinforcement.
If heavy concentrated or moving loads are anticipated, slabs should be designed using a modulus of subgrade
reaction (k) of 150psi/in when soils are prepared in conformance with the grading recommendations contained
within the report.
Special care should be taken on floors slabs to be covered with thin-set tile or other inflexible coverings. These
areas may be reinforced with 6x6-10/10 welded wire fabric placed at mid-height of the slab, to mitigate drying
shrinkage cracks. Alternatively, inflexible flooring may be installed with unbonded fabric or liners to prevent
reflection of slab cracks through the flooring.
A moisture vapor retarder/barrier is recommended beneath all slabs-on-grade that will be covered by moisture-
sensitive flooring materials such as vinyl, linoleum, wood, carpet, rubber, rubber-backed carpet, tile,
impermeable floor coatings, adhesives, or where moisture-sensitive equipment, products, or environments will
exist. We recommend that design and construction of the vapor retarder or barrier conform to Section 1805 of
the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and pertinent sections of American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidance
documents 302.1R-04, 302.2R-06 and 360R-10.
The moisture vapor retarder/barrier should consist of a minimum 10 mils thick polyethylene with a maximum
perm rating of 0.3 in accordance with ASTM E 1745. Seams in the moisture vapor retarder/barrier should be
overlapped no less than 6 inches or in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Joints and
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 12
penetrations should be sealed with the manufacturer’s recommended adhesives, pressure-sensitive tape, or
both. The contractor must avoid damaging or puncturing the vapor retarder/barrier and repair any punctures
with additional polyethylene properly lapped and sealed.
ACI guidelines allow for the placement of moisture vapor retarder/barriers either directly beneath floor slabs or
below an intermediate granular soil layer.
Placing the moisture retarder/barrier directly beneath the floor slab will provide improved curing of the slab
bottom and will eliminate potential problems caused by water being trapped in a granular fill layer. Concrete
slabs poured directly on a vapor retarder/barrier can experience shrinkage cracking and curling due to
differential rates of curing through the thickness of the slab. Therefore, for concrete placed directly on the vapor
retarded, we recommend a maximum water cement ratio of 0.45 and the use of water-reducing admixtures to
increase workability and decrease bleeding.
If granular soil is placed over the vapor retarder/barrier, we recommend that the layer be at least 2 inches thick
in accordance with traditional practice in southern California. Granular fill should consist of clean fine graded
materials with 10 to 30% passing the No. 100 sieve and free from clay or silt. The granular layer should be
uniformly compacted and trimmed to provide the full design thickness of the proposed slab. The granular fill
layer should not be left exposed to rain or other sources of water such as wet-grinding, power washing, pipe
leaks or other processes, and should be dry at the time of concrete placement. Granular fill layers that become
saturated should be removed and replaced prior to concrete placement.
An additional layer of sand may be placed beneath the vapor retarder/barrier at the developer’s discretion to
minimize the potential of the retarder/barrier being punctured by underlying soils.
3.14 Miscellaneous Concrete Flatwork
Miscellaneous concrete flatwork and walkways may be designed with a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Large
slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh placed at mid-height in the slab.
Control joints should be constructed to create squares or rectangles with a maximum spacing of 15 feet.
Walkways may be constructed without reinforcement. Walkways should be separated from foundations with a
thick expansion joint filler. Control joints should be constructed into non-reinforced walkways at a maximum of
5 feet spacing.
The subgrade soils beneath all miscellaneous concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction for a minimum depth of 12 inches. The geotechnical engineer should monitor the compaction
of the subgrade soils and perform testing to verify that proper compaction has been obtained.
3.15 Footing Excavation and Slab Preparations
All footing excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated
into competent soils. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms,
reinforcement steel, or concrete. These excavations should be evenly trimmed and level. Prior to concrete
placement, any loose or soft soils should be removed. Excavated soils should not be placed on slab or footing areas
unless properly compacted.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 13
Prior to the placement of the moisture barrier and sand, the subgrade soils underlying the slab should be observed
by the geotechnical consultant to verify that all under-slab utility trenches have been properly backfilled and
compacted, that no loose or soft soils are present, and that the slab subgrade has been properly compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction within the upper 12 inches.
Footings may experience and overall loss in bearing capacity or an increased potential to settle where located in
close proximity to existing or future utility trenches. Furthermore, stresses imposed by the footings on the utility
lines may cause cracking, collapse and/or a loss of serviceability. To reduce this risk, footings should extend below a
1:1 plane projected upward from the closest bottom of the trench.
Slabs on grade and walkways should be brought to a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 6% above their optimum
moisture content for a depth of 18 inches prior to the placement of concrete. The geotechnical consultant should
perform insitu moisture tests to verify that the appropriate moisture content has been achieved a maximum of 24
hours prior to the placement of concrete or moisture barriers.
3.16 Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and the passive resistance of the soil. The following parameters are
recommended.
• Passive Earth Pressure = 500 pcf (equivalent fluid weight). An appropriate factor of safety should be
applied by the design engineer.
Coefficient of Friction (soil to footing) = 0.45
• Retaining structures should be designed to resist the following lateral active earth pressures:
Surface Slope of
Retained Materials
(Horizontal:Vertical)
Equivalent
Fluid Weight
(pcf)
Level 34
5:1 35
4:1 36
3:1 39
2:1 47
These active earth pressures are only applicable if the retained earth is allowed to strain sufficiently to
achieve the active state. The required minimum horizontal strain to achieve the active state is
approximately 0.0025H. Retaining structures should be designed to resist an at-rest lateral earth
pressure if this horizontal strain cannot be achieved.
• At-rest Lateral Earth Pressure = 54 pcf (equivalent fluid weight)
The Mononobe-Okabe method is commonly utilized for determining seismically induced active and passive
lateral earth pressures and is based on the limit equilibrium Coulomb theory for static stress conditions. This
method entails three fundamental assumptions (e.g., Seed and Whitman, 1970): Wall movement is sufficient to
ensure either active or passive conditions, the driving soil wedge inducing the lateral earth pressures is formed
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 14
by a planar failure surface starting at the heel of the wall and extending to the free surface of the backfill, and
the driving soil wedge and the retaining structure act as rigid bodies, and therefore, experiences uniform
accelerations throughout the respective bodies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, Engineering and Design -
Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures).
• Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure = 30 pcf (equivalent fluid weight).
The seismic lateral earth pressure given above is an inverted triangle, and the resultant of this pressure is an
increment of force which should be applied to the back of the wall in the upper 1/3 of the wall height.
Per CBC Section 1803.5.12 dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures shall be applied to foundation walls and retaining
walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill. Dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures may also be applied to shorter
walls at the discretion of the structural engineer.
3.17 Drainage and Moisture Proofing
Surface drainage should be directed away from the proposed structures into suitable drainage devices. Neither
excess irrigation nor rainwater should be allowed to collect or pond against foundations. Surface waters should be
diverted away from the tops of slopes and prevented from draining over the top of slopes and down the slope face.
3.18 Cement Type and Corrosion Potential
Soluble sulfate tests indicate that concrete at the subject site will have a negligible exposure to water-soluble sulfate
in the soil. Our recommendations for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing soils are presented in the table below.
Recommendations for Concrete exposed to Sulfate-containing Soils
Sulfate
Exposure
Water Soluble
Sulfate (SO4)
in Soil
(% by Weight)
Sulfate (SO4)
in Water
(ppm)
Cement
Type
(ASTM C150)
Maximum
Water-Cement
Ratio
(by Weight)
Minimum
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
Negligible 0.00 - 0.10 0-150 -- -- 2,500
Moderate 0.10 - 0.20 150-1,500 II 0.50 4,000
Severe 0.20 - 2.00 1,500-
10,000 V 0.45 4,500
Very Severe Over 2.00 Over 10,000 V plus pozzolan
or slag 0.45 4,500
Use of alternate combinations of cementitious materials may be permitted if the combinations meet design
recommendations contained in American Concrete Institute guideline ACI 318-11.
The soils were also tested for soil reactivity (pH), electrical resistivity (ohm-cm) and chloride content. The test results
indicate that the on-site soils have a soil reactivity of 7.5, an electrical resistivity of 8,000 ohm-cm, and a chloride
content of 24 ppm. Note that:
• A neutral or non-corrosive soil has a pH value ranging from 5.5 to 8.4.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 15
• Generally, soils that could be considered moderately corrosive to ferrous metals have resistivity values of about
3,000 ohm-cm to 10,000 ohm-cm. Soils with resistivity values less than 3,000 ohm-cm can be considered
corrosive and soils with resistivity values less than 1,000 ohm-cm can be considered extremely corrosive.
• Chloride contents of approximately 500 ppm or greater are generally considered corrosive.
Based on our preliminary analysis, it appears that the underlying onsite soils are moderately corrosive to ferrous
metals. Protection of buried pipes utilizing coatings on all underground pipes; clean backfills and a cathodic
protection system can be effective in controlling corrosion. As RMA Group, Inc. does not practice corrosion
engineering, a qualified corrosion engineer may be consulted to further assess the corrosive properties of the soil.
3.19 Temporary Slopes
Excavation of utility trenches will require either temporary sloped excavations or shoring. Temporary
excavations in existing alluvial soils may be safely made at an inclination of 1:1 or flatter. If vertical sidewalls are
required in excavations greater than 5 feet in depth, the use of cantilevered or braced shoring is recommended.
Excavations less than 5 feet in depth may be constructed with vertical sidewalls without shoring or shielding.
Our recommendations for lateral earth pressures to be used in the design of cantilevered and/or braced shoring
are presented below. These values incorporate a uniform lateral pressure of 72 psf to provide for the normal
construction loads imposed by vehicles, equipment, materials, and workmen on the surface adjacent to the
trench excavation. However, if vehicles, equipment, materials, etc., are kept a minimum distance equal to the
height of the excavation away from the edge of the excavation, this surcharge load need not be applied.
SHORING DESIGN: LATERAL SHORING PRESSURES
BRACED SHEETING
H
CANTILEVERED SHEETING
72 psf
Pa Total = 72 psf + 30 H psf
Pa = 30 H psf
0.6H
0.2H
0.2H
Pa Total = 72 psf + 25 H psf
Pa = 25 H psf 72 psf
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 16
Design of the shield struts should be based on a value of 0.65 times the indicated pressure, Pa, for the
approximate trench depth. The wales and sheeting can be designed for a value of 2/3 the design strut value.
Placement of the shield may be made after the excavation is completed or driven down as the material is
excavated from inside of the shield. If placed after the excavation, some overexcavation may be required to
allow for the shield width and advancement of the shield. The shield may be placed at either the top or the
bottom of the pipe zone. Due to the anticipated thinness of the shield walls, removal of the shield after
construction should have negligible effects on the load factor of pipes. Shields may be successively placed with
conventional trenching equipment.
Vehicles, equipment, materials, etc. should be set back away from the edge of temporary excavations a
minimum distance of 15 feet from the top edge of the excavation. Surface waters should be diverted away from
temporary excavations and prevented from draining over the top of the excavation and down the slope face.
During periods of heavy rain, the slope face should be protected with sandbags to prevent drainage over the
edge of the slope, and a visqueen liner placed on the slope face to prevent erosion of the slope face.
Periodic observations of the excavations should be made by the geotechnical consultant to verify that the soil
conditions have not varied from those anticipated and to monitor the overall condition of the temporary
excavations over time. If at any time during construction conditions are encountered which differ from those
anticipated, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted and allowed to analyze the field conditions prior to
commencing work within the excavation.
Cal/OSHA construction safety orders should be observed during all underground work.
3.20 Utility Trench Backfill
The onsite fill soils will not be suitable for use as pipe bedding for buried utilities. All pipes should be bedded in a
sand, gravel or crushed aggregate imported material complying with the requirements of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction Section 306-1.2.1. Crushed rock products that do not contain
appreciable fines should not be utilized as pipe bedding and/or backfill. Bedding materials should be densified to at
least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) by mechanical methods. The geotechnical consultant should review
and approve of proposed bedding materials prior to use.
STRUTS(typ.)
SHIELD(typ.)
UNDISTURBED SOIL
BEDDING
1'min.
H1
Hsh
Dt
P = 30 Hsh psfa
HEIGHT OF SHIELD, Hsh = DEPTH OF TRENCH, Dt , MINUS DEPTH OF SLOPE, H1
TYPICAL SHORING
DETAIL
1:1
(
H
:
V
)
1:1 (H:V)
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 17
The on-site soils are expected to be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of organic matter and
rocks over 12 inches in diameter. Trench backfill should be densified to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM
D1557). On-site granular soils may be water densified initially. Supplemental mechanical compaction methods may
be required in finer ground soils to attain the required 90% relative compaction.
All utility trench backfill within street right of way, utility easements, under or adjacent to sidewalks, driveways, or
building pads should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant to verify proper compaction. Trenches
excavated adjacent to foundations should not extend within the footing influence zone defined as the area within a
line projected at a 1:1 drawn from the bottom edge of the footing. Trenches crossing perpendicular to foundations
should be excavated and backfilled prior to the construction of the foundations. The excavations should be
backfilled in the presence of the geotechnical engineer and tested to verify adequate compaction beneath the
proposed footing.
Cal/OSHA construction safety orders should be observed during all underground work.
3.21 Pavement Sections
An R-value test was performed on the anticipated subgrade soil at the site in order to provide information on their
soil properties for design of pavement structural sections. The R-value test was done in compliance with CTM-301.
In the course of running the test the sample was unable to be compacted at the pressure required by the test
method without extruding around the mold, therefore, in accordance with the test methods an R-value of 79 was
assumed to the soil, Structural sections were designed using the procedures outlined in Chapter 630 of the
California Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2022) and the Caltrans Mechanistic-Emperical Tool program that
utilizes an equivalent resilient modulus, traffic index and project climate to calculate asphalt pavement sections.
This procedure uses the principle that the pavement structural section must be of adequate thickness to distribute
the load from the design traffic index (TI) to the subgrade soils in such a manner that the stresses from the applied
loads do not exceed the resilient modulus (Mr) of the soil.
Preliminary structural pavement sections are presented in the table below. Street type and corresponding traffic
index and minimum asphalt thickness are per City of Fontana Standard Plan Details 400, 401 and 402. R-value
testing of representative soils collected during of field investigation yield result of 79. Recommended pavement
section were calculated using an R-value of 70 (maximum permissible value per City of Fontana Standard Plan Detail
402) and traffic index values listed below. Calculated pavement sections were increased, when necessary, to meet
minimum asphalt thickness required by the City of Fontana minimum asphalt thickness of 4 inches.
Preliminary Structural Pavement Sections
Street Type Traffic
Index
Minimum
Asphalt
Thickness
Recommended
Pavement Section
(Asphalt Only)*
Recommended
Pavement Section
(Asphalt and Base)
Local 5.5 4.0” 4.0” AC 4.0”AC/4”AB
Collector 6.5 4.5” 4.5” AC 4.5”AC/4”AB
*Asphalt only sections will need to be underlain by a minimum of 12 inches of onsite soils
compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 18
Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements for areas which are not subject to traffic loads may be designed with a
minimum thickness of 4.0 inches of Portland cement concrete on compacted non-expansive engineered fill soils. If
traffic loads are anticipated, PCC pavements should be designed for a minimum thickness of 6.0 inches of Portland
cement concrete on 12.0 inches of crushed aggregate base. Control joints to limit cracking of the concrete pavement
should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart. According to ACI 330, reinforcement to control is not necessary when
pavement is jointed to form short panel lengths of 15 feet or less. Reinforcement in the concrete paving will not add
to the load carrying capacity of the concrete. Any reinforcement of concrete paving may be included in design as
desired, to limit cracking of the concrete with at least number 4 reinforcing steel placed mid-height of the concrete
at 18-inches on center typical.
Prior to paving, the subgrade soils should be scarified and the moisture adjusted to within 2% of the optimum
moisture content. The subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. All
aggregate base courses should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction.
3.22 Soil Infiltration Testing
Two soil infiltration tests were performed using the bore hole percolation test procedure described in the San
Bernardino County Stormwater Program Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans
(WQMP).
The testing was performed in 8-inch diameter borings that were drilled with a truck mounted CME-75 drill rig. The
test holes extended to depths of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The tests were performed in alluvial soil
consisting of sand with silt which is classified as SP by the Unified Soil Classification System.
Prior to performing the tests, the auger used to drill the test holes was rotated until cuttings were removed from the
hole. A 3-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe was then inserted into each test boring through the auger. A filter sock
was installed around the pipe prior to placement in the boring in lieu of gravel or sand packing to prevent siltation in
the pipe during testing and to facilitate removal of the pipe at the conclusion of the testing. Water levels were
measured to the nearest 0.01 of a foot using an electronic well sounder. The test holes were presoaked for 60
minutes and water levels were measured every 10 minutes because the initial water seeped away in less than 30
minutes. A total of 6 measurements were made following completion of presoaking.
Results of the testing are summarized in the table below.
Soil Infiltration Rates
Test No. Depth (ft) Soil Type Infiltration Rate
(in/hr)
P-1 10 SP 22.77
P-2 10 SP 22.83
Design of the infiltration systems should include an appropriate factor of safety to account for degradation of soil
conditions by fine grained materials carried by runoff, potential growth of vegetation, accumulation of trash and
other appropriate considerations. The factor of safety should be determined in accordance with the methodology
presented in San Bernardino County Program – Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans
(Appendix D, Section VII) using a medium concern for the assessment method, low concerns for texture class
(granular soils) and soil variability (relatively homogeneous soils), a low concern for groundwater (depth to
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 19
groundwater greater than 100 feet), and appropriate design related considerations. Per the Technical Guidance
Document, the factor a safety should not be less than 2. We recommend that the slowest field test rate (P-2, 15.58
in/hr) be used to determine the design rate.
The above rates apply to existing natural soils. Compaction of soils will reduce infiltration rates. Therefore soils at
the bottom of the proposed infiltration systems should not be rolled or otherwise compacted, and construction
traffic should not be allowed in the area where the infiltration systems will be constructed. A maintenance plan
should also be developed and implemented to restore infiltration properties of soils that may be impacted by
sedimentation or other adverse conditions.
The test data sheets for the soil infiltration tests are presented in Appendix A.
3.23 Plan Review
Once a formal grading and foundation plans are prepared for the subject property, this office should review the
plans from a geotechnical viewpoint, comment on changes from the plan used during preparation of this report and
revise the recommendations of this report where necessary.
3.24 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Rough Grading
The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to provide observation and testing during the following stages of
grading:
• During the clearing and grubbing of the site.
• During the demolition of any existing structures, buried utilities or other existing improvements.
• During excavation and overexcavation of compressible soils.
• During all phases of grading including ground preparation and filling operations.
• When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading.
A final geotechnical report summarizing conditions encountered during grading should be submitted upon
completion of the rough grading operations.
3.25 Post-Grading Geotechnical Observation and Testing
After the completion of grading the geotechnical engineer should be contacted to provide additional observation
and testing during the following construction activities:
• During trenching and backfilling operations of buried improvements and utilities to verify proper backfill
and compaction of the utility trenches.
• After excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete within footing trenches to verify
that footings are properly founded in competent materials.
• During fine or precise grading involving the placement of any fills underlying driveways, sidewalks,
walkways, or other miscellaneous concrete flatwork to verify proper placement, mixing and compaction of
fills.
• When any unusual conditions are encountered during construction.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page 20
4.00 CLOSURE
The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted
engineering and geologic principles and practices. This report has been prepared for North Fontana Investment
Company, LLC to be used solely for design purposes. Anyone using this report for any other purpose must draw
their own conclusions regarding required construction procedures and subsurface conditions.
The geotechnical and geologic consultant should be retained during the earthwork and foundation phases of
construction to monitor compliance with the design concepts and recommendations and to provide additional
recommendations as needed. Should subsurface conditions be encountered during construction that are different
from those described in this report, this office should be notified immediately so that our recommendations may be
re-evaluated.
FIGURES AND TABLES
SITE LOCATION AND
EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE MAP
Scale: 1" ≈ 2,000'
Base Map: California Division of Mines and Geology Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the Devore Quadrangle, 1995
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 1
CURTIS AVENUE
C
I
T
R
U
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
EART
H
Q
U
A
K
E
F
A
U
L
T
Z
O
N
E
CUCA
M
O
N
G
A
F
A
U
L
T
SITE
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
Scale: 1" ≈ 4,000'
Source: Morton, D.M. and Matti, J.C., 2001, Geologic Map of the Devore 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino County,
California, USGS OFR 01-173
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 2
Partial Legend
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
- Modern wash deposits
- Modern alluvial fan deposits
- Young alluvial fan deposits - Granulitic gneiss, mylonite and cataclasite
- Very old alluvial fan deposits
- Old alluvial fan deposits
CUC
A
M
O
N
G
A
F
A
U
L
T
SAN
J
A
C
I
N
T
O
(
L
Y
T
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
)
F
A
U
L
T
SITE
- Boring Location
LEGEND
B-N
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 2
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
LB-1
LB-2
LB-3
LB-5
LB-4
LB-6
LB-7
LB-13
LB-8
LB-9LB-11LB-10
LB-12
LT-12
LT-7
LT-6
LT-1
LT-2
LT-8
LT-11
LT-10
LT-9
LT-4 LT-3
B-1
B-2, P-1
B-3
B-4, P-2
B-5
B-6
- Boring Location used
B-N, P-N for infiltration testing
- Leighton 2005 Exploratory
- Leighton 2005 Boring Location
LT-N
LB-N
Trench Location
EXPLORATION MAP
Scale: 1" ≈ 200'
REGIONAL DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER MAP
Scale: 1" ≈ 4,000'
Base Map: Fife, D.L., 1974, Map Showing Surface Waters and Marches in Laste 1800's and Generalized Depth to ground
Water (1960), Upper Santa Ana Valley, Southwestern San Bernardino County, California, California Department of Mines
and Geology, SR-113, Plate 4-B.
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 4
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
CUCAM
O
N
G
A
F
A
U
L
T
SA
N
J
A
C
I
N
T
O
F
A
U
L
T
S
A
N
J
A
C
I
N
T
O
(
L
Y
T
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
)
F
A
U
L
T
Partial Legend
--200-- - Line of equal depth to ground water in feet
BARR
I
E
R
J
SITE
NAP NAP
NAP
NAP
RIAL
T
O
-
C
O
L
T
O
N
F
A
U
L
T
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP
Scale: 1" ≈ 4,000'
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 5
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
Partial Legend
Qrc - River channel deposits
Qoal - Older alluvium
QTc - Continential deposits
bc - Basement complex
- Buried groundwater barrier
--200-- - Groundwater elevation contour in feet
- Geologic cross section (see Figure 6)
SITE
C
C'
C'C
Source: Dutcher and Garrett, 1963, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1419 (Plate 4)
RIAL
T
O
-
C
O
L
T
O
N
F
A
U
L
T
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
Horizontal Scale: 1" ≈ 0.7 miles
Vertical Scale shown (1" ≈ 200')
Source: Dutcher and Garrett, 1963, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1419
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 6
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
Qyal - Younger alluvium
(Holocene)
SITE (Projected)
Older alluvium
(Pleistocene)
Historic
groundwater level
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 7
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
SITE
Source: Brandt, J.T., 2022, Mapping structural control through analysis of land-surface deformation for the Rialto-Colton
groundwater subbasin, San Bernardino County, California, 1992-2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2022-1030, 11 p.
RIALTO-COLTON GROUNDWATER SUBBASIN MAP
Scale: As shown
Base Map: California Geological Survey Fault Activity Map, 2010
SITE
RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Figure 8
Curtis Avenue Development
Lewis Management Corp
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
Scale: 1" ≈ 5 Miles'
Partial Legend
Orange - Holocene fault displacement
Green - Late Quaternary fault displacement
Purple - Quaternary fault
Black - Pre-Quaternary fault
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Table 1
Maximum Slip
Distance Distance Moment Rate
Fault Zone & geometry (km)(mi.)Magnitude (mm/yr)
Chino-Central Ave. (rl-r-o)29 18 6.7 1.0
Clamshell-Sawpit (r)38 24 6.5 0.5
Cleghorn (ll-ss)17 11 6.5 3.0
Cucamonga (r)3 2 6.9 5.0
Elsinore - Glen Ivy (rl-ss)37 23 6.8 5.0
Upper Elysian Park (r)60 37 6.4 1.3
Eureka Peak (rl-ss)98 61 6.4 0.6
Gravel Hills-Harper (rl-ss)94 58 7.1 0.6
Helendale - S Lockhart (rl-ss)57 35 7.3 0.6
Hollywood (ll-r-o)72 45 6.4 1.0
Johnson Valley (rl-ss)83 52 6.7 0.6
Landers (rl-ss)90 56 7.3 0.6
Lenwood-Lockhart (rl-ss)78 48 7.5 0.6
Malibu Coast (ll-r-o)99 62 6.7 0.3
Newport-Inglewood (rl-ss)72 45 6.9 1.5
North Frontal - Western (r)26 16 7.2 1.0
North Frontal - Eastern (r)64 40 6.7 0.5
Northridge (r)87 54 7 1.5
Palos Verde (rl-ss)86 53 7.3 3.0
Pinto Mountain (ll-ss)69 43 7.2 2.5
Puente Hills Blind Thrust (r)47 29 7.1 0.7
Raymond (ll-r-o)49 30 6.5 1.5
San Andreas (rl-ss)12 7 7.5 24.0
San Gabriel (rl-ss)78 48 7.2 1.0
San Jacinto - San Bernardino (rl-s 6 4 6.7 12.0
San Joaquin Hills (r)61 38 6.6 0.5
San Jose (ll-r-o)22 14 6.4 0.5
Santa Monica (ll-r-o)77 48 6.6 1.0
Santa Susana (r)98 61 6.7 5.0
Sierra Madre (r)26 16 7.2 2.0
Verdugo (r)64 40 6.9 0.5
Notes:
Fault geometry - (ss) strike slip, (r) reverse, (n) normal, (rl) right lateral, (ll) left lateral, (o) oblique
Fault and Seismic Data - California Geological Survey (Cao), 2003
NOTABLE FAULTS WITHIN 100 KILOMETERS AND SEISMIC DATA
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Table 1
Epicentral
Distance
Date Event Causitive Fault Magnitude (miles)
Dec. 12, 1812 Wrightwood San Andreas?7.3 28
Jan. 9, 1857 Fort Tejon San Andreas 7.9 244
Dec. 16, 1858 San Bernardino Area uncertain 6.0 14
Feb. 9,1890 San Jacinto uncertain 6.3 85
May 28, 1892 San Jacinto uncertain 6.3 86
July 30, 1894 Lytle Creek uncertain 6.0 14
July 22, 1899 Cajon Pass uncertain 6.4 11
Dec.25, 1899 San Jacinto San Jacinto 6.7 36
Sept. 20, 1907 San Bernardino Area uncertain 5.3 21
May 15, 1910 Elsinore Elsinore 6.0 31
April 21, 1918 Hemet San Jacinto 6.8 38
July 23, 1923 San Bernardino San Jacinto 6.0 14
March 11, 1933 Long Beach Newport-Inglewood 6.4 45
April 10, 1947 Manix Manix 6.4 79
Dec. 4, 1948 Desert Hot Springs San Andreas or Banning 6.5 65
July 21, 1952 Wheeler Ridge White Wolf 7.3 110
Feb. 9, 1971 San Fernando San Fernando 6.6 59
July 8, 1986 North Palm Springs Banning or Garnet Hills 5.6 51
Oct. 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows Puente Hills Thrust 6.0 37
Feb. 28, 1990 Upland San Jose 5.5 14
June 28, 1991 Sierra Madre Clamshell Sawpit 5.8 33
April 22, 1992 Joshua Tree Eureka Peak 6.1 68
June 28, 1992 Landers Johnson Valley & others 7.3 60
June 28, 1992 Big Bear uncertain 6.5 37
Jan. 17, 1994 Northridge Northridge Thrust 6.7 64
Oct. 16, 1999 Hector Mine Lavic Lake 7.1 77
July 5, 2019 Ridgecrest Little Lake Fault Zone 7.1 113
Notes:
Earthquake data: U.S.G.S. P.P. 1515 & online data, Southern California Earthquake Center &
California Geological Survey online data
Magnitudes prior to 1932 are estimated from intensity.
Magnitudes after 1932 are moment, local or surface wave magnitudes.
Site Location:
Site Longitude: -117.45647
Site Latitude: 34.14408
HISTORIC STRONG EARTHQUAKES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1812
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page A - 1
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
A-1.00 FIELD EXPLORATION
A-1.01 Number of Borings
Our subsurface investigation consisted of 6 borings with 2 of the borings converted to infiltration tests drilled with a
CME-75 truck mounted hollow stem drill rig. In addition, we have reviewed the borings and exploratory trenches
completed by Leighton and Associates in 2005 and have included copies of their 13 borings and 12 exploratory
trenches as additional reference and exploration information for the site.
A-1.02 Location of Borings
A Boring Location Map showing the approximate locations of the borings is presented as Figure 1.
A-1.03 Boring Logging
Logs of borings were prepared by one of our staff and are attached in this appendix. The logs contain factual
information and interpretation of subsurface conditions between samples. The strata indicated on these logs
represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the transition may be gradual. The logs show
subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, and may not be representative of subsurface conditions
at other locations and times.
Identification of the soils encountered during the subsurface exploration was made using the field identification
procedure of the Unified Soils Classification System (ASTM D2488). A legend indicating the symbols and definitions
used in this classification system and a legend defining the terms used in describing the relative compaction,
consistency or firmness of the soil are attached in this appendix. Bag samples of the major earth units were
obtained for laboratory inspection and testing, and the in-place density of the various strata encountered in the
exploration was determined
A-1.04 Infiltration Testing
2 soil infiltration tests were performed using the boring percolation test procedure described in the San Bernardino
County Stormwater Program Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP).
Locations of the tests are shown on Figure 3.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page A - 2
Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures.
Poorly graded gravel or gravel-sand mixtures,
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour
silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatamaceous
fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols.
Pt
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML
SC
SM
SP
SW
GC
GM
GP
GW
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP
SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
GRAVELS
WITH FINES
GRAVELS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
SANDS
CLEAN
SANDS
SANDS
WITH FINES
SILTS AND CLAYS
SILTS AND CLAYS
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
(More than 50% of
material is LARGER
than No. 200 sieve
size)
(More than 50% of
coarse fraction is
LARGER than the
No. 4 sieve size.
(More than 50% of
coarse fraction is
SMALLER than the
No. 4 sieve size)
(Appreciable
amount of fines)
(Little or no fines)
(Appreciable amt.
of fines)
(Little or no fines)
(More than 50% of
material is SMALLER
than No. 200 sieve
size)
(Liquid limit LESS than 50)
(Liquid limit GREATER than 50)
little or no fines.
little or no fines.
no fines.
or no fines.
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.
with slight plasticity
clays.
plasticity.
organic silts.
Peat and other highly organic soils.
P
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
S
I
Z
E
L
I
M
I
T
S
S
I
L
T
O
R
C
L
A
Y
S
A
N
D
GR
A
V
E
L
CO
B
B
L
E
S
BO
U
L
D
E
R
S
U.
S
.
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
I
E
V
E
S
I
Z
E
FI
N
E
M
E
D
I
U
M
CO
A
R
S
E
FI
N
E
CO
A
R
S
E
No
.
2
0
0
No
.
4
0
No
.
1
0
No
.
4
3/
4
i
n
.
3
i
n
.
12
i
n
.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page A - 3
I. SOIL STRENGTH/DENSITY
BASED ON STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS
Compactness of sand Consistency of clay
Penetration Resistance N
(blows/Ft)
Compactness
Penetration Resistance N
(blows/ft)
Consistency
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
>50
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
<2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
>30
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
N = Number of blows of 140 lb. weight falling 30 in. to drive 2-in OD sampler 1 ft.
BASED ON RELATIVE COMPACTION
Compactness of sand Consistency of clay
% Compaction Compactness % Compaction Consistency
<75
75-83
83-90
>90
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
<80
80-85
85-90
>90
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
II. SOIL MOISTURE
Description Criteria
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Moist Damp but not visible water
Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table
SOIL DESCRIPTION LEGEND
Curtis Avenue Development RMA Job No.:002328870
Lewis Management Corp
Date Drilled:
Logged By:
Location:
Drilling Equipment:
Boring Hole Diameter:
Drive Weights:
Boring No.Exploratory Boring Log
Material DescriptionSamples
This log contains factual information and interpretation of the subsurface conditions between the samples.
The stratum indicated on this log represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the
transition may be gradual. The log show subsurface conditions at the date and location indicated, and may
not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
R
T
Ring Sample
Tube Sample
Bulk Sample
Sample Types:
SPT SampleS
Sheet 1 of 1
11162023
SL
CME75
8"
140 lbs.
5
10
15
20
25
Drop:30"
Groundwater
End of Boring
See Geologic Map
42S
S
B1
Page A4
50 for
5"
Total depth 26.5'
No Groundwater
SP
0.7
0.4 Gravel amount and size increases
S
S
S
66
50 for
6"
50 for
6"
1.6
2.3
SM
Poorly graded sand with gravel, minor cobbles and silt, fine to coarse
sand, poorly sorted, gray to yellowish-brown, dry
SILTY SAND with some gravel, Medium to coarse sand, dark brown to
brown, moist,
Curtis Avenue Development RMA Job No.:002328870
Lewis Management Corp
Date Drilled:
Logged By:
Location:
Drilling Equipment:
Boring Hole Diameter:
Drive Weights:
Boring No.Exploratory Boring Log
Material DescriptionSamples
This log contains factual information and interpretation of the subsurface conditions between the samples.
The stratum indicated on this log represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the
transition may be gradual. The log show subsurface conditions at the date and location indicated, and may
not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
R
T
Ring Sample
Tube Sample
Bulk Sample
Sample Types:
SPT SampleS
Sheet 1 of 1
11162023
SL
CME75
8"
140 lbs.
5
10
15
20
25
Drop:30"
Groundwater
End of Boring
See Geologic Map
60S
S
B2
Page A5
50for
3"Total depth 10.5'
No Groundwater
0.6
0.3
SP
SM
Poorly graded sand with gravel, minor cobbles and silt, fine to coarse
sand, poorly sorted, gray to yellowish-brown, dry
SILTY SAND with some gravel, Medium to coarse sand, dark brown to
brown, moist,
Curtis Avenue Development RMA Job No.:002328870
Lewis Management Corp
Date Drilled:
Logged By:
Location:
Drilling Equipment:
Boring Hole Diameter:
Drive Weights:
Boring No.Exploratory Boring Log
Material DescriptionSamples
This log contains factual information and interpretation of the subsurface conditions between the samples.
The stratum indicated on this log represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the
transition may be gradual. The log show subsurface conditions at the date and location indicated, and may
not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
R
T
Ring Sample
Tube Sample
Bulk Sample
Sample Types:
SPT SampleS
Sheet 1 of 1
11162023
SL
CME75
8"
140 lbs.
5
10
15
20
25
Drop:30"
Groundwater
End of Boring
See Geologic Map
42R
R
B3
Page A6
50 for
5"
Total depth 14.5'
No Groundwater
NA
NA
Gravel amount and size increases
S 66 Bit Broke at 14"
SP
SM
Poorly graded sand with gravel, minor cobbles and silt, fine to coarse
sand, poorly sorted, gray to yellowish-brown, dry
SILTY SAND with some gravel, Medium to coarse sand, dark brown to
brown, moist,
Curtis Avenue Development RMA Job No.:002328870
Lewis Management Corp
Date Drilled:
Logged By:
Location:
Drilling Equipment:
Boring Hole Diameter:
Drive Weights:
Boring No.Exploratory Boring Log
Material DescriptionSamples
This log contains factual information and interpretation of the subsurface conditions between the samples.
The stratum indicated on this log represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the
transition may be gradual. The log show subsurface conditions at the date and location indicated, and may
not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
R
T
Ring Sample
Tube Sample
Bulk Sample
Sample Types:
SPT SampleS
Sheet 1 of 1
11162023
SL
CME75
8"
140 lbs.
5
10
15
20
25
Drop:30"
Groundwater
End of Boring
See Geologic Map
56S
S
B4
Page A7
50 for
6"Total depth 10.5'
No Groundwater
0.9
0.7
103.8
115.2
SP
SM
Poorly graded sand with gravel, minor cobbles and silt, fine to coarse
sand, poorly sorted, gray to yellowish-brown, dry
SILTY SAND with some gravel, Medium to coarse sand, dark brown to
brown, moist,
Curtis Avenue Development RMA Job No.:002328870
Lewis Management Corp
Date Drilled:
Logged By:
Location:
Drilling Equipment:
Boring Hole Diameter:
Drive Weights:
Boring No.Exploratory Boring Log
Material DescriptionSamples
This log contains factual information and interpretation of the subsurface conditions between the samples.
The stratum indicated on this log represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the
transition may be gradual. The log show subsurface conditions at the date and location indicated, and may
not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
R
T
Ring Sample
Tube Sample
Bulk Sample
Sample Types:
SPT SampleS
Sheet 1 of 1
11162023
SL
CME75
8"
140 lbs.
5
10
15
20
25
Drop:30"
Groundwater
End of Boring
See Geologic Map
45R
R
B5
Page A8
50 for
6"
Total depth 16'
No Groundwater
0.3
0.8
Gravel amount and size increases
S 50 for
4"
Bit struggled to get through, stopped at 16 feet
SP
1.1
SM
Poorly graded sand with gravel, minor cobbles and silt, fine to coarse
sand, poorly sorted, gray to yellowish-brown, dry
SILTY SAND with some gravel, Medium to coarse sand, dark brown to
brown, moist,
Curtis Avenue Development RMA Job No.:002328870
Lewis Management Corp
Date Drilled:
Logged By:
Location:
Drilling Equipment:
Boring Hole Diameter:
Drive Weights:
Boring No.Exploratory Boring Log
Material DescriptionSamples
This log contains factual information and interpretation of the subsurface conditions between the samples.
The stratum indicated on this log represent the approximate boundary between earth units and the
transition may be gradual. The log show subsurface conditions at the date and location indicated, and may
not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
R
T
Ring Sample
Tube Sample
Bulk Sample
Sample Types:
SPT SampleS
Sheet 1 of 1
11162023
SL
CME75
8"
140 lbs.
5
10
15
20
25
Drop:30"
Groundwater
End of Boring
See Geologic Map
50 for
6"S
S
B6
Page A9
50 for
6"Total depth 10.5'
No Groundwater
0.5
0.9
103.8
115.2
SP
Bit broke at 10 ft.
Poorly graded sand with gravel, minor cobbles and silt, fine to coarse
sand, poorly sorted, gray to yellowish-brown, dry
SM SILTY SAND with some gravel, Medium to coarse sand, dark brown to
brown, moist,
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page A - 10
Percolation Test Results
Project:Project No.:Date:11/16/2023
B-2, P-1 Tested By:
120
Length Width
8
Trial No.Start Time Stop Time
Time Interval
(min.)
Initial
Depth to
Water (in.)
Final Depth
to Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or equal to
6"? (y/n)
1 9:45 AM 10:15 AM 30 24.0 98.4 74.4 Y
2 10:20 AM 10:50 AM 30 24.0 100.5 76.5 Y
Trial No.Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min.)
Do
Initial
Depth to
Water (In.)
Df
Final Depth
to Water
(In.)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Percolation
Rate
(min./in.)
1 11:00 AM 11:10 AM 10 24.0 100.2 76.2 0.131
2 11:10 AM 11:20 AM 10 34.0 109.8 75.8 0.132
3 11:20 AM 11:30 AM 10 31.0 105.2 74.2 0.135
4 11:40 AM 11:50 AM 10 24.0 99.8 75.8 0.132
5 11:55 AM 12:05 AM 10 28.0 102.6 74.6 0.134
6 12:10 PM 12:20 PM 10 24.0 97.9 73.9 0.135
Infiltration Rate (in/hr) = (ΔH*60min/hr*r)/Δt (r+2Havg)
H avg = (Ho- Hf)/2
22.77
Percolation Test Data Sheet
Curtis Ave Development
Test Hole No.:SL
00-232887-0
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill)
overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximate 30 minute
intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".
Infiltration Rate (in/hr):
GPUSCS Soil Classification:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches)
Diameter In.) if round=
Test Hole Depth (In.) , DT:
Sides (if rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria*
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page A - 11
Project:Project No.:Date:11/16/2023
B-4, P-2 Tested By:
120
Length Width
8
Trial No.Start Time Stop Time
Time Interval
(min.)
Initial
Depth to
Water (in.)
Final Depth
to Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or equal to
6"? (y/n)
1 12:05 PM 12:35 PM 30 24.0 103.2 79.2 Y
2 12:40 PM 1:10 PM 30 24.0 99.7 75.7 Y
Trial No.Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min.)
Do
Initial
Depth to
Water (In.)
Df
Final Depth
to Water
(In.)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Percolation
Rate
(min./in.)
1 12:05 PM 12:15 PM 10 24.0 105.1 81.1 0.123
2 12:15 PM 12:25 PM 10 48.0 128.2 80.2 0.125
3 12:25 PM 12:35 PM 10 24.0 109.2 85.2 0.117
4 12:40 PM 12:50 PM 10 24.0 101.9 77.9 0.128
5 12:50 PM 1:00 PM 10 24.0 102.8 78.8 0.127
6 1:05 PM 1:15 PM 10 24.0 102.4 78.4 0.128
COMMEN Infiltration Rate (in/hr) = (ΔH*60min/hr*r)/Δt (r+2Havg)
H avg = (Ho - Hf)/2
22.83
Percolation Test Data Sheet
Curtis Ave Development
Test Hole No.:SL
00-232887-0
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill)
overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximate 30 minute
intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".
Infiltration Rate (in/hr):
GPUSCS Soil Classification:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches)
Diameter In.) if round=
Test Hole Depth (In.) , DT:
Sides (if rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria*
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES (2015)
BORING AND EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOGS
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTS
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page B - 1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTS
B-1.00 LABORATORY TESTS
B-1.01 Maximum Density
Maximum density - optimum moisture relationships for the major soil types encountered during the field
exploration were performed in the laboratory using the standard procedures of ASTM D1557.
B-1.02 Expansion Tests
Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of the major soil types encountered by the test
methods outlined in ASTM D4829.
B-1.03 Soluble Sulfates and Chlorides
A test was performed on representative sample encountered during the investigation using the Caltrans Test
Methods CTM 417 and CTM 422.
B-1.04 Soil Reactivity (pH) and Electrical Resistivity
Representative soil sample was tested for soil reactivity (pH) and electrical resistivity using California Test Method
643. The pH measurement determines the degree of acidity or alkalinity in the soils.
B-1.05 Particle Size Analysis
Particle size analysis was performed on representative samples of the major soils types in accordance to the
standard test methods of the ASTM D422. The hydrometer portion of the standard procedure was not performed
and the material retained on the #200 screen was washed.
B-1.06 Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on representative samples of the major soil types encountered in the test holes
using the standard test method of ASTM D3080 (consolidated and drained). Tests were performed on remolded
samples were tested at 90 percent relative compaction.
Shear tests were performed on a direct shear machine of the strain-controlled type. To simulate possible adverse
field conditions, the samples were saturated prior to shearing. Several samples were sheared at varying normal
loads and the results plotted to establish the angle of the internal friction and cohesion of the tested samples.
B-1.07 Resistance Value (R-Value)
Resistance Value tests were performed on representative samples of the major soil types encountered by the test
methods outlined in California 301.
B-1.08 Moisture Determination
Moisture content of the soil samples was performed in accordance to standard method for determination of water
content of soil by drying oven, ASTM D2216. The mass of material remaining after oven drying is used as the mass
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page B - 2
of the solid particles.
B-1.09 Density of Split-Barrel Samples
Soil samples were obtained by using a split-barrel sampler in accordance to standard method of ASTM D1586.
B-1.10 Test Results
Test results for all laboratory tests performed on the subject project are presented in this appendix.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page B - 3
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Sample
Number
Sample
Description
Sample Location
Boring No. Depth (ft)
1 Yellowish brown to brownish gray poorly-graded sand with silt and gravel B-1 2-5
2 Yellowish brown to brownish gray poorly-graded sand with silt and gravel B-2 2-5
3 Yellowish brown to brownish gray poorly-graded sand with silt and gravel B-3 2-5
4 Yellowish brown to brownish gray poorly-graded sand with silt and gravel B-4 2-5
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE
Test Method: ASTM D1557
Sample
Number
Optimum Moisture
(Percent)
Maximum Density
(lbs/ft3)
1 7.5 136.7
2 6.2 142.1
EXPANSION TEST
Test Method: ASTM D4829
Sample
Number
Molding
Moisture
Content
(Percent)
Final
Moisture
Content
(Percent)
Initial
Dry
Density
(lbs/ft3)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Classification
2 5.4 14.4 121.0 0 Very Low
SOLUBLE SULFATES
Test Method: CTM 417 and CTM 422
Sample
Number
Soluble Sulfate
(% by weight)
Soluble Chlorides
(ppm)
4 0.0111 24
SOIL REACTIVITY (pH) AND ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY
Test Method: CTM 643
Sample
Number
pH
Resistivity
(Ohm-cm)
4 7.5 8,000
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page B - 4
SAND EQUIVALENT
Test Method: ASTM D2419
Sample
Number
Sand
Equivalent
4 46
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page B - 5
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
ASTM D422
Sample ID: 1
Location: B-1 @ 2-5 feet
Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (gms): 6,561
Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (gms):523.8
Net Retained Net Passing
Screen Size Weight (gms)Weight (gms)% Passing
Fraction A: 3"0 6561 100
1-1/2" 848 5713 87
3/4" 2225 4336 66
3/8" 2917 3644 56
#4 3236 3325 51
Net Retained Net Passing
Screen Size Weight (gms)Weight (gms)% Passing
Fraction B: #8 59.4 464.4 45
#16 130.4 393.4 38
#30 225.7 298.1 29
#50 324.7 199.1 19
#100 403.1 120.7 12
#200 455.4 68.4 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
%
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Grain Size (mm)
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page B - 6
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
ASTM D3080
Sample ID:1
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) = 136.7
Optimum Moisture Content (%) = 7.5
Initial Dry Density (pcf) = 123.0
Initial Moisture Content (%) = 4.5
Final Moisture Content (%) = 13.4
Normal Peak Residual
Pressure Shear Resist Shear Resist
1000 984 804
2000 1488 1320
4000 3084 2712
Peak Residual
Cohesion (psf) =190 110
Friction Angle (deg) =36 33
Peak
Residual
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
p
s
f
)
Normal Stress (psf)
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page B - 7
Moisture Content (%)7.1 9.5 8.8
Dry Density (pcf)126.0 123.3 123.3
Exudation Pressure (psi)796 174 380
Stabilometer R Value 83 77 80
Expansion Pressure Dial 0 0 0
Use: Traffic Index = 5.0 Gravel Factor = 1.00
Thickness by Expansion (ft)
Thickness by Stabilometer (ft)0.27 0.37 0.32
Equilibrium Thick (ft)-
Equilibrium Pressure R Value n/a
Exudation Pressure R Value @ 300 psi 79
Expansion Pressure R-Value is based on the following structural section:
Thickness of AC (ft)=0.25 Gf(ac) = 2.50 W(ac) = 145
Thickness of Aggregate Base (ft)=0.33 Gf(base) = 1.10 W(base) =130
Gf(avg) = 1.70 W(avg) = 136
Use Exudation R Value
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
C
o
v
e
r
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
b
y
S
t
a
b
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
(
f
t
)
Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (ft)
Expansion Pressures
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
S
t
a
b
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
R
V
a
l
u
e
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Exudation Pressures
APPENDIX C
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page C - 1
APPENDIX C
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
C-1.00 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
C-1.01 Introduction
These specifications present our general recommendations for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved
grading plans for the subject project. These specifications shall cover all clearing and grubbing, removal of existing
structures, preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control of the fill, and all
subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades and slopes as
shown on the approved plans.
The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part of shall
supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in case of conflict.
C-1.02 Laboratory Standard and Field Test Methods
The laboratory standard used to establish the maximum density and optimum moisture shall be ASTM D1557.
The insitu density of earth materials (field compaction tests) shall be determined by the sand cone method (ASTM
D1556), direct transmission nuclear method (ASTM D6938) or other test methods as considered appropriate by the
geotechnical consultant.
Relative compaction is defined, for purposes of these specifications, as the ratio of the in-place density to the
maximum density as determined in the previously mentioned laboratory standard.
C-2.00 CLEARING
C-2.01 Surface Clearing
All structures marked for removal, timber, logs, trees, brush and other rubbish shall be removed and disposed of off
the site. Any trees to be removed shall be pulled in such a manner so as to remove as much of the root system as
possible.
C-2.02 Subsurface Removals
A thorough search should be made for possible underground storage tanks and/or septic tanks and cesspools. If
found, tanks should be removed and cesspools pumped dry.
Any concrete irrigation lines shall be crushed in place and all metal underground lines shall be removed from the
site.
C-2.03 Backfill of Cavities
All cavities created or exposed during clearing and grubbing operations or by previous use of the site shall be cleared
of deleterious material and backfilled with native soils or other materials approved by the soil engineer. Said backfill
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page C - 2
shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction.
C-3.00 ORIGINAL GROUND PREPARATION
C-3.01 Stripping of Vegetation
After the site has been properly cleared, all vegetation and topsoil containing the root systems of former vegetation
shall be stripped from areas to be graded. Materials removed in this stripping process may be used as fill in areas
designated by the soil engineer, provided the vegetation is mixed with a sufficient amount of soil to assure that no
appreciable settlement or other detriment will occur due to decaying of the organic matter. Soil materials
containing more than 3% organics shall not be used as structural fill.
C-3.02 Removals of Non-Engineered Fills
Any non-engineered fills encountered during grading shall be completely removed and the underlying ground shall
be prepared in accordance to the recommendations for original ground preparation contained in this section. After
cleansing of any organic matter the fill material may be used for engineered fill.
C-3.03 Overexcavation of Fill Areas
The existing ground in all areas determined to be satisfactory for the support of fills shall be scarified to a minimum
depth of 6 inches. Scarification shall continue until the soils are broken down and free from lumps or clods and until
the scarified zone is uniform. The moisture content of the scarified zone shall be adjusted to within 2% of optimum
moisture. The scarified zone shall then be uniformly compacted to 90% relative compaction.
Where fill material is to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (H:V) the sloping ground shall be benched.
The lowermost bench shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, shall be a minimum of 2 feet deep, and shall expose firm
material as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches shall be excavated to firm material as
determined by the geotechnical consultant and shall have a minimum width of 4 feet.
Existing ground that is determined to be unsatisfactory for the support of fills shall be overexcavated in accordance
to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report of which these general specifications are a part.
C-4.00 FILL MATERIALS
C-4.01 General
Materials for the fill shall be free from vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, shall not contain rocks or
lumps of a greater dimension than is recommended by the geotechnical consultant, and shall be approved by the
geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength properties shall be placed in areas
designated by the geotechnical consultant or shall be mixed with other soils providing satisfactory fill material.
C-4.02 Oversize Material
Oversize material, rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be
placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page C - 3
consultant. Oversize material shall be placed in such a manner that nesting of oversize material does not occur and
in such a manner that the oversize material is completely surrounded by fill material compacted to a minimum of
90% relative compaction. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet of finished grade without the
approval of the geotechnical consultant.
C-4.03 Import
Material imported to the site shall conform to the requirements of Section 4.01 of these specifications. Potential
import material shall be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to importation to the subject site.
C-5.00 PLACING AND SPREADING OF FILL
C-5.01 Fill Lifts
The selected fill material shall be placed in nearly horizontal layers which when compacted will not exceed
approximately 6 inches in thickness. Thicker lifts may be placed if testing indicates the compaction procedures are
such that the required compaction is being achieved and the geotechnical consultant approves their use.
Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to insure uniformity of
material in each layer.
C-5.02 Fill Moisture
When the moisture content of the fill material is below that recommended by the soils engineer, water shall then be
added until he moisture content is as specified to assure thorough bonding during the compacting process.
When the moisture content of the fill material is above that recommended by the soils engineer, the fill material
shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified.
C-5.03 Fill Compaction
After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90%
relative compaction. Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic tired rollers, or other
types approved by the soil engineer.
Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of each layer shall
be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to insure that the desired density has
been obtained.
C-5.04 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting of the
slopes may be done progressively in increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill height. At the completion of grading, the slope
face shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This may require track rolling or rolling with a
grid roller attached to a tractor mounted side-boom.
Slopes may be over filled and cut back in such a manner that the exposed slope faces are compacted to a minimum
of 90% relative compaction.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page C - 4
The fill operation shall be continued in six inch (6") compacted layers, or as specified above, until the fill has been
brought to the finished slopes and grades as shown on the accepted plans.
C-5.05 Compaction Testing
Field density tests shall be made by the geotechnical consultant of the compaction of each layer of fill. Density tests
shall be made at locations selected by the geotechnical consultant.
Frequency of field density tests shall be not less than one test for each 2.0 feet of fill height and at least every one
thousand cubic yards of fill. Where fill slopes exceed four feet in height their finished faces shall be tested at a
frequency of one test for each 1000 square feet of slope face.
Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density reading shall be
taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate that the density of any
layer of fill or portion thereof is below the required density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until
the required density has been obtained.
C-6.00 SUBDRAINS
C-6.01 Subdrain Material
Subdrains shall be constructed of a minimum 4-inch diameter pipe encased in a suitable filter material. The subdrain
pipe shall be Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe
or approved equivalent. Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down. Filter material shall consist of 3/4"
to 1 1/2" clean gravel wrapped in an envelope of filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent.
C-6.02 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform the approximate alignment and
details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain locations shall not be changed or modified without the approval
of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in the subdrain
line, grade or material upon approval by the design civil engineer and the appropriate governmental agencies.
C-7.00 EXCAVATIONS
C-7.01 General
Excavations and cut slopes shall be examined by the geotechnical consultant. If determined necessary by the
geotechnical consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of over excavated areas shall be
performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed.
C-7.02 Fill-Over-Cut Slopes
Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the
geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page C - 5
C-8.00 TRENCH BACKFILL
C-.01 General
Trench backfill within street right of ways shall be compacted to 90% relative compaction as determined by the
ASTM D1557 test method. Backfill may be jetted as a means of initial compaction; however, mechanical compaction
will be required to obtain the required percentage of relative compaction. If trenches are jetted, there must be a
suitable delay for drainage of excess water before mechanical compaction is applied.
C-9.00 SEASONAL LIMITS
C-9.01 General
No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable weather
conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until field tests by the
soils engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified.
C-10.00 SUPERVISION
C-10.01 Prior to Grading
The site shall be observed by the geotechnical consultant upon completion of clearing and grubbing, prior to the
preparation of any original ground for preparation of fill.
The supervisor of the grading contractor and the field representative of the geotechnical consultant shall have a
meeting and discuss the geotechnical aspects of the earthwork prior to commencement of grading.
C-10.02 During Grading
Site preparation of all areas to receive fill shall be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to the
placement of any fill.
The geotechnical consultant or his representative shall observe the fill and compaction operations so that he can
provide an opinion regarding the conformance of the work to the recommendations contained in this report.
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page C - 6
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
Soil backfill, compacted to
90% relative compaction*
Filter fabric envelope
(Mirafi 140N or approved
equivalent) **
Minimum of 1 cubic foot
3" diameter perforated
PVC pipe (schedule 40 or
equivalent) with perforations
oriented down as depicted
minimum 1% gradient to
suitable outlet.
3" min.
Wall footing
Compacted fill
Finished Grade
Retaining wall
Wall waterproofing
per architect's
specifications
* Based on ASTM D1557
** If class 2 permeable material (See
gradation to left) is used in place of
3/4" - 1 1/2" gravel. Filter fabric may
be deleted. Class 2 permeable material
compacted to 90% relative compaction. *
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS 2
PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(CAL TRANS SPECIFICATIONS)
Sieve Size % Passing
1"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.30
No.50
No.200 0-3
0-7
5-15
18-33
25-40
40-100
90-100
100
per linear foot of 3/4"
crushed rock
50 feet on center to a
joints or outlet drain at
Provide open cell head
suitable drainage device
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page D - 1
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
1. Brandt, J.T., 2022, Mapping structural control through analysis of land-surface deformation for the Rialto-
Colton groundwater subbasin, San Bernardino County, California, 1992–2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 2022–1030, 11 p.
2. California Building Standards Commission, 2022 California Building Code.
3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
4. California Department of Water Resources, 1970, Meeting Water Demands in the Chino-Riverside Area,
Bulletin No. 104-3.
5. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1995, Earthquake Fault Zone Map, Devore Quadrangle, Effective
Date June 1, 1995.
6. California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Governmental Agencies, Property
Owners, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42.
7. California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,
Special Publication 117A.
8. Cao, Y. and others, 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003.
9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map No. 0607C7915H,
dated August 28, 2008.
10. Fife, D.L. and others, 1976, Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California: California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113.
11. Fontana, City of, 2018, General Plan.
12. Google Earth, Aerial Photographs, 2011-2023, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2003 and 1994.
13. Historicaerials.com, Aerial Photographs, 2012, 2005, 2002, 1994, 1980, 1966, 1959 and 1938.
14. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits during Earthquakes, Proceedings of the Eleventh International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA.
15. Leighton Consulting, Inc, 2005, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Fontana Unified School District
Proposed Elementary School Number 33, 15900± Curtis Avenue, Fontana California, Project Number 600846-
002, Dated November 9, 2005.
16. Jennings, C.W., Burnett, J.L. and Troxel, B.W., 1962, Geologic Map of California: California Division of Mine and
Curtis Avenue Development January 9, 2024
North Fontana Investment Company, LLC RMA Job No.: 00-232887-01
Page D - 2
Geology Geologic Atlas of California.
17. Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey, Geologic
Data Map No. 6.
18. Martin, G.R. and Lew, M., 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication
117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake
Center publication.
19. Morton, D.M. and Matti, J.C., 1991, Geologic Map of the Devore 7.5-minute Quadrangle, San Bernardino
County, California: U.S. Geological Survey OF 90-695.
20. SEAOC Seismology Committee, 2019, “Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and
Basement Walls,” August 2019, The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendations, Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
21. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V., 1970, Design of Earth Structures for Dynamic Loads in American Society of Civil
Engineers Specialty Conference State-of-the Art Paper, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-
Retaining Structures.
22. San Bernardino County General Plan, 2010, Hazard Overlay Map FH21B.
23. Southern California Earthquake Center online fault and seismic data, https://www.scec.org/.
24. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8.
25. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, Engineering and Design - Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures,
Publication CECW-E, Circular No. 1110-2-6058, Appendix G, http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-
circulars/ec1110-2-6058/.
26. Woolfenden, L.R. and Kadhim, D, 1997, Geohydrology and Water Chemistry in the Rialto-Colton Basin, San
Bernardino County, California, United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-
4012.
wi
t
h
t
h
e
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
o
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
n
ht
t
p
s
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
u
i
c
/
f
o
r
m
s
/
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
-
i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
-
w
e
l
l
-
re
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
p
a
c
i
f
i
c
-
s
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
-
r
e
g
i
o
n
-
9
.
Maxwell® Plus Drainage System Calculations Prepared on February 20, 2024
Project:The Enclave - Fontana, CA
Contact:Arturo Romano, P.E. at K&A Engineering - Corona, CA
in/hr
Factor of Safety
in/hr
Required Drawdown Time hours
Min. Req. Depth to Start Infiltration ft
Groundwater Depth ft
Drywell Rock Shaft Diameter ft
Primary Chamber Depth ft
Drywell Chamber Depth ft
Depth to Overflow ft
Rock Porosity %
Depth to Slurry ft
Drywell Bottom Depth ft
in in
hr hr
2
Chamber diameter =feet.Drywell rock shaft diameter =feet.
Volume provided in each primary settling chamber with depth of feet and a depth to overflow of 5 feet.
x =
Volume provided in each drywell with chamber depth of feet and a depth to overflow of 5 feet.
x ft x ft 2 x ft x ft 2 x =ft 3
ft 3
Torrent Resources (CA) Incorporated
9950 Alder Avenue
Bloomington, CA 92316
Phone 909-829-0740
The proposed MaxWell System is composed of 3 drywell(s) and 2 primary chamber(s).
ft
= 13,896 cubic feet of water infiltrated.
12.57
12.57 40%)
1 hr
ft 2 )
3600 sec
1 hr
2 28.27
3 = 868 cubic feet of water infiltrated.
%)
5
Water Quality Flowrate cfs
15
15
4 4
Total infiltration flowrate = 0.24124 ft 3
sec
ft 32,605
41,687 ft 3
1119Total volume provided =
Total 3 hour infiltration volume =
Total 48 hour infiltration volume =
3.13
48
10
100+
7.27Design Percolation Rate
Given: (depths from existing ground)
11
45
40
15
15
sec
ft
3600 sec
ft 2 126
x 0.08041 ft 3
ft 3
=
hrs: 0.0804 CFS x 48 hours x
0.000168inx1 hr
3600 sec
hrs: 0.0804 CFS x 3 hours x
478=ft
Combine design rate with infiltration area to get infiltration flowrate for each drywell.
ft
(10 + (
ft 2ft
40
sec
Infiltration volume for each drywell based on various time frames are included below.
2812.57
10
) +
478 ft 2
x 18.85
12 in
A 4 foot diameter drywell provides 12.57 SF of infiltration area per foot of depth, plus 12.57 SF at the bottom.
Convert Design Rate from in/hr to ft/sec.
12.57 ft 2
4
Apply Safety Factor to get Design Rate.
ft
1 ft
) +12.57 ft 2
hr
39000
x
22.77 ÷ 3.13 7.27
=ft
sec7.27
(6
ft
ft
Proposed: (depths from drywell lid)
=
For any questions, please contact Noel Thurston at 442-243-6774 or via email at Noel.Thurston@Oldcastle.com
Based on the total mitigated volume of 39000 CF, after subtracting the volume stored in the MaxWell System 1119 CF and
the volume infiltrated within 3 hours 2605 CF, the residual volume of 35276 CF could be stored in a StormCapture or
similar detention system and connected to the drywell system.
Measured Percolation Rate 22.77
DRAFT
For a 45 foot deep drywell, infiltration occurs between 11 feet and 45 feet below grade. This provides 34 feet of infiltration
depth in addition to the bottom area. Infiltration area per drywell is calculated below.
x
+ (
48
(28
0.000168
289
Date:2/27/2024
Project Name:WQMP Detention - 45845 (2-27-2024 0-56-4)
City / County:
State:
Designed By:
Company:
=Adjustable Input Cells Telephone:
Out-to-out length (ft): 92.0 Backfill Porosity (%): 40% System Diameter (in): 96
Out-to-out width (ft):58.0 Depth Above Pipe (in):0.0 Pipe Spacing (in):24
Number of Manifolds (ea):2.0 Depth Below Pipe (in):0.0 Incremental Analysis (in):2
Number of Barrels (ea):6.0 Width At Ends (ft):1.0 System Invert (Elevation):0
Width At Sides (ft):1.0
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Percent Open
Storage (%)
Ave. Surface
Area (sf)
0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%2,256.0
0.17 0.16 145.9 145.9 317.7 317.7 463.5 463.5 31.5%3,040.3
0.33 0.33 264.1 409.9 270.4 588.0 534.4 997.9 41.1%3,353.3
0.50 0.50 338.3 748.2 240.7 828.7 579.0 1,576.9 47.4%3,585.2
0.67 0.66 396.2 1,144.4 217.5 1,046.2 613.7 2,190.6 52.2%3,773.7
0.83 0.83 444.3 1,588.7 198.3 1,244.5 642.6 2,833.2 56.1%3,933.4
1.00 1.00 485.6 2,074.4 181.7 1,426.3 667.4 3,500.6 59.3%4,072.0
1.17 1.16 521.7 2,596.1 167.3 1,593.6 689.0 4,189.7 62.0%4,194.1
1.33 1.33 553.7 3,149.8 154.5 1,748.1 708.2 4,897.9 64.3%4,302.4
1.50 1.50 582.2 3,732.0 143.1 1,891.2 725.3 5,623.2 66.4%4,399.3
1.67 1.66 607.6 4,339.6 132.9 2,024.2 740.6 6,363.7 68.2%4,486.1
1.83 1.83 630.5 4,970.1 123.8 2,148.0 754.3 7,118.0 69.8%4,563.9
2.00 2.00 651.0 5,621.0 115.6 2,263.6 766.6 7,884.6 71.3%4,633.8
2.17 2.16 669.3 6,290.3 108.3 2,371.9 777.6 8,662.2 72.6%4,696.2
2.33 2.33 685.7 6,976.1 101.7 2,473.6 787.4 9,449.6 73.8%4,751.9
2.50 2.50 700.3 7,676.4 95.9 2,569.4 796.2 10,245.8 74.9%4,801.2
2.67 2.66 713.2 8,389.5 90.7 2,660.2 803.9 11,049.7 75.9%4,844.6
2.83 2.83 724.4 9,114.0 86.2 2,746.4 810.6 11,860.4 76.8%4,882.2
3.00 3.00 734.1 9,848.1 82.4 2,828.8 816.5 12,676.8 77.7%4,914.4
3.17 3.16 742.3 10,590.4 79.1 2,907.9 821.4 13,498.2 78.5%4,941.4
3.33 3.33 749.1 11,339.4 76.4 2,984.2 825.4 14,323.7 79.2%4,963.2
3.50 3.50 754.5 12,093.9 74.2 3,058.4 828.7 15,152.3 79.8%4,980.1
3.67 3.66 758.5 12,852.4 72.6 3,131.1 831.1 15,983.4 80.4%4,992.1
3.83 3.83 761.1 13,613.5 71.6 3,202.6 832.7 16,816.1 81.0%4,999.2
4.00 4.00 762.4 14,375.9 71.0 3,273.6 833.5 17,649.6 81.5%5,001.6
4.17 4.16 762.4 15,138.4 71.0 3,344.7 833.5 18,483.0 81.9%4,999.2
4.33 4.33 761.1 15,899.5 71.6 3,416.2 832.7 19,315.7 82.3%4,992.1
4.50 4.50 758.5 16,658.0 72.6 3,488.8 831.1 20,146.8 82.7%4,980.1
4.67 4.66 754.5 17,412.4 74.2 3,563.0 828.7 20,975.4 83.0%4,963.2
4.83 4.83 749.1 18,161.5 76.4 3,639.4 825.4 21,800.9 83.3%4,941.4
5.00 5.00 742.3 18,903.8 79.1 3,718.5 821.4 22,622.3 83.6%4,914.4
5.17 5.16 734.1 19,637.9 82.4 3,800.8 816.5 23,438.7 83.8%4,882.2
5.33 5.33 724.4 20,362.3 86.2 3,887.1 810.6 24,249.4 84.0%4,844.6
5.50 5.50 713.2 21,075.5 90.7 3,977.8 803.9 25,053.3 84.1%4,801.2
5.67 5.66 700.3 21,775.8 95.9 4,073.7 796.2 25,849.5 84.2%4,751.9
5.83 5.83 685.7 22,461.5 101.7 4,175.4 787.4 26,636.9 84.3%4,696.2
6.00 6.00 669.3 23,130.8 108.3 4,283.7 777.6 27,414.5 84.4%4,633.8
6.17 6.16 651.0 23,781.8 115.6 4,399.3 766.6 28,181.1 84.4%4,563.9
Pipe Stone Total SystemSystem
Storage Volume Estimation
Miscellaneous
Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC is pleased to offer the following estimate of storage volume for the above named project. The results are submitted as
an estimate only, without liability on the part of Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability to any particular applicaton and are subject to
verification of the Engineer of Record. This tool is only applicable for rectangular shaped systems.
CMP: Underground Detention System
Storage Volume Estimation
Summary of Inputs
Pipe & Analysis InformationSystem Information Backfill Information
These results are submitted to you as a guideline only, without liability on the part of CONTECH Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability
to any particular application, and are subject to your verification.
6.33 6.33 630.5 24,412.3 123.8 4,523.1 754.3 28,935.4 84.4%4,486.1
6.50 6.50 607.6 25,019.9 132.9 4,656.0 740.6 29,675.9 84.3%4,399.3
6.67 6.66 582.2 25,602.1 143.1 4,799.2 725.3 30,401.2 84.2%4,302.4
6.83 6.83 553.7 26,155.8 154.5 4,953.7 708.2 31,109.5 84.1%4,194.1
7.00 7.00 521.7 26,677.5 167.3 5,121.0 689.0 31,798.5 83.9%4,072.0
7.17 7.16 485.6 27,163.1 181.7 5,302.7 667.4 32,465.9 83.7%3,933.4
7.33 7.33 444.3 27,607.5 198.3 5,501.0 642.6 33,108.5 83.4%3,773.7
7.50 7.50 396.2 28,003.7 217.5 5,718.5 613.7 33,722.2 83.0%3,585.2
7.67 7.66 338.3 28,341.9 240.7 5,959.2 579.0 34,301.2 82.6%3,353.3
7.83 7.83 264.1 28,606.0 270.4 6,229.6 534.4 34,835.6 82.1%3,040.3
8.00 8.00 145.9 28,751.9 317.7 6,547.3 463.5 35,299.1 81.5%2,256.0
These results are submitted to you as a guideline only, without liability on the part of CONTECH Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability
to any particular application, and are subject to your verification.
Parking/Storage Area Maintenance SC-43
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 4
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Description
Parking lots and storage areas can contribute a number of
substances, such as trash, suspended solids, hydrocarbons, oil
and grease, and heavy metals that can enter receiving waters
through stormwater runoff or non-stormwater discharges. The
following protocols are intended to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants from parking/storage areas and include
using good housekeeping practices, following appropriate
cleaning BMPs, and training employees.
Approach
Pollution Prevention
Encourage alternative designs and maintenance strategies for
impervious parking lots. (See New Development and
Redevelopment BMP Handbook).
Keep accurate maintenance logs to evaluate BMP
implementation.
Suggested Protocols
General
Keep the parking and storage areas clean and orderly.
Remove debris in a timely fashion.
Allow sheet runoff to flow into biofilters (vegetated strip and
swale) and/or infiltration devices.
Utilize sand filters or oleophilic collectors for oily waste in low
concentrations.
Objectives
Cover
Contain
Educate
Reduce/Minimize
Product Substitution
Targeted Constituents
Sediment
Nutrients
Trash
Metals
Bacteria
Oil and Grease
Organics
Oxygen Demanding
SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance
2 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Arrange rooftop drains to prevent drainage directly onto paved surfaces.
Design lot to include semi-permeable hardscape.
Controlling Litter
Post “No Littering” signs and enforce anti-litter laws.
Provide an adequate number of litter receptacles.
Clean out and cover litter receptacles frequently to prevent spillage.
Provide trash receptacles in parking lots to discourage litter.
Routinely sweep, shovel and dispose of litter in the trash.
Surface cleaning
Use dry cleaning methods (e.g. sweeping or vacuuming) to prevent the discharge of
pollutants into the stormwater conveyance system.
Establish frequency of public parking lot sweeping based on usage and field observations of
waste accumulation.
Sweep all parking lots at least once before the onset of the wet season.
If water is used follow the procedures below:
Block the storm drain or contain runoff.
Wash water should be collected and pumped to the sanitary sewer or discharged to a
pervious surface, do not allow wash water to enter storm drains.
Dispose of parking lot sweeping debris and dirt at a landfill.
When cleaning heavy oily deposits:
Use absorbent materials on oily spots prior to sweeping or washing.
Dispose of used absorbents appropriately.
Surface Repair
Pre-heat, transfer or load hot bituminous material away from storm drain inlets.
Apply concrete, asphalt, and seal coat during dry weather to prevent contamination form
contacting stormwater runoff.
Cover and seal nearby storm drain inlets (with waterproof material or mesh) and manholes
before applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc., where applicable. Leave covers in place until job
is complete and until all water from emulsified oil sealants has drained or evaporated. Clean
any debris from these covered manholes and drains for proper disposal.
Parking/Storage Area Maintenance SC-43
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 4
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Use only as much water as necessary for dust control, to avoid runoff.
Catch drips from paving equipment that is not in use with pans or absorbent material placed
under the machines. Dispose of collected material and absorbents properly.
Inspection
Have designated personnel conduct inspections of the parking facilities and stormwater
conveyance systems associated with them on a regular basis.
Inspect cleaning equipment/sweepers for leaks on a regular basis.
Training
Provide regular training to field employees and/or contractors regarding cleaning of paved
areas and proper operation of equipment.
Train employees and contractors in proper techniques for spill containment and cleanup.
Spill Response and Prevention
Refer to SC-11, Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup.
Keep your Spill Prevention Control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan up-to-date, nad
implement accordingly.
Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location.
Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible.
Properly dispose of spill cleanup material.
Other Considerations
Limitations related to sweeping activities at large parking facilities may include high
equipment costs, the need for sweeper operator training, and the inability of current sweeper
technology to remove oil and grease.
Requirements
Costs
Cleaning/sweeping costs can be quite large, construction and maintenance of stormwater
structural controls can be quite expensive as well.
Maintenance
Sweep parking lot to minimize cleaning with water.
Clean out oil/water/sand separators regularly, especially after heavy storms.
Clean parking facilities on a regular basis to prevent accumulated wastes and pollutants
from being discharged into conveyance systems during rainy conditions.
SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance
4 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Supplemental Information
Further Detail of the BMP
Surface Repair
Apply concrete, asphalt, and seal coat during dry weather to prevent contamination form
contacting stormwater runoff. Where applicable, cover and seal nearby storm drain inlets (with
waterproof material or mesh) and manholes before applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc. Leave
covers in place until job is complete and until all water from emulsified oil sealants has drained
or evaporated. Clean any debris from these covered manholes and drains for proper disposal.
Use only as much water as necessary for dust control, to avoid runoff.
References and Resources
http://www.stormwatercenter.net/
California’s Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html
Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for
Small Municipalities. Prepared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal
Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments, Woodward-Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality control Board. July
1998 (Revised February 2002 by the California Coastal Commission).
Orange County Stormwater Program
http://www.ocwatersheds.com/StormWater/swp_introduction.asp
Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies. Oregon Municipal Stormwater Toolbox for
Maintenance Practices. June 1998.
Pollution from Surface Cleaning Folder. 1996. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association (BASMAA) http://www.basma.org
San Diego Stormwater Co-permittees Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
(URMP)
http://www.projectcleanwater.org/pdf/Model%20Program%20Municipal%20Facilities.pdf
Landscape Maintenance SC-73
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 6
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Description
Landscape maintenance activities include vegetation removal;
herbicide and insecticide application; fertilizer application;
watering; and other gardening and lawn care practices.
Vegetation control typically involves a combination of chemical
(herbicide) application and mechanical methods. All of these
maintenance practices have the potential to contribute pollutants
to the storm drain system. The major objectives of this BMP are
to minimize the discharge of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers
to the storm drain system and receiving waters; prevent the
disposal of landscape waste into the storm drain system by
collecting and properly disposing of clippings and cuttings, and
educating employees and the public.
Approach
Pollution Prevention
Implement an integrated pest management (IPM) program.
IPM is a sustainable approach to managing pests by
combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools.
Choose low water using flowers, trees, shrubs, and
groundcover.
Consider alternative landscaping techniques such as
naturescaping and xeriscaping.
Conduct appropriate maintenance (i.e. properly timed
fertilizing, weeding, pest control, and pruning) to help
preserve the landscapes water efficiency.
Objectives
Contain
Educate
Reduce/Minimize
Product Substitution
Targeted Constituents
Sediment
Nutrients
Trash
Metals
Bacteria
Oil and Grease
Organics
Oxygen Demanding
SC-73 Landscape Maintenance
2 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Consider grass cycling (grass cycling is the natural recycling of grass by leaving the clippings
on the lawn when mowing. Grass clippings decompose quickly and release valuable
nutrients back into the lawn).
Suggested Protocols
Mowing, Trimming, and Weeding
Whenever possible use mechanical methods of vegetation removal (e.g mowing with tractor-
type or push mowers, hand cutting with gas or electric powered weed trimmers) rather than
applying herbicides. Use hand weeding where practical.
Avoid loosening the soil when conducting mechanical or manual weed control, this could
lead to erosion. Use mulch or other erosion control measures when soils are exposed.
Performing mowing at optimal times. Mowing should not be performed if significant rain
events are predicted.
Mulching mowers may be recommended for certain flat areas. Other techniques may be
employed to minimize mowing such as selective vegetative planting using low maintenance
grasses and shrubs.
Collect lawn and garden clippings, pruning waste, tree trimmings, and weeds. Chip if
necessary, and compost or dispose of at a landfill (see waste management section of this fact
sheet).
Place temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses, and berm or cover stockpiles
to prevent material releases to storm drains.
Planting
Determine existing native vegetation features (location, species, size, function, importance)
and consider the feasibility of protecting them. Consider elements such as their effect on
drainage and erosion, hardiness, maintenance requirements, and possible conflicts between
preserving vegetation and the resulting maintenance needs.
Retain and/or plant selected native vegetation whose features are determined to be
beneficial, where feasible. Native vegetation usually requires less maintenance (e.g.,
irrigation, fertilizer) than planting new vegetation.
Consider using low water use groundcovers when planting or replanting.
Waste Management
Compost leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation or dispose of at a permitted landfill. Do
not dispose of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems.
Place temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses and storm drain inlets, and
berm or cover stockpiles to prevent material releases to the storm drain system.
Reduce the use of high nitrogen fertilizers that produce excess growth requiring more
frequent mowing or trimming.
Landscape Maintenance SC-73
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 6
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Avoid landscape wastes in and around storm drain inlets by either using bagging equipment
or by manually picking up the material.
Irrigation
Where practical, use automatic timers to minimize runoff.
Use popup sprinkler heads in areas with a lot of activity or where there is a chance the pipes
may be broken. Consider the use of mechanisms that reduce water flow to sprinkler heads if
broken.
Ensure that there is no runoff from the landscaped area(s) if re-claimed water is used for
irrigation.
If bailing of muddy water is required (e.g. when repairing a water line leak), do not put it in
the storm drain; pour over landscaped areas.
Irrigate slowly or pulse irrigate to prevent runoff and then only irrigate as much as is
needed.
Apply water at rates that do not exceed the infiltration rate of the soil.
Fertilizer and Pesticide Management
Utilize a comprehensive management system that incorporates integrated pest management
(IPM) techniques. There are many methods and types of IPM, including the following:
Mulching can be used to prevent weeds where turf is absent, fencing installed to keep
rodents out, and netting used to keep birds and insects away from leaves and fruit.
Visible insects can be removed by hand (with gloves or tweezers) and placed in soapy
water or vegetable oil. Alternatively, insects can be sprayed off the plant with water or in
some cases vacuumed off of larger plants.
Store-bought traps, such as species-specific, pheromone-based traps or colored sticky
cards, can be used.
Slugs can be trapped in small cups filled with beer that are set in the ground so the slugs
can get in easily.
In cases where microscopic parasites, such as bacteria and fungi, are causing damage to
plants, the affected plant material can be removed and disposed of (pruning equipment
should be disinfected with bleach to prevent spreading the disease organism).
Small mammals and birds can be excluded using fences, netting, tree trunk guards.
Beneficial organisms, such as bats, birds, green lacewings, ladybugs, praying mantis,
ground beetles, parasitic nematodes, trichogramma wasps, seed head weevils, and
spiders that prey on detrimental pest species can be promoted.
Follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and
disposal of fertilizers and pesticides and training of applicators and pest control advisors.
SC-73 Landscape Maintenance
4 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Use pesticides only if there is an actual pest problem (not on a regular preventative
schedule).
Do not use pesticides if rain is expected. Apply pesticides only when wind speeds are low
(less than 5 mph).
Do not mix or prepare pesticides for application near storm drains.
Prepare the minimum amount of pesticide needed for the job and use the lowest rate that
will effectively control the pest.
Employ techniques to minimize off-target application (e.g. spray drift) of pesticides,
including consideration of alternative application techniques.
Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped or broadcast onto the surface.
Calibrate fertilizer and pesticide application equipment to avoid excessive application.
Periodically test soils for determining proper fertilizer use.
Sweep pavement and sidewalk if fertilizer is spilled on these surfaces before applying
irrigation water.
Purchase only the amount of pesticide that you can reasonably use in a given time period
(month or year depending on the product).
Triple rinse containers, and use rinse water as product. Dispose of unused pesticide as
hazardous waste.
Dispose of empty pesticide containers according to the instructions on the container label.
Inspection
Inspect irrigation system periodically to ensure that the right amount of water is being
applied and that excessive runoff is not occurring. Minimize excess watering, and repair
leaks in the irrigation system as soon as they are observed.
Inspect pesticide/fertilizer equipment and transportation vehicles daily.
Training
Educate and train employees on use of pesticides and in pesticide application techniques to
prevent pollution. Pesticide application must be under the supervision of a California
qualified pesticide applicator.
Train/encourage municipal maintenance crews to use IPM techniques for managing public
green areas.
Annually train employees within departments responsible for pesticide application on the
appropriate portions of the agency’s IPM Policy, SOPs, and BMPs, and the latest IPM
techniques.
Landscape Maintenance SC-73
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 6
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Employees who are not authorized and trained to apply pesticides should be periodically (at
least annually) informed that they cannot use over-the-counter pesticides in or around the
workplace.
Use a training log or similar method to document training.
Spill Response and Prevention
Refer to SC-11, Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup
Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a know in location
Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible.
Properly dispose of spill cleanup material.
Other Considerations
The Federal Pesticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and California Title 3, Division 6,
Pesticides and Pest Control Operations place strict controls over pesticide application and
handling and specify training, annual refresher, and testing requirements. The regulations
generally cover: a list of approved pesticides and selected uses, updated regularly; general
application information; equipment use and maintenance procedures; and record keeping.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulations and the County Agricultural
Commission coordinate and maintain the licensing and certification programs. All public
agency employees who apply pesticides and herbicides in “agricultural use” areas such as
parks, golf courses, rights-of-way and recreation areas should be properly certified in
accordance with state regulations. Contracts for landscape maintenance should include
similar requirements.
All employees who handle pesticides should be familiar with the most recent material safety
data sheet (MSDS) files.
Municipalities do not have the authority to regulate the use of pesticides by school districts,
however the California Healthy Schools Act of 2000 (AB 2260) has imposed requirements
on California school districts regarding pesticide use in schools. Posting of notification prior
to the application of pesticides is now required, and IPM is stated as the preferred approach
to pest management in schools.
Requirements
Costs
Additional training of municipal employees will be required to address IPM techniques and
BMPs. IPM methods will likely increase labor cost for pest control which may be offset by lower
chemical costs.
Maintenance
Not applicable
SC-73 Landscape Maintenance
6 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Supplemental Information
Further Detail of the BMP
Waste Management
Composting is one of the better disposal alternatives if locally available. Most municipalities
either have or are planning yard waste composting facilities as a means of reducing the amount
of waste going to the landfill. Lawn clippings from municipal maintenance programs as well as
private sources would probably be compatible with most composting facilities
Contractors and Other Pesticide Users
Municipal agencies should develop and implement a process to ensure that any contractor
employed to conduct pest control and pesticide application on municipal property engages in
pest control methods consistent with the IPM Policy adopted by the agency. Specifically,
municipalities should require contractors to follow the agency’s IPM policy, SOPs, and BMPs;
provide evidence to the agency of having received training on current IPM techniques when
feasible; provide documentation of pesticide use on agency property to the agency in a timely
manner.
References and Resources
King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual. Best Management Practices for Businesses.
1995. King County Surface Water Management. July. On-line:
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm
Los Angeles County Stormwater Quality Model Programs. Public Agency Activities
http://ladpw.org/wmd/npdes/model_links.cfm
Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for
Small Municipalities. Prepared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal
Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments, Woodward-Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. July.
1998.
Orange County Stormwater Program
http://www.ocwatersheds.com/StormWater/swp_introduction.asp
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 1997 Urban Runoff
Management Plan. September 1997, updated October 2000.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Landscaping and Lawn Care. Office of Water. Office of
Wastewater Management. On-line: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll_8.htm
Drainage System Maintenance SC-74
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 9
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Description
As a consequence of its function, the stormwater conveyance
system collects and transports urban runoff that may contain
certain pollutants. Maintaining catch basins, stormwater inlets,
and other stormwater conveyance structures on a regular basis
will remove pollutants, prevent clogging of the downstream
conveyance system, restore catch basins’ sediment trapping
capacity, and ensure the system functions properly hydraulically
to avoid flooding.
Approach
Suggested Protocols
Catch Basins/Inlet Structures
Municipal staff should regularly inspect facilities to ensure
the following:
Immediate repair of any deterioration threatening
structural integrity.
Cleaning before the sump is 40% full. Catch basins
should be cleaned as frequently as needed to meet this
standard.
Stenciling of catch basins and inlets (see SC-75 Waste
Handling and Disposal).
Clean catch basins, storm drain inlets, and other conveyance
structures in high pollutant load areas just before the wet
season to remove sediments and debris accumulated during
the summer.
Objectives
Contain
Educate
Reduce/Minimize
Targeted Constituents
Sediment
Nutrients
Trash
Metals
Bacteria
Oil and Grease
Organics
Oxygen Demanding
Photo Credit: Geoff Brosseau
SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance
2 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Conduct inspections more frequently during the wet season for problem areas where
sediment or trash accumulates more often. Clean and repair as needed.
Keep accurate logs of the number of catch basins cleaned.
Record the amount of waste collected.
Store wastes collected from cleaning activities of the drainage system in appropriate
containers or temporary storage sites in a manner that prevents discharge to the storm
drain.
Dewater the wastes with outflow into the sanitary sewer if permitted. Water should be
treated with an appropriate filtering device prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. If
discharge to the sanitary sewer is not allowed, water should be pumped or vacuumed to a
tank and properly disposed of. Do not dewater near a storm drain or stream.
Except for small communities with relatively few catch basins that may be cleaned manually,
most municipalities will require mechanical cleaners such as eductors, vacuums, or bucket
loaders.
Storm Drain Conveyance System
Locate reaches of storm drain with deposit problems and develop a flushing schedule that
keeps the pipe clear of excessive buildup.
Collect flushed effluent and pump to the sanitary sewer for treatment.
Pump Stations
Clean all storm drain pump stations prior to the wet season to remove silt and trash.
Do not allow discharge from cleaning a storm drain pump station or other facility to reach
the storm drain system.
Conduct quarterly routine maintenance at each pump station.
Inspect, clean, and repair as necessary all outlet structures prior to the wet season.
Sample collected sediments to determine if landfill disposal is possible, or illegal discharges
in the watershed are occurring.
Open Channel
Consider modification of storm channel characteristics to improve channel hydraulics, to
increase pollutant removals, and to enhance channel/creek aesthetic and habitat value.
Conduct channel modification/improvement in accordance with existing laws. Any person,
government agency, or public utility proposing an activity that will change the natural
(emphasis added) state of any river, stream, or lake in California, must enter into a steam or
Lake Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game. The developer-applicant
should also contact local governments (city, county, special districts), other state agencies
Drainage System Maintenance SC-74
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 9
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
(SWRCB, RWQCB, Department of Forestry, Department of Water Resources), and Federal
Corps of Engineers and USFWS
Illicit Connections and Discharges
During routine maintenance of conveyance system and drainage structures field staff should
look for evidence of illegal discharges or illicit connections:
Is there evidence of spills such as paints, discoloring, etc.
Are there any odors associated with the drainage system
Record locations of apparent illegal discharges/illicit connections
Track flows back to potential dischargers and conduct aboveground inspections. This can
be done through visual inspection of up gradient manholes or alternate techniques
including zinc chloride smoke testing, fluorometric dye testing, physical inspection
testing, or television camera inspection.
Once the origin of flow is established, require illicit discharger to eliminate the discharge.
Stencil storm drains, where applicable, to prevent illegal disposal of pollutants. Storm drain
inlets should have messages such as “Dump No Waste Drains to Stream” stenciled next to
them to warn against ignorant or intentional dumping of pollutants into the storm drainage
system.
Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges.
Illegal Dumping
Regularly inspect and clean up hot spots and other storm drainage areas where illegal
dumping and disposal occurs.
Establish a system for tracking incidents. The system should be designed to identify the
following:
Illegal dumping hot spots
Types and quantities (in some cases) of wastes
Patterns in time of occurrence (time of day/night, month, or year)
Mode of dumping (abandoned containers, “midnight dumping” from moving vehicles,
direct dumping of materials, accidents/spills)
Responsible parties
Post “No Dumping” signs in problem areas with a phone number for reporting dumping and
disposal. Signs should also indicate fines and penalties for illegal dumping.
Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges.
SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance
4 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
The State Department of Fish and Game has a hotline for reporting violations called Cal TIP
(1-800-952-5400). The phone number may be used to report any violation of a Fish and
Game code (illegal dumping, poaching, etc.).
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Waste Alert Hotline, 1-800-
69TOXIC, can be used to report hazardous waste violations.
Training
Train crews in proper maintenance activities, including record keeping and disposal.
Only properly trained individuals are allowed to handle hazardous materials/wastes.
Train municipal employees from all departments (public works, utilities, street cleaning,
parks and recreation, industrial waste inspection, hazardous waste inspection, sewer
maintenance) to recognize and report illegal dumping.
Train municipal employees and educate businesses, contractors, and the general public in
proper and consistent methods for disposal.
Train municipal staff regarding non-stormwater discharges (See SC-10 Non-Stormwater
Discharges).
Spill Response and Prevention
Refer to SC-11, Prevention, Control & Cleanup
Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location.
Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible.
Properly dispose of spill cleanup material.
Other Considerations
Cleanup activities may create a slight disturbance for local aquatic species. Access to items
and material on private property may be limited. Trade-offs may exist between channel
hydraulics and water quality/riparian habitat. If storm channels or basins are recognized as
wetlands, many activities, including maintenance, may be subject to regulation and
permitting.
Storm drain flushing is most effective in small diameter pipes (36-inch diameter pipe or less,
depending on water supply and sediment collection capacity). Other considerations
associated with storm drain flushing may include the availability of a water source, finding a
downstream area to collect sediments, liquid/sediment disposal, and disposal of flushed
effluent to sanitary sewer may be prohibited in some areas.
Regulations may include adoption of substantial penalties for illegal dumping and disposal.
Municipal codes should include sections prohibiting the discharge of soil, debris, refuse,
hazardous wastes, and other pollutants into the storm drain system.
Private property access rights may be needed to track illegal discharges up gradient.
Drainage System Maintenance SC-74
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 9
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Requirements of municipal ordinance authority for suspected source verification testing for
illicit connections necessary for guaranteed rights of entry.
Requirements
Costs
An aggressive catch basin cleaning program could require a significant capital and O&M
budget. A careful study of cleaning effectiveness should be undertaken before increased
cleaning is implemented. Catch basin cleaning costs are less expensive if vacuum street
sweepers are available; cleaning catch basins manually can cost approximately twice as
much as cleaning the basins with a vacuum attached to a sweeper.
Methods used for illicit connection detection (smoke testing, dye testing, visual inspection,
and flow monitoring) can be costly and time-consuming. Site-specific factors, such as the
level of impervious area, the density and ages of buildings, and type of land use will
determine the level of investigation necessary. Encouraging reporting of illicit discharges by
employees can offset costs by saving expense on inspectors and directing resources more
efficiently. Some programs have used funds available from “environmental fees” or special
assessment districts to fund their illicit connection elimination programs.
Maintenance
Two-person teams may be required to clean catch basins with vactor trucks.
Identifying illicit discharges requires teams of at least two people (volunteers can be used),
plus administrative personnel, depending on the complexity of the storm sewer system.
Arrangements must be made for proper disposal of collected wastes.
Requires technical staff to detect and investigate illegal dumping violations, and to
coordinate public education.
Supplemental Information
Further Detail of the BMP
Storm Drain flushing
Sanitary sewer flushing is a common maintenance activity used to improve pipe hydraulics and
to remove pollutants in sanitary sewer systems. The same principles that make sanitary sewer
flushing effective can be used to flush storm drains. Flushing may be designed to hydraulically
convey accumulated material to strategic locations, such as to an open channel, to another point
where flushing will be initiated, or over to the sanitary sewer and on to the treatment facilities,
thus preventing re-suspension and overflow of a portion of the solids during storm events.
Flushing prevents “plug flow” discharges of concentrated pollutant loadings and sediments. The
deposits can hinder the designed conveyance capacity of the storm drain system and potentially
cause backwater conditions in severe cases of clogging.
Storm drain flushing usually takes place along segments of pipe with grades that are too flat to
maintain adequate velocity to keep particles in suspension. An upstream manhole is selected to
place an inflatable device that temporarily plugs the pipe. Further upstream, water is pumped
into the line to create a flushing wave. When the upstream reach of pipe is sufficiently full to
SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance
6 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
cause a flushing wave, the inflated device is rapidly deflated with the assistance of a vacuum
pump, releasing the backed up water and resulting in the cleaning of the storm drain segment.
To further reduce the impacts of stormwater pollution, a second inflatable device, placed well
downstream, may be used to re-collect the water after the force of the flushing wave has
dissipated. A pump may then be used to transfer the water and accumulated material to the
sanitary sewer for treatment. In some cases, an interceptor structure may be more practical or
required to re-collect the flushed waters.
It has been found that cleansing efficiency of periodic flush waves is dependent upon flush
volume, flush discharge rate, sewer slope, sewer length, sewer flow rate, sewer diameter, and
population density. As a rule of thumb, the length of line to be flushed should not exceed 700
feet. At this maximum recommended length, the percent removal efficiency ranges between 65-
75 percent for organics and 55-65 percent for dry weather grit/inorganic material. The percent
removal efficiency drops rapidly beyond that. Water is commonly supplied by a water truck, but
fire hydrants can also supply water. To make the best use of water, it is recommended that
reclaimed water be used or that fire hydrant line flushing coincide with storm drain flushing.
Flow Management
Flow management has been one of the principal motivations for designing urban stream
corridors in the past. Such needs may or may not be compatible with the stormwater quality
goals in the stream corridor.
Downstream flood peaks can be suppressed by reducing through flow velocity. This can be
accomplished by reducing gradient with grade control structures or increasing roughness with
boulders, dense vegetation, or complex banks forms. Reducing velocity correspondingly
increases flood height, so all such measures have a natural association with floodplain open
space. Flood elevations laterally adjacent to the stream can be lowered by increasing through
flow velocity.
However, increasing velocity increases flooding downstream and inherently conflicts with
channel stability and human safety. Where topography permits, another way to lower flood
elevation is to lower the level of the floodway with drop structures into a large but subtly
excavated bowl where flood flows we allowed to spread out.
Stream Corridor Planning
Urban streams receive and convey stormwater flows from developed or developing watersheds.
Planning of stream corridors thus interacts with urban stormwater management programs. If
local programs are intended to control or protect downstream environments by managing flows
delivered to the channels, then it is logical that such programs should be supplemented by
management of the materials, forms, and uses of the downstream riparian corridor. Any
proposal for steam alteration or management should be investigated for its potential flow and
stability effects on upstream, downstream, and laterally adjacent areas. The timing and rate of
flow from various tributaries can combine in complex ways to alter flood hazards. Each section
of channel is unique, influenced by its own distribution of roughness elements, management
activities, and stream responses.
Drainage System Maintenance SC-74
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 9
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Flexibility to adapt to stream features and behaviors as they evolve must be included in stream
reclamation planning. The amenity and ecology of streams may be enhanced through the
landscape design options of 1) corridor reservation, 2) bank treatment, 3) geomorphic
restoration, and 4) grade control.
Corridor reservation - Reserving stream corridors and valleys to accommodate natural stream
meandering, aggradation, degradation, and over bank flows allows streams to find their own
form and generate less ongoing erosion. In California, open stream corridors in recent urban
developments have produced recreational open space, irrigation of streamside plantings, and
the aesthetic amenity of flowing water.
Bank treatment - The use of armoring, vegetative cover, and flow deflection may be used to
influence a channel’s form, stability, and biotic habitat. To prevent bank erosion, armoring can
be done with rigid construction materials, such as concrete, masonry, wood planks and logs,
riprap, and gabions. Concrete linings have been criticized because of their lack of provision of
biotic habitat. In contrast, riprap and gabions make relatively porous and flexible linings.
Boulders, placed in the bed reduce velocity and erosive power.
Riparian vegetation can stabilize the banks of streams that are at or near a condition of
equilibrium. Binding networks of roots increase bank shear strength. During flood flows,
resilient vegetation is forced into erosion-inhibiting mats. The roughness of vegetation leads to
lower velocity, further reducing erosive effects. Structural flow deflection can protect banks
from erosion or alter fish habitat. By concentrating flow, a deflector causes a pool to be scoured
in the bed.
Geomorphic restoration – Restoration refers to alteration of disturbed streams so their form
and behavior emulate those of undisturbed streams. Natural meanders are retained, with
grading to gentle slopes on the inside of curves to allow point bars and riffle-pool sequences to
develop. Trees are retained to provide scenic quality, biotic productivity, and roots for bank
stabilization, supplemented by plantings where necessary.
A restorative approach can be successful where the stream is already approaching equilibrium.
However, if upstream urbanization continues new flow regimes will be generated that could
disrupt the equilibrium of the treated system.
Grade Control - A grade control structure is a level shelf of a permanent material, such as stone,
masonry, or concrete, over which stream water flows. A grade control structure is called a sill,
weir, or drop structure, depending on the relation of its invert elevation to upstream and
downstream channels.
A sill is installed at the preexisting channel bed elevation to prevent upstream migration of nick
points. It establishes a firm base level below which the upstream channel can not erode.
A weir or check dam is installed with invert above the preexisting bed elevation. A weir raises
the local base level of the stream and causes aggradation upstream. The gradient, velocity, and
erosive potential of the stream channel are reduced. A drop structure lowers the downstream
invert below its preexisting elevation, reducing downstream gradient and velocity. Weirs and
drop structure control erosion by dissipating energy and reducing slope velocity.
SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance
8 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
When carefully applied, grade control structures can be highly versatile in establishing human
and environmental benefits in stabilized channels. To be successful, application of grade control
structures should be guided by analysis of the stream system both upstream and downstream
from the area to he reclaimed.
Examples
The California Department of Water Resources began the Urban Stream Restoration Program in
1985. The program provides grant funds to municipalities and community groups to implement
stream restoration projects. The projects reduce damages from streambank aid watershed
instability arid floods while restoring streams’ aesthetic, recreational, and fish and wildlife
values.
In Buena Vista Park, upper floodway slopes are gentle and grassed to achieve continuity of
usable park land across the channel of small boulders at the base of the slopes.
The San Diego River is a large, vegetative lined channel, which was planted in a variety of
species to support riparian wildlife while stabilizing the steep banks of the floodway.
References and Resources
Ferguson, B.K. 1991. Urban Stream Reclamation, p. 324-322, Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation.
Los Angeles County Stormwater Quality. Public Agency Activities Model Program. On-line:
http://ladpw.org/wmd/npdes/public_TC.cfm
Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for
Small Municipalities. Prepared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal
Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments, Woodward-Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. July.
1998.
Orange County Stormwater Program
http://www.ocwatersheds.com/StormWater/swp_introduction.asp
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 1997 Urban Runoff
Management Plan. September 1997, updated October 2000.
San Diego Stormwater Co-permittees Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
(URMP) Municipal Activities Model Program Guidance. 2001. Project Clean Water.
November.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Stormwater Management Fact
Sheet Non-stormwater Discharges to Storm Sewers. EPA 832-F-99-022. Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. September.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Stormwater O&M Fact Sheet
Catch Basin Cleaning. EPA 832-F-99-011. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. September.
Drainage System Maintenance SC-74
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 9 of 9
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Illegal Dumping Control. On line:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll_7.htm
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Storm Drain System Cleaning. On line:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll_16.htm
Waste Handling and Disposal SC-75
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 4
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Description
It is important to control litter to eliminate trash and other
materials in stormwater runoff. Waste reduction is a major
component of waste management and should be encouraged
through training and public outreach. Management of waste
once it is collected may involve reuse, recycling, or proper
disposal.
Approach
Pollution Prevention
Reuse products when possible.
Encourage recycling programs with recycling bins, used oil
collection, etc.
Suggested Protocols
Solid Waste Collection
Implement procedures, where applicable, to collect,
transport, and dispose of solid waste at appropriate disposal
facilities in accordance with applicable federal, state, and
local laws and regulations.
Include properly designed trash storage areas. If feasible
provide cover over trash storage areas.
Regularly inspect solid waste containers for structural
damage. Repair or replace damaged containers as necessary.
Objectives
Cover
Contain
Educate
Reduce/Reuse
Targeted Constituents
Sediment
Nutrients
Trash
Metals
Bacteria
Oil and Grease
Organics
Oxygen Demanding
SC-75 Waste Handling and Disposal
2 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Secure solid waste containers; containers must be closed tightly when not in use.
Do not fill waste containers with washout water or any other liquid.
Ensure that only appropriate solid wastes are added to the solid waste container. Certain
wastes such as hazardous wastes, appliances, fluorescent lamps, pesticides, etc. may not be
disposed of in solid waste containers (see chemical/ hazardous waste collection section
below).
Do not mix wastes; this can cause chemical reactions, make recycling impossible, and
complicate disposal.
Refer to SC-34 Waste Handling and Disposal for more information regarding solid waste
facilities.
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Recycle wastes whenever possible. Many types of waste can be recycled, recycling options
for each waste type are limited. All gasoline, antifreeze, waste oil, and lead-acid batteries
can be recycled. Latex and oil-based paint can be reused, as well as recycled. Materials that
cannot be reused or recycled should either be incinerated or disposed of at a properly
permitted landfill.
Recycling is always preferable to disposal of unwanted materials.
Recycling bins for glass, metal, newspaper, plastic bottles and other recyclable household
solid wastes should be provided at public facilities and/or for residential curbside collection.
Controlling Litter
Post “No Littering” signs and enforce anti-litter laws.
Provide litter receptacles in busy, high pedestrian traffic areas of the community, at
recreational facilities, and at community events.
Clean out and cover litter receptacles frequently to prevent spillage.
Illegal Dumping
Substances illegally dumped on streets and into the storm drain system and creeks include
paints, used oil and other automotive fluids, construction debris, chemicals, fresh concrete,
leaves, grass clipping, and pet wastes.
Post “No Dumping” signs with a phone number for reporting dumping and disposal. Signs
should also indicate fines and penalties for illegal dumping.
Landscaping and beautification efforts of hot spots might also discourage future dumping.
See SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance, and SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges.
Waste Handling and Disposal SC-75
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 4
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Requirements
Costs
The costs for a solid waste source control program vary depending on the type of method.
The cost of a community education program or a plan to increase the number of trash
receptacles can be very minimal. Costs for structural controls such as trash racks, bar
screens, and silt traps can be quite costly ranging from $250,000 to $900,000.
A collection facility or curbside collection for used oil may result in significant costs.
Commercial locations (automobile service stations, quick oil change centers, etc.) as
collection points eliminate hauling and recycling costs.
Collection and disposal of hazardous waste can be very expensive and requires trained
operators; laboratory and detection equipment; and extensive record keeping including
dates, types, and quantities.
Use of volunteer work forces can lower storm drain stenciling program costs. Stenciling kits
require procurement of durable/disposable items. The stenciling program can aid in the
cataloging of the storm drain system. One municipality from the state of Washington has
estimated that stenciling kits cost approximately $50 each. Stencils may cost about $8 each
including the die cost on an order of 1,000. Re-orders cost about $1/stencil. Stencil designs
may be available from other communities. Stencil kits should be provided on a loan basis to
volunteer groups free of charge with the understanding that kit remnants are to be returned.
Maintenance
The primary staff demand for stenciling programs is for program setup to provide marketing
and training. Ongoing/follow-up staff time is minimal because of volunteer services.
Staffing requirements are minimal for oil recycling programs if collection/recycling is
contracted out to a used oil hauler/recycler or required at commercial locations.
Staff requirements for maintaining good housekeeping BMPs at waste handling sites is
minimal.
Supplemental Information
Further Detail of the BMP
Waste Reduction
An approach to reduce stormwater pollution from waste handling and disposal is to assess
activities and reduce waste generation. The assessment is designed to find situations where
waste can be eliminated or reduced and emissions and environmental damage can be
minimized. The assessment involves collecting process specific information, setting pollution
prevention targets, and developing, screening and selecting waste reduction options for further
study. Starting a waste reduction program is economically beneficial because of reduced raw
material purchases and lower waste disposal fees.
SC-75 Waste Handling and Disposal
4 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Municipal
www.cabmphandbooks.com
References and Resources
Best Management Practices Program for Pollution Prevention, City and County of San
Francisco, Uribe & Associates, Oakland, California, 1990.
Harvard University. 2002. Solid Waste Container Best Management Practices – Fact Sheet On-
Line Resources – Environmental Health and Safety.
Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To-Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for
Small Municipalities. Prepared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal
Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments, Woodward-Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. July
1998. (Revised February 2002 by the California Coastal Commission).
Orange County Stormwater Program
http://www.ocwatersheds.com/StormWater/swp_introduction.asp.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 1997 Urban Runoff
Management Plan. September 1997, updated October 2000.
Figure 1. Swale at city hall in Brisbane, CA.
Figure 2. Railroad rails and rip rap to slow stormwater flows in a creek daylighting project in Paso Robles, CA.
Figure 3. Energy dissipation, erosion control, and stream buffers at
Strawberry Creek in Berkeley, CA.
Photo: SFPUC Urban Watershed Management Program
Figure 1. Swale at San Diego Airport with rock
mulch, low-water plantings, and irrigation controls.
Photo: Scott Durbin
Photo: Shauna Dunton
Photo: SFPUC Urban Watershed Management
http://www.svcw.org/facilities/sitePages/discharge to sf bay.aspx
Photo: Silicon Valley Clean Water
BMP INFORMATION FORM
Activities Frequency
Inspection
Maintenance
Document Included? Comments
N/A