Packet Page. 466
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY AND THE CITIES OF ADELANTO, BARSTOW,
CHINO, COLTON, FONTANA, HESPERIA, HIGHLAND, MONTCLAIR, ONTARIO, RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, REDLANDS, RIALTO, SAN BERNARDINO, UPLAND, VICTORVILLE,
YUCAIPA, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA
CONCERNING DISTRIBUTION OF THE
2025 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT AWARD
This Agreement is made and entered into this 1 day of September, 2026, by and between SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, acting by and through its governing body, the Board of Supervisors (hereinafter referred to as “COUNTY”), and the aforementioned TOWNS (hereinafter referred to as “TOWNS”) and named CITIES (hereinafter referred to as “CITIES”), acting by and through their respective governing bodies, the Town Councils and City Councils, all of whom are situated within San Bernardino County, State of California, as follows:
WHEREAS, each governing body, in performing governmental functions or in paying for the performance of governmental functions hereunder, shall make that performance or those payments from current revenues legally available to that party; and WHEREAS, each governing body finds that the performance of this Agreement is in the best interests of all parties, that the undertaking will benefit the public, and that the division of costs fairly compensates the performing party for the services or functions under this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the TOWNS and CITIES acknowledge that under this Agreement they shall request reimbursement from COUNTY only for eligible expenditures that are properly documented and consistent with allowable JAG activities under the FY25 JAG guidelines and applicable federal guidelines, including 2 CFR Part 200 and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) special conditions; and COUNTY agrees to reimburse TOWNS and CITIES for their respective grant allocations as reflected in Appendix 1, less five percent (5%) retained by COUNTY for administrative costs related to oversight and management of subawards, and TOWNS and CITIES acknowledge that the five percent (5%) administrative fee will be used by COUNTY to administer their programs during the permissible period of performance; and WHEREAS, the TOWNS and CITIES agree that all JAG funds will be distributed and reimbursed in accordance with this Agreement and applicable FY25 JAG requirements.
WHEREAS, TOWNS and CITIES agree that they will enter into subrecipient agreements with COUNTY after the federal JAG award is received.
NOW THEREFORE, the COUNTY and TOWNS and CITIES agree as follows:
Section 1. Reimbursement of Funds
COUNTY shall reimburse TOWNS and CITIES for eligible expenditures incurred in connection with the FY25 JAG Award upon submission of proper documentation and verification that such costs comply with applicable federal requirements, including 2 CFR Part 200, and FY25 JAG guidelines. COUNTY shall retain five percent (5%) of the total JAG award for administrative purposes related to the management of subawards and compliance monitoring, as reflected in Packet Page. 467
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 2
Appendix 1. No funds shall be advanced prior to documented expenditures, and all reimbursement requests shall be subject to review and approval by COUNTY prior to payment.
Section 2. Fund Management and Allowable Expenditures
TOWNS and CITIES shall ensure that all expenditures submitted for reimbursement are consistent with allowable JAG uses and properly documented in accordance with federal regulations and the FY25 JAG requirements. When applicable, no expenditure shall be deemed eligible for reimbursement until the TOWN or CITY has completed all required federal certifications for its planned JAG-funded activity. These certifications may include, but are not limited to, the Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government, the Body-Worn Camera Policy Certification when body-worn camera expenditures are planned, the Body Armor Mandatory Wear Policy Certification when body armor is purchased, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Certification when ERPO-related activities are funded, the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or Counter‑UAS Certification when applicable, and any required documentation for the purchase of items otherwise prohibited without federal waiver. COUNTY shall not process reimbursements for any jurisdiction until all applicable certifications are provided.
TOWNS and CITIES acknowledge responsibility for compliance with all applicable federal regulations, including civil rights, anti-discrimination, and any special conditions imposed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Section 3. Subrecipient Agreement
TOWNS and CITIES shall execute subrecipient agreements with COUNTY prior to commencing project activities under this Agreement or submitting any reimbursement requests under the FY25 JAG Award. These agreements shall include acknowledgment of the federal award, compliance with all applicable special conditions, responsibility for maintaining records, timely submission of programmatic and financial reports, and consent to monitoring or audit by COUNTY or federal authorities. Eligible costs incurred during the allowable period of performance may be reimbursed, provided such costs are allowable, properly documented, and incurred in compliance with applicable federal requirements and FY25 JAG guidelines. TOWNS and CITIES acknowledge that reimbursement is contingent upon full execution of the subrecipient agreement and compliance with its terms and applicable federal regulations.
Section 4. Reporting and Compliance
TOWNS and CITIES agree to provide COUNTY with any information or documentation requested to comply with federal reporting, monitoring, and audit requirements within five (5) business days of request. This includes supporting documentation for all expenditures submitted for reimbursement and performance measurement data.
Section 5. Liability
Nothing in this Agreement shall impose liability on COUNTY, TOWNS, or CITIES beyond that authorized by law. Each party is responsible for its own actions and shall not be liable for claims arising from another party’s expenditures, reimbursement requests, or use of JAG funds.
Section 6. No Third-Party Rights
Packet Page. 468
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 3
The parties to this Agreement do not intend for any third party to obtain a right by virtue of this Agreement.
Section 7.
This Agreement does not create any obligations beyond those expressly set forth herein.
TOWNS, CITIES, and COUNTY shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws governing the use of federal funds, including the FY25 JAG requirements, and any regulations issued by the Bureau of Justice Assistance or the Office of Justice Programs. Reimbursement shall be the sole method of disbursing JAG funds under this Agreement.
Section 8.
This Agreement shall be effective from October 1, 2024 and shall continue through September 30, 2028, unless amended by mutual agreement of all parties.
Section 9.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The parties agree that the venue of any action or claim brought by any party to this Agreement will be the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District.
Section 10.
The parties are authorized self-insured or partially self-insured public entities for purposes of Professional Liability, General Liability, Automobile Liability and Worker's Compensation and warrant that through their respective programs of self-insurance and insurance, they have adequate coverage or resources to protect against liabilities arising out of performance of the terms, conditions or obligations of this Agreement.
Section 11.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Agreement. The parties shall be entitled to sign and transmit an electronic signature of this Agreement (whether by facsimile, PDF or other mail transmission), which signature shall be binding on the party whose name is contained therein. Each party providing an electronic signature agrees to promptly execute and deliver to the other party an original signed Agreement upon request
Packet Page. 469
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 4
WHEREFORE, all parties freely and voluntarily agree to all of the above terms.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
____________________________________________
Dawn Rowe, Chair, County Board of Supervisors
Dated: ______________________________________
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
Lynna Monell
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
San Bernardino County
By____________________________
Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
*Daniella V. Hernandez, Deputy
County Counsel
*By law, the County Counsel’s Office may only advise or approve contracts or legal documents on behalf of its clients. It may not advise or approve a contract or legal document on behalf of other parties. Our view of this document was conducted solely from the legal perspective of our clients. Our approval of this document was offered solely for the benefit of our clients.
Other parties should not rely on this approval and should seek review and approval by their own respective attorneys.
Packet Page. 470
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 5
TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CA
______________________________
Town Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Town Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 471
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 6
CITY OF ADELANTO, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 472
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 7
CITY OF BARSTOW, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 473
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 8
CITY OF CHINO, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 474
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 9
CITY OF COLTON, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 475
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 10
CITY OF FONTANA, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 476
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 11
CITY OF HESPERIA, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 477
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 12
CITY OF HIGHLAND, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 478
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 13
CITY OF MONTCLAIR, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 479
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 14
CITY OF ONTARIO, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 480
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 15
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 481
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 16
CITY OF REDLANDS, CA
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 482
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 17
CITY OF RIALTO, CA
______________________________
City Administrator
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 483
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 18
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 484
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 19
CITY OF UPLAND, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 485
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 20
CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 486
Interlocal Agreement – 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 21
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Packet Page. 487
Interlocal Agreement
– 2025 Justice Assistance
Grant Page 22
Jurisdiction Allocation 5% Admin Fee Award
San Bernardino County $ 139,611 $ (6,981) $ 132,630 $ 132,630 county alloc.
Adelanto $ 21,445 $ (1,072) $ 20,373 $ 41,151 admin alloc. $ 82,284 Sheriff Apple Valley $ 28,762 $ (1,438) $ 27,324 $ 649,249 city alloc. $ 50,346 DA Barstow $ 18,399 $ (920) $ 17,479 $ 823,030 $ 132,630
Chino $ 22,357 $ (1,118) $ 21,239
Colton $ 16,216 $ (811) $ 15,405
Fontana $ 45,601 $ (2,280) $ 43,321
Hesperia $ 38,861 $ (1,943) $ 36,918
Highland $ 27,754 $ (1,388) $ 26,366
Montclair $ 18,975 $ (949) $ 18,026
Ontario $ 45,169 $ (2,258) $ 42,911
Rancho Cucamonga $ 40,828 $ (2,041) $ 38,787
Redlands $ 17,103 $ (855) $ 16,248
Rialto $ 38,381 $ (1,919) $ 36,462
San Bernardino $ 192,480 $ (9,624) $ 182,856
Upland $ 17,415 $ (871) $ 16,544
Victorville $ 80,648 $ (4,032) 76,616
Yucaipa $ 13,025 $ (651) $ 12,374
Yucca Valley $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 823,030 $ (41,151) $ 781,879
* Yucca Valley opt-out
JAG 2025 Allocations
Packet Page. 488
CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: October 21, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Lynn Merrill, Director of Public Works
Department: Public Works
Subject: Adopt Ordinance MC-1669 Amending 19.28 (Landscaping Standards) Section 19.28.120 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code (SBMC Title 19) Incorporating New Soil, Mulch, and Amendment Requirements for Water Efficient
Landscaping (All Wards).
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Ordinance MC-1669 amending 19.28 (Landscaping Standards); Section 19.28.120 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code (SBMC Title 19) Incorporating New Soil, Mulch, and Amendment Requirements for Water Efficient Landscaping (All Wards).
City Manager's Comments
The City Manager recommends approval of adoption of the Ordinance.
Executive Summary
The City of San Bernardino Development Code Section 19.28.120 Water Efficient Landscaping Standards was last amended by Municipal Code Ordinance (MC) 1368 in February 2012. The ordinance does not reflect all the language and requirements necessary to comply with California Code of Regulations, which requires jurisdictions to enforce Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (“MWELO”), as enacted January 2, 2025. Therefore, the City Development Code must be amended with language requiring applicable landscape projects to comply with the soil preparation, compost, mulch, and recycled/post-consumer organic mulch requirements of MWELO and SB 1383 implementing regulations.
Background
In 2016, the California Legislature and the Governor of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1383, which amended the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 12. The legislation (Short-lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP): Organic Waste Packet Page. 489
Reductions) aims to reduce methane and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions statewide. SB 1383 is overseen by CalRecycle, while the implementation is managed by individual jurisdictions. In order to meet the requirements of SB 1383, which became effective as of January 1, 2022, all jurisdictions are expected to implement ordinances, franchise requirements, and other regulations as necessary to achieve compliance.
Failure to meet these requirements may result in administrative and financial penalties.
Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 8, Section 18989.2 (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance) of the California Code of Regulations requires that a jurisdiction adopt an ordinance or other enforceable requirement requiring compliance with Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, Section 493.2(d)(2), (3), (4), and (7) of MWELO, as enacted January 2, 2025. Although the current SBMC Title 19 does include much of the language and requirements of MWELO, it was last updated in 2012 prior to the current MWELO regulatory text.
Discussion
The City of San Bernardino Development Code Section 19.28.120 Water Efficient Landscaping Standards was last amended by Municipal Code Ordinance (MC) 1368 in February 2012. The ordinance does not reflect all the language and requirements necessary to comply with SB 1383 and MWELO respectively. Therefore, the City Development Code must be amended with language requiring applicable landscape projects to comply with the state-mandated MWELO soil preparation, compost, mulch, and recycled/post-consumer organic mulch provisions. The requirements of MWELO Sections 493.2(d)(2), (3), (4), and (7) read as follows:
493.2(d) Soil Preparation, Mulch, and Amendments.
2. Soil amendments shall be incorporated according to recommendations of the soil management report and what is appropriate for the plants selected (See Section 493.1)
3. For landscape installations, compost at a rate of a minimum of four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of pervious area shall be incorporated to a depth of six inches into the soil. Soils with greater than 6% organic matter in the top six inches of soil are exempt from adding compost and tilling.
4. A minimum three-inch (3”) layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turfgrass areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is contraindicated.
A. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, up to 5% of the landscape area may be left without mulch and identified in the landscape design plan (see Section 493.2(a)(11)).
7. Organic mulch made from recycled or post-consumer materials shall take precedence over inorganic materials or virgin forest products unless the recycled post-consumer organic products are not locally available.
A. Organic mulches are not required where prohibited by local Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines or other applicable local ordinances. (Public Resource Code section 4291).
Packet Page. 490
SB 1383 requires the City to adopt only the MWELO sections defined in the regulatory text – not the entirety of MWELO. However, to effectively implement the required sections of the MWELO, the City development code should also reflect other changes to applicable projects for the proposed subsection(s).
The proposed addition to the development code includes language to incorporate the applicable soil preparation, compost, mulch, and recycled/post-consumer organic mulch requirements set forth in Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, Section 493.2(d)(2), (3), (4), and (7) of the CCR. This language update includes by reference applicable provisions within the proposed section, including project thresholds. The specific section additions include Section 19.28.120(1)(B), confirming that the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Standards are intended to be at least as effective as MWELO; Section 19.28.120(14), incorporating applicable MWELO provisions related to soil preparation, mulch, and amendments; Section 19.28.120(15), establishing restrictions on non-functional turf; and Section 19.28.120(16), adding definitions to support consistent interpretation and implementation of the amended standards. In doing so, the Development Code will have continuity with MWELO, SB 1383, and related state water conservation requirements.
The proposed ordinance also retains non-functional turf restrictions and related definitions to support implementation of the City’s water efficient landscaping standards and to provide clear standards for applicants, staff, and the public.
The proposed ordinance was presented to Planning Commission held on June 9, 2026, where it was unanimously approved and forwarded as a recommendation to Mayor and City Council.
The proposed ordinance was presented for first reading – waiving further readings, to the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 7, 2026. It was approved to schedule the adoption of the ordinance to the regular meeting on October 21, 2026.
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of an ordinance to implement state-mandated water efficiency requirements will not result in a significant effect on the environment. The City is amending the existing Landscaping Standards in a capacity necessary to implement MWELO, as contained in Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 8, Section 18989.2 of the California Code of Regulations.
Therefore, no further CEQA review is required.
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
Ordinance No. MC-1669 Amending Section 19.28.120 Water Efficient Landscape Standards aligns with Key Target Goal No. 1e: Minimize risk and litigation exposure.
By updating the Development Code to reflect the requirements of the CalRecycle regulations, the City minimizes the risk of penalties and fines for non-compliance.
Packet Page. 491
Fiscal Impact
It is anticipated projects subject to the new MWELO requirements can expect marginal increased costs for materials and hauling related to new landscaping compost and mulch incorporation. Other marginal costs may be associated with engineering design and compliance management. Landscape plan checks are not anticipated to see an increased cost and have an existing review and inspection workflow process.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Ordinance MC-1669 amending 19.28 (Landscaping Standards); Section 19.28.120 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code (SBMC Title 19) Incorporating New Soil, Mulch, and Amendment Requirements for Water Efficient Landscaping (All Wards).
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 19.28.120 Water Efficient Landscaping - Amendment Ordinance MC1669 Attachment 2 - Ordinance MC-1669
Attachment 3 - MWELO Proof of Publication
Ward:
All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:
October 7, 2026 Introduce for First Reading Ordinance No. MC1669 Amending Chapter 19.28 (Landscaping Standards) of the Development Code to Update
Water-Efficient Landscaping, Soil, Compost,
Mulch, and Turf Requirements (All Wards)
June 9, 2026 Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, Amending Title 19
(Land Use/Subdivision Regulations); Chapter
19.28 (Landscaping Standards); Section
19.28.120 of the City of San Bernardino
Development Code (SBMC Title 19) In Order to
Update the Development Standards in
Compliance with Recent Changes in the State of
California Law Senate Bill 1383 Requiring Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
CC
Eric Levitt, City Manager
Packet Page. 492
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-1
CHAPTER 19.28
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
Section Page
19.28.010 Purpose ........................................................................................................... III-19.28-1
19.28.020 Application ..................................................................................................... III-19.28-2
19.28.030 General Regulations ...................................................................................... III-19.28-2
19.28.040 Screening Requirements ............................................................................... III-19.28-4
19.28.050 Standards for Parking Areas ......................................................................... III-19.28-7
19.28.060 Setback and Parkway Treatment Standards ................................................. III-19.28-8
19.28.070 Corner Treatment Standards ......................................................................... III-19.28-9
19.28.080 Installation of Landscaping ........................................................................... III-19.28-9
19.28.090 Maintenance of Landscaping ........................................................................ III-19.28-9
19.28.100 Removal or Destruction of Trees ................................................................. III-19.28-9
19.28.110 Erosion Control Landscaping ........................................................................ III-19.28-10
19.28.120 Water Efficient Landscaping Standards ........................................................ III-19.28-10
19.28.130 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................. III-19.28-24 Tables
28.01 Screening Requirements ............................................................................... III-19.28-5 Guidelines
(G)19.28.140 Landscaping Design Guidelines ............................................................ III-(G)19.28-25
19.28.010 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish landscaping regulations that are intended to:
1. Enhance the aesthetic appearance of development in all areas of the City by providing standards relating to quality, quantity and functional aspects of landscaping and landscape screening.
2. Increase compatibility between residential and abutting commercial and industrial land uses.
3. Reduce the heat and glare generated by development.
4. Protect public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the impact of all forms of physical and visual pollution, controlling soil erosion, screening incompatible land uses, preserving the integrity of neighborhoods, and enhancing pedestrian and vehicular traffic and safety.
5. Water is an increasingly and costly resource. It is the intent of this chapter to establish a water conservation plan to reduce water consumption in the landscape environment by using drought tolerant principals. (MC 871 5/2/93)
Packet Page. 493
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-2
19.28.020 APPLICATION
A concept landscaping plan shall be submitted as part of a permit application, pursuant to Chapter
19.32 (Applications and Fees).
The concept plan shall meet the intent of this Chapter by exhibiting a generalized design layout which adequately demonstrates the desired landscaping program in terms of location, size/scale, function, theme and similar attributes. The concept plan shall provide the review authority with a clear understanding of the landscaping program prior to the preparation of a detailed, comprehensive landscaping plan.
19.28.030 GENERAL REGULATIONS
The comprehensive landscaping plan shall be prepared following approval of the permit application by the review authority. Submittal of the comprehensive plan shall be concurrent with the grading plan(s) and other documents and reports. This section and those that follow provide the regulations to be followed in the preparation of the comprehensive landscape program.
In addition to the following regulations, the Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to determine the conformance of a landscape and irrigation plan.
1. Landscape designs shall be in harmony with the surrounding environment.
2. Landscape design and construction shall emphasize drought-tolerant landscaping whenever/wherever possible.
3. Processing of landscape plans shall conform to the policies and procedures of the Department of Community Development. A fully dimensioned comprehensive landscape and irrigation plan shall include, but not be limited to:
+List of Plants (Common & Latin)
+Size
+Location
+Irrigation Plan
+Hardscape
+Water Elements
+Any other information
deemed necessary by the
Director
4. The planting of trees and shrubs shall comply with the following installation requirements:
A. Landscape areas shall have plant material selected and planting methods used which are suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the site. Sizes of the plant materials shall conform to the following mix:
Trees
20%, 24 inch box;
50%, 15 gallon;
Packet Page. 494
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-3
In addition, mature trees shall be provided for variety and emphasis of focal areas as follows:
15% mature specimen trees in 36 inch box
15% mature specimen trees in 48 inch box
Shrubs
80%, 5 gallon; and
20%, 1 gallon
Groundcover
100% coverage within 1 year
B. Trees shall be long-lived (minimum life expectancy of 60 years), clean, require little maintenance, be structurally strong, insect and disease resistant, and require little pruning.
C. Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with service lines, Traffic Safety Sight Area, basic property rights of adjacent property owners, particularly the right of solar access, pursuant to Section 19.20.030 (23) (Solar Energy Design Standards).
D. Trees planted near public curbs shall have a limited root structure and shall be installed in such a manner as to prevent physical damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters and other public improvements. A deep root system shall be used.
5. Where trees are planted in paved areas, they shall have a protective tree grate. Tree grates shall be caste iron with a natural finish. A deep root system shall be used.
6. Concrete mow strips are required to separate all turf areas from other landscaped areas for all developments except single family residential.
7. Buffer planting shall occur along all freeways and major arterials in order to visually screen uses and provide noise reduction. This landscaping shall be in addition to screening requirements set forth in Section 19.28.040 below.
8. Appropriate shrubbery and creeping vines shall be provided along all walls and fences adjoining public rights-of-way.
9. When inorganic groundcover is used, it shall be in combination with live plants and shall be limited to an accent feature.
10. All landscaping shall have an approved automatic irrigation system.
11. All residential subdivisions shall be provided with trees, shrubs, and ground cover of a type and quality generally consistent or compatible with those characterizing single-family homes in the front yard and that portion of the side yards which are visible from the street. All landscaped areas shall be provided with an automatic irrigation system adequate to insure their viability.
The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department.
Packet Page. 495
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-4
19.28.040 SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
1. Every development shall provide sufficient screening so that neighboring properties are effectively shielded from any adverse impacts of that development or so that the new developing use shields itself from existing potential impacts from uses already in operation.
2. Table 28.01 sets forth the type of screening method required between various uses in order to provide a mechanism to buffer potential negative impacts. To determine the type of screening required (Type A, B, or C), find the use in the "Developing Use" column which is similar to the proposed use to be developed and follow that line across the page to its intersection with the type of use(s) that adjoins the property to be developed. For each intersection square that contains a letter, the developer is required to install the level of screening indicated.
Packet Page. 496
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-5
TABLE 28.01
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
Kennels A A A C C A C
Veterinary Hospitals
with Boarding A A A C C A C
Not Totally Enclosed
within a Structure A A A A
Totally Enclosed within
a Structure C C C A C
Scrap Materials,
Salvage Yards A A A A C
Uses Conducted
Substantially Outdoors A A A A C
Uses Conducted Totally
Indoors C C C A C
Restaurants & Night
Clubs A A A A A A A A C A A A
Hotels & Motels B B A B A A A A A C A A A
Commercial Recreation B B B B B C A B A
Equipment Rental Yard A A A A C B
Auto Service & Repair A A A A C B A
Retail Sales B B A C A A B A A B A A A
Fraternal Clubs, Lodges,
Union Halls C C C C C A A C A A B A A
Hospitals & Clinics over
10,000 s.f. A A C A C A C A A A A B B A A A A A A A
Churches & Associated
Uses B B B C C A B A A C A A A B A A
Schools (public/private)
and Libraries A C A B A A A A A A C A B A A A B A A A
All Office Uses Including
Medical A A B A A C B C A A C A A A B A A A
Adult & Child Care
Facilities B B C C A C A B A A A A B A A A A A A A A A
Group Care Facilities B B C A A A A B A A A A B A A A A A A A A A Mobile/Modular Home
Parks C C B C B B A B A A A A B A A A A A A A A A
Multi-Family
Residences C B B C B B A B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
One & Two-Family
Residences A B A B A B A B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Adjacent Existing or
Permitted Use
One & Two-Family ResidencesMulti-Family ResidencesMobile/Modular Home ParksGroup Care FacilitiesAdult & Child Care FacilitiesAll Office Uses Including MedicalSchools (public/private) and LibrariesChurches & Associated UsesHospitals & Clinics over 10,000 s.f.Fraternal Clubs, Lodges, Union HallsRetail SalesAuto Service & RepairEquipment Rental YardCommercial RecreationHotels & MotelsRestaurants & Night ClubsUses Conducted Totally IndoorsUses Conducted Substantially OutdoorsScrap Materials, Salvage YardsTotally Enclosed within a StructureNot Totally Enclosed within a StructureVeterinary Hospitals with BoardingKennels
DEVELOPING USE
1. RESIDENTIAL2. OFFICE, FINANCIAL
3. INSTITUTIONAL,
SOCIAL
4. COMMERCIAL
5. MANUFACTURING
& STORAGE
6. PUBLIC UTILITY
INSTALLATIONS
7. OTHER USES
Packet Page. 497
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-6
3. The three basic types of screens that are required by Table 28.01 "Screening Requirements," are as follows:
A. OPAQUE SCREEN, TYPE A
A screen that is opaque from the ground to a height of at least six feet, with intermittent visual obstructions from the opaque portion to a height of at least 20 feet. An opaque screen is intended to exclude all visual contact between uses and to create a strong impression of spatial separation. The opaque screen may be composed of a wall, fence, or densely planted vegetation. Compliance of planted vegetative screens will be judged on the basis of the average mature height and density of foliage of the subject species, or field observation of existing vegetation. The opaque portion of the screen must be opaque in all seasons of the year. At maturity, the portion of intermittent visual obstructions should not contain any completely unobstructed openings more than 10 feet wide. Suggested planting patterns are shown in Figure 28-1.
B. SEMI-OPAQUE SCREEN, TYPE B
A screen that is opaque from the ground to height of 3 feet, with intermittent visual obstruction from above the opaque portion to a height of at least 20 feet. The semiopaque screen is intended to partially block visual contact between uses and to create a strong impression of the separation of spaces. The semi-opaque screen may be composed of a wall, fence, landscaped earth berm, or planted vegetation. Compliance of planted vegetative screens will be judged on the basis of the average mature height and density of foliage of the subject species, or field observation of existing vegetation. At maturity, the portion of intermittent visual obstructions should not contain any completely unobstructed openings more than 15 feet wide.
C. BROKEN SCREEN, TYPE C
A screen composed of intermittent visual obstructions from the ground to a height of at least 20 feet. The broken screen is intended to create the impression of a separation of spaces without necessarily eliminating visual contact between the spaces. It may be composed of a wall, fence, landscaped earth berm, planted vegetation or existing vegetation. Compliance of planted vegetative screens or natural vegetation will be judged on the basis of the average mature height and density of foliage of the subject species, or field observation of existing vegetation. The screen may contain deciduous plants.
4. The screening requirements set forth in this section may be interpreted with some flexibility by the Director and Commission in their enforcement of the standards.
It is recognized that because of the wide variety of types of developments and the relationships between them, it is neither possible nor prudent to establish inflexible screening requirements.
Therefore, minor deviations may be granted to allow less intensive screening, or requirements for more intensive screening may be imposed, whenever such deviations are more likely to satisfy the intent of this section.
Packet Page. 498
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-7
19.28.050 STANDARDS FOR PARKING AREAS
In addition to landscaping of all required setback areas, a minimum of 15% of the net area of all surface parking areas shall be landscaped as follows:
A. Where parking areas adjoin a public right-of-way, a landscaped planting strip equal to the required yard setback shall be established and continuously maintained between the public right-of-way and parking area. Any planting, sign, or any other structure within safety sight distance of a driveway shall not exceed 30 inches in height.
B. Provisions shall be made to ensure that adequate pedestrian paths are provided throughout the landscaped areas. At least one 24-inch box tree for every four spaces shall be included in the development of the overall landscape program. The maximum spacing between trees in parking areas shall be 30 feet; however, appropriate clustering of trees may be permitted.
C. All areas in a parking lot not used for driveways, maneuvering areas, parking spaces, or walks, shall be permanently landscaped with suitable materials and permanently maintained, pursuant to a program submitted by the applicant and approved by the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Packet Page. 499
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-8
D. All landscaped areas shall be bordered by a concrete curb that is at least six inches high and six inches wide. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of six feet in width. Concrete now strips at least six inches deep and four inches wide shall be required to separate turf areas from shrub areas.
E. A permanent and automatic irrigation system shall be installed and permanently maintained in all landscaped areas. The system shall employ state-of-the-art water conservation technology and recognize differing irrigation needs of various plant materials.
F. The landscaping plan shall provide for a variety of plant materials, with an emphasis on drought tolerant species, appropriate for the local environment and shall include a legend showing common names, sizes, quantities, location, dimensions of planted area, and percentage of parking lot landscaping.
G. To increase the parking lot landscaped area, a maximum of 2½ feet of the parking stall depth may be landscaped in lieu of asphalt while maintaining the required parking dimensions. This overhang is in addition to the required yard setbacks. (MC 1381 12/19/12)
19.28.060 SETBACK AND PARKWAY TREATMENT STANDARDS
Landscape plans for setback and parkway areas shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1. Setback and parkway areas shall be properly designed and landscaped in order to establish a high level of development quality while providing for neighborhood identity where appropriate. The design shall utilize uniform street tree plantings with complementary landscape materials.
2. Provide a design which ensures the desired screening, shading, appearance and compatibility with established setback and parkway areas, including a sensitive transition between diverse landscape types and patterns.
3. Incorporate mounding within the overall design, with landscaped slopes not exceeding a 3:1 ratio, or three feet in height. A minimum of six feet of landscaping shall be placed on the exterior of perimeter walls and fences.
4. Incorporate walls and fences into the landscape design, including the special treatment of meandering walls, and wall breaks or openings where the design shall complement the interior landscaping of the adjacent development.
5. Street tree varieties and exact location shall be determined by the Director of Community Development. The Community Development Department shall approve the locations and inspect plant material on-site, prior to planting. Sidewalks, curb and gutter, must be clean of debris prior to marking. A 24-hour notice is required for inspection. The size of the street trees shall be 24 inch box specimens. The 24 inch box trees shall be planted as street trees within the public parkway or City property.
Packet Page. 500
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-9
19.28.070 CORNER TREATMENT STANDARDS
Landscape plans for any development involving corner lots shall include additional special design requirements, including, but not limited to the following:
1. A minimum landscape area of 300 square feet for corner areas.
2. Incorporate significant landscape and water features, including specimen trees, coordination with wall breaks or openings, and special "city entry" image treatment wherever appropriate.
3. Specimen trees shall be a minimum of 48-inch box size.
4. Ensure that any corner landscape plan within the "Traffic Safety Sight Area," as defined, shall be designed to protect public safety.
19.28.080 INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING
All required landscaping shall be property installed, irrigated, inspected and permanently maintained prior to use inauguration or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, whichever first occurs. The landscaping and irrigation shall be inspected as stated in the procedures and policy for landscaping and irrigation.
19.28.090 MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING
1. Maintenance of approved landscaping shall consist of regular watering, mowing, pruning, fertilizing, clearing of debris and weeds, the removal and replacement of dead plants, and the repair and replacement of irrigation systems and integrated architectural features.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the landowner shall file a maintenance agreement or covenant and easement to enter and maintain, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The agreement or covenant and easement to enter and maintain shall ensure that if the landowner, or subsequent owners, fails to maintain the required/installed site improvements, the City will be able to file an appropriate lien(s) against the property in order to accomplish the required maintenance.
19.28.100 REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES
Removal of healthy, shade providing, aesthetically valuable trees shall be discouraged. In the event that more than five trees are to be cut down, uprooted, destroyed or removed within a 36 month period, a permit shall first be issued by the Department. An arborist survey and report may be required at the developer’s expense, to evaluate existing trees prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, as determined by the Director of Community Development. Unless there is a pre-approved tree replacement plan, each tree that is removed in a new subdivision and is determined to be of significant value by the Community Development Director shall be replaced with a 36 inch box specimen tree in the subdivision in addition to any other required landscaping. Such a plan does not necessarily require a tree for tree replacement provision. Commercial tree farms, City Government projects, and individual single-family residential lots less than one acre shall be exempt from this provision.
Packet Page. 501
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-10
19.28.110 EROSION CONTROL LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the purpose of erosion control shall be in compliance with the standards outlined in Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code.
19.28.120 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
(MC 1368 02/08/12)
1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
A. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(1) Promote the aesthetic and recreational values of landscapes, while recognizing the need to invest water resources as efficiently as possible; (2) Establish a structure for planning, designing, installing and maintaining water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects; (3) Establish provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention in the irrigation of existing landscapes;
(4) Implement water quality management practices that minimize storm water and irrigation runoff, to achieve on-site filtration and groundwater recharge; (5) Promote and encourage the use of low water use plants in landscapes; (6) Minimize the use of cool season turf;
(7) Promote conservation of potable water by encouraging the use of recycled water and water-conserving technology in landscape irrigation; and (8) Promote public education about water conservation and water efficient landscape irrigation.
B. This Chapter is intended to be at least as effective as the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), as set forth in Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7 of the California Code of Regulations, as may be amended from time to time.
2. APPLICABILITY
After January 1, 2010, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply as follows:
(1) This Chapter shall apply to all new construction and rehabilitated landscape projects with a landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet, consistent with Section 491 of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.; Packet Page. 502
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-11
(2) .
B. Limited applicability. Existing landscapes, cemeteries and certain Special Landscape Areas are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter as follows:
(1) Existing landscapes installed before January 1, 2010 and exceeding one acre in area are subject only to water waste prevention and efficient irrigation requirements of Sections 19.28.110(12) and 19.28.110(13).
(2) New cemeteries or cemetery expansion projects exceeding 2,500 square feet in landscape area shall be subject to the Water Efficient Landscape worksheet requirement and the irrigation analysis and maintenance requirements of Section
19.28.110(9) and Section 19.28.110(10).
(3) New development or rehabilitation of landscapes including Special Landscape Areas (SLAs), such as edible landscapes, landscapes irrigated with recycled water, and active parks or sport field landscaping shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, except that the Maximum Applies Water Allowance (MAWA) shall be adjusted to provide for adequate irrigation of SLAs.
C. Exemptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following exempt landscapes:
(1) Registered local, state or federal historic sites;
(2) Ecological restoration projects that do not require permanent irrigation systems; (3) Mined land restoration projects that do not require permanent irrigation systems; (4) Botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public.
3. LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS AND PLANNING GUIDELINES
For the efficient use of water, landscapes shall be carefully designed and planned to thrive in local soil and climatic conditions and to suit the intended function of the project. The following design guidelines shall also be considered in landscape planning:
A. Plant Selection:
(1) Native plants and drought-tolerant species are encouraged to promote low maintenance, water efficient landscapes.
Packet Page. 503
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-12
(2) Any plant may be used in the landscape, provided that the Estimated Annual Applied Water Use (EAWU) does not exceed the Maximum Annual Applied Water Allowance (MAWA).
(3) Plants with similar water use requirements shall be grouped together in “hydrozones” wherever possible.
(4) Turf areas should be limited mainly to active recreation areas and small lawns.
Where turf is used, it should not be planted on slopes greater than 4:1, and warm season varieties are preferred.
(5) Fire resistant plant species and fuel modification requirements shall be top priority for landscape design in high fire hazard areas.
(6) Invasive plant species should be avoided, especially near natural areas, fuel modification zones, parks and water bodies.
(7) The use of mulch is encouraged for moisture retainment. (8) Plant placement shall be planned to create shade in summer and permit solar gain in winter.
(9) Plant size and root characteristics at maturity should be considered in plant selection and placement, to avoid damage to property or infrastructure. (10) Plant selection and water use classifications shall be based on the most current edition of the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS).
B. Water Features:
(1) Recirculating water systems shall be used for all decorative water features. (2) If available, recycled water should be used in decorative water features, except pools and spas.
(3) The surface area of a water feature shall be included in MAWA calculation with an evaporation rate equivalent to that of a high water use plant. (4) Pool and spa covers are highly recommended.
C. Content Requirements of Landscape Design Plans:
(1) Each hydrozone shall be identified as a “low”, “moderate”, “high”, or “mixed” water use zone.
(2) Landscape areas with unique water budget considerations, such as recreation areas, areas dedicated to edible landscapes, and areas to be irrigated with recycled water shall be delineated.
Packet Page. 504
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-13
(3) Areas planned for soil amendments, mulch application, surface water features, and hardscapes (pervious and impervious) shall be delineated with applicable notes regarding installation and design.
Packet Page. 505
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-14
(4) On-site design measures for storm water quality management shall be identified to demonstrate consistency with the corresponding Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
4. IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS
A. All irrigation systems shall be designed and maintained to prevent runoff, over-spray, low head drainage and other conditions of water waste. Soil types and infiltration rates shall be considered when designing irrigation systems, and irrigation plans shall be designed to meet specific water needs of each hydrozone, to maximize the efficiency of the irrigation systems. All non-turf areas shall be irrigated with low-volume irrigation systems.
B. Dedicated (separate) landscape water meters shall be installed at new project sites with landscape areas greater than 5,000 square feet, subject to concurrence of the water purveyor.
C. The following equipment shall be required to control water waste in new irrigation systems subject to this Ordinance.
(1) Automatic irrigation controllers that utilize evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data to adjust the frequency and/or duration of irrigation in response to changing weather conditions.
(2) Rain sensors with automatic shut-off features.
(3) Anti-drain check valves to prevent low-head drainage in sprinkler heads. (4) Pressure regulators as needed when the static water pressure exceeds the maximum recommended operating pressure.
(5) Manual shut-off valves located as close as possible to the point of connection to the water supply, to minimize water loss in case of an emergency or a routine repair. (6) A master shut-off valve or flow sensor device shall be installed to detect high flow conditions.
D. Irrigation Design Standards:
(1) The irrigation systems shall be designed and installed to conform to the project water budget (MAWA), based on planting plans for the project hydrozones; (2) Overhead irrigation shall not be permitted within a 24-inch setback from any nonpermeable surface. Allowable irrigation within such setback areas may include drip, drip line, or other low flow, non-spray technology. The setback may be planted or unplanted. The surfacing of the setback may be mulch, gravel, or other porous material. These restrictions may be modified if:
a. the landscape area is adjacent to permeable surfacing and no runoff occurs; or b. the adjacent non-permeable surfaces are designed and constructed to drain Packet Page. 506
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-15
entirely to landscaping; or
Packet Page. 507
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-16
c. the irrigation designer specified an alternative design or technology as part of the Landscape Documentation Package, and clearly demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance.
(3) Slopes greater than 25% shall not be irrigated within an irrigation system with a precipitation rate exceeding 0.75 inches per hour. This restriction may be modified if the irrigation designer specified an alternative design or technology as part of the Landscape Documentation Package, and clearly demonstrates that no excess runoff or erosion will occur. This demonstration shall be confirmed by an irrigation audit.
E. The irrigation plan shall be prepared separate from the landscape planting plan, but it shall be consistent with the planting plan and shall conform to all the requirements of this Ordinance.
F. A Water Management Plan shall be prepared to accompany the irrigation plan, in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance. The Water Management Plan shall describe the irrigation system in detail, identify parties responsible for maintenance of the irrigation system, and set a plan and schedule for management of the system.
G. Recycle Water. Dual water distribution systems allowing irrigation with recycled water are encouraged, and may be required to be installed on new construction sites, at the discretion of the water purveyor, and subject to availability.
5. LANDSCAPE SOIL MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPE GRADING
REQUIREMENTS
A. Soil testing shall be performed after mass grading and prior to landscape installation, to ensure the selection of plant materials is suitable for the site. The soil analysis shall be incorporated in a soil management plan, including the following:
(1) A determination of soil texture, indicating the available water holding capacity; (2) An approximate soil infiltration rate, or a range of infiltration rates; (3) Measures of pH and total soluble salts; and
(4) Soil management and amendment regulations.
B. Grading of landscape areas shall be designed to minimize unnecessary soil compaction, erosion, and water waste. Landscape grading shall be designed to prevent runoff, avoid disruption and natural drainage patterns and to support on-site infiltration of storm water and irrigation water for water quality management.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A Landscape Documentation Package prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be required for any new construction of landscape or landscape rehabilitation that is normally subject to building or landscape plan review and permits. The Landscape Documentation Package shall contain the following elements:
Packet Page. 508
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-17
A. Project information:
(1) Date;
(2) Project applicant;
(3) Project address or location;
(4) Total landscape area in square feet;
(5) Project type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, developer or homeowner installed, cemetery, park, etc.);
(6) Water supply type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor;
(7) Checklist of all documents in the Landscape Documentation Package; (8) Contact information for the project applicant and property owner; (9) Applicant signature, dated with the statement, “I agree to comply with the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package.”
B. Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet. Worksheet examples, sample calculations and the Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) Table for the City of San Bernardino are available in the Department of Community Development to guide preparation of the required elements of the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, including:
(1) Hydrozone information table;
(2) Water budget calculations:
(a) Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA);
(b) Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU);
C. Landscape design plan, prepared according to Section 19.28.120(3); D. Irrigation design plan, prepared according to Section 19.28.120(4); E. Soil management report, prepared according to Section 19.28.120(5)(A); and F. Grading design plan, prepared according to Section 19.28.120(5)(B).
Packet Page. 509
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-18
7. COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTATION
A. Certificate of Completion. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection for a new construction project or a landscape rehabilitation project, a Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the City, signed by a licensed landscape architect to certify that:
(1) The landscaping has been installed in conformance with the approved planting and irrigation plans;
(2) The automatic irrigation controller has been set according to the irrigation schedule; (3) The irrigation system has been adjusted to maximize irrigation efficiency and eliminate over-spray and runoff; and
(4) A copy of the irrigation schedule has been given to the property owner.
B. Completed Landscape Documentation Packages and Certificated of Completion shall be made available for review by the water purveyor. Sites found to be out of compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance may be subject to landscape water audits and compliance enforcement by the water purveyor.
8. IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
A. For the efficient use of water, all irrigation schedules shall be developed, managed, and evaluated to utilize the minimum amount of water required to maintain plant health.
Irrigation schedules shall meet the following criteria:
(1) Irrigation scheduling shall be regulated by automatic irrigation controllers. (2) Overhead irrigation shall be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. If allowable hours of irrigation differ from the local water purveyor, the stricter of the two shall apply. Operation of the irrigation system outside of the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance.
(3) For implementation of the irrigation schedule, particular attention must be paid to irrigation run times, emission device, flow rate, and current ETo, so that applied water meets the ETWU. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to (MAWA). Actual irrigation schedules shall be regulated by automatic irrigation controllers using current reference evapotranspiration data (e.g., CIMIS) or soil moisture sensor data.
9. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
A. Landscapes shall be maintained to ensure water use efficiency. A regular maintenance schedule shall be submitted with the Certificate of Completion.
Packet Page. 510
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-19
B. A regular maintenance schedule shall include, but not be limited to, routine inspection; adjustment and repair of the irrigation system and its components; aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning and weeding in all landscape areas; and removing any obstruction to emission devices. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance.
C. Repair of all irrigation equipment shall be cone with the originally installed components or their equivalents.
D. A project applicant is encouraged to implement sustainable or environmentally friendly practices for overall landscape maintenance.
10. IRRIGATION AUDIT, IRRIGATION SURVEY, AND IRRIGATION WATER USE
ANALYSIS
A. All landscape irrigation audits shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor.
B. For new landscape construction and rehabilitated landscape projects installed after January 1, 2010:
(1) The project applicant shall submit an irrigation audit report with the Certificate of Completion to the City that may include, but is not limited to: inspection, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or runoff that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. (2) The City or the water purveyor may conduct or require an irrigation water use analysis, irrigation audit or irrigation survey for compliance with the MAWA.
C. For existing landscapes that were installed before January 1, 2010 and are over one acre in size, the City or the water purveyor may require irrigation water use analyses, irrigation surveys, and irrigation audits to evaluate water use and provide recommendations a necessary to reduce landscape water use to a level that does not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance for existing landscapes, which shall be calculated as: MAWA = (0.8)(ETo)(LA)(0.62). All landscape irrigation audits shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor.
11. IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY
A. For the purpose of determining Maximum Applied Water Allowance, average irrigation efficiency is assumed to be 0.71. Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained, and managed to meet or exceed an average landscape irrigation efficiency of 0.71.
12. PROVISIONS FOR EXISTING LANDSCAPE
A. The City or the water purveyor may enforce the requirements contained in this Ordinance, and may assess penalties for water waste in existing landscapes constructed prior to January 1, 2010.
Packet Page. 511
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-20
13. WATER WASTE PREVENTION
A. Water waste resulting from inefficient landscape irrigation is prohibited. Runoff of irrigation water into the public right-of-way caused by low head drainage, broken sprinkler heads, overspray or other similar conditions shall be prohibited. Overspray or runoff onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas walks roadways parking lots, or structures shall be prohibited Restrictions regarding overspray ad runoff may be modified if:
(1) The landscape area is adjacent to permeable surfacing and no runoff occurs; or (2) The adjacent non-permeable surfaces are designed and constructed to drain entirely to landscaping.
14. MODEL WATER EFFICIENCY ORDINANCE (MWELO) SOIL PREPARATION, MULCH, AND AMENDMENTS. (Ordinance MC-XXX)
A. All applicable provisions of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), as set forth in Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7 of the California Code of Regulations, are hereby incorporated by reference. The provisions of MWELO shall apply in the event of any conflicts with the other terms and conditions of this chapter.
15. NON-FUNCTIONAL TURF RESTRICTIONS.
A. ‘Non-functional turf’ means turf that is ornamental and not regularly used for human recreational purposes.
B. The use of potable water for irrigation of non-functional turf on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties is prohibited in accordance with California law.
C. Turf shall be prohibited in: (1) Medians and parkways; (2) Slopes greater than 25 percent; and (3) Landscape areas less than 10 feet in width.
D. Turf shall be limited to functional areas only in all new development.
16. DEFINITIONS
The terms used in this ordinance have the meaning set forth below:
A. “Applied water” means the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape.
B. “Automatic irrigation controller” means an automatic timing device used to remotely control valves that operate an irrigation system. Automatic irrigation controllers schedule irrigation events using either evapotranspiration (weather based) or soil moisture data.
C. “Backflow prevention device” means a safety device used to prevent pollution or contamination of the water supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system.
Packet Page. 512
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-21
D. “Certificate of Completion” means the document required under Section 19.28.120(7).
E. “Certified irrigation designer” means a person certified to design irrigation systems by an accredited academic institution, a professional trade organization, or other program such as the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense irrigation designed certification program and Irrigation Association’s Certified Irrigation Designer Program.
F. “Certified landscape irrigation auditor” means a person certified to perform landscape irrigation audits by an accredited academic institution, a professional trade organization or other program such as the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense irrigation auditor certification program and Irrigation Association’s Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor Program.
G. “Check valve” or “anti-drain valve” means a valve located under a sprinkler head, or other location in the irrigation system, to hold water in the system to prevent drainage from sprinkler heads when the sprinkler is off.
Packet Page. 513
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-22
H. “Common interest developments” means community apartment projects, condominium projects, planned developments, and stock cooperatives per Civil Code Section 1351.
I. “Conversion factor (0.62)” means the number that converts acre-inched per acre per year to gallons per square per square foot per year.
J. “Drip irrigation” means any non-spray mow volume irrigation system utilizing emission devices with a flow rate measured in gallons per hour. Low volume irrigation systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.
K. “Ecological restoration project” means a project where the site is intentionally altered to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem.
L. “Effective precipitation” or “Usable rainfall” (Eppt) means the portion of total precipitation which becomes available for plant growth.
M. “Emitter” means a drip irrigation emission device that delivers water slowly from the system to the soil.
N. “Established landscape” means the point at which plants in the landscape have developed significant root growth into the soil. Typically, most plants are established after one or two years of growth.
O. “Establishment period of the plants” means the first year after installing the plant in the landscape or the first two years if irrigation will be terminated after establishment.
Typically, most plants are established after one or two years of growth.
P. “Estimated Total Water Use” (ETWU) means the total water used for the landscape as described in Section 19.28.120(6)(B).
Q. “ET Adjustment Factor” (ETAF) means a factor of 0.7, that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to the landscape.
A combined plant mix with a site-wide average of 0.5 is the basis of the plant factor portion of the calculation. For purposes of the ETAF, the average irrigation efficiency is 0.71. Therefore, the ET Adjustment Factor is (0.7)=(0.5/0.71). ETAF for a Special Landscape Area shall not exceed 1.0. ETAF for existing non-rehabilitated landscapes is 0.8.
R. “Evapotranspiration rate” means the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil and other surfaces and transpired by plants during a specific time.
S. “Functional turf” means turf that is regularly used for human recreational purposes or civic activities, including, but not limited to, sports fields, parks, playgrounds, and picnic areas. Turf located in areas not intended for such active use, including ornamental or aesthetic purposes only, shall not be considered functional turf.
T. “Flow rate” means the rate at which water flows through pipes, valves and emission Packet Page. 514
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-23
devices, measured in gallons per minute, gallons per hour, or cubic feet per second.
U. “Graywater” means untreated wastewater that has not come into contact with toilet waste and includes, but is not limited to, wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom wash basins, clothes washing machines, and laundry tubs. Graywater does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers and may be reused for landscape irrigation in accordance with applicable state and local regulations.
V. “Hardscapes” means any durable material (pervious and non-pervious).
Packet Page. 515
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-24
W. “Homeowner-provided landscaping” means any landscaping either installed by a private individual for a single-family residence or installed by a licensed contractor hired by a homeowner. A homeowner, for the purposes of this Ordinance, is a person who occupies the dwelling he or she owns. This excludes speculative homes, which are not owner-occupied dwellings.
X. “Hydrozone” means a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs. A hydrozone may be irrigated or non-irrigated.
Y. “Infiltration rate” means the rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per unit of time (e.g., inches per hour).
Z. “Invasive plant species” means species of plants not historically found in California that spread outside cultivated areas and can damage environmental or economic resources. Invasive species may be regulated by county agriculture agencies as noxious species. “Noxious weeds” means any weed designated by the Weed Control Regulations in the Weed Control Act and identified on a Regional District noxious weed control list. Lists of invasive plants are maintained at the California Invasive Plant Inventory and USDA invasive and noxious weeds database.
AA. “Irrigation audit” means an in-depth evaluation of the performance of an irrigation system conducted by a Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor. AN irrigation audit includes, but is not limited to: inspection, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity or emission uniformity, reporting overspray or runoff that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
BB. “Irrigation efficiency” (IE) means the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements.
CC. “Irrigation survey” means an evaluation of an irrigation system that is less detailed than an irrigation audit. An irrigation survey includes, but is not limited to: inspection, system test and written recommendations to improve performance of the irrigation system.
DD. “Irrigation water use analysis” means an analysis of water use data based on meter readings and billing data.
EE. “Landscape architect” means a person who holds a license to practice landscape architecture in the state of California Business and Professions Code, Section 5615.
FF. “Landscape area” means all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan subject to the Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation.
The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or stone walks, or other pervious or nonpervious hardscapes, and other non-irrigated areas designated for non-development (e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation.)
GG. “Landscape contractor” means a person licensed by the state of California to construct, maintain, repair, install, or subcontract the development of landscape systems.
Packet Page. 516
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-25
HH. “Landscape Documentation Package” means the documents required under Section
19.28.110(6).
II. “Landscape project” means total area of landscape in a project as defined in “landscape area” for the purposes of this Ordinance, meeting requirements under Section
19.28.110(2).
JJ. “Lateral line” means the water delivery pipeline that supplies water to the emitters or sprinklers from the valve.
II. “Local agency” means a city or county, including a charter city or charter county, that is responsible for adopting and implementing the ordinance. The local agency is also responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance, including but not limited to, approval of a permit and plan check or design review of a project.
JJ. “Local water purveyor” means any entity, including a public agency, city, county, or private water company that provides retail water service.
KK. “Low volume irrigation” means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as drip, drip lines, and bubblers. Low volume irrigation systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.
LL. “Main line” means the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the valve or outlet.
MM. “Maximum Applied Water Allowance” (MAWA) means the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscaped area as specified in Section
19.28.110(6)(B). It is based upon the area’s reference evapotranspiration, the ET Adjustment Factor, and the size of the landscaped area. The Estimated Total Water Use shall not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowances. Special Landscape Areas, including recreation areas, area permanently and solely dedicated to edible plants such as orchards and vegetable gardens, and areas irrigated with recycled water are subject to the MAWA with an ETAF not to exceed 1.0.
NN. “Microclimate” means the climate of a small, specific area that may contrast with the climate of the overall landscape area due to factors such as wind, sun exposure, plant density, or proximity to reflective surfaces.
OO. “Mined-land reclamation projects” means any surface mining operation with a reclamation plan approved in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975.
PP. “Mulch” means any organic material such as leaves, bark, straw, compost, or inorganic mineral materials such as rocks, gravel, and decomposed granite left loose and applied to the soil surface for the beneficial purposes of reducing evaporation, suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, and preventing soil erosion.
Packet Page. 517
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-26
QQ. “New construction” means, for the purpose of this Ordinance, a new building with a landscape or other new landscape, such as a park, playground, or greenbelt without an associated building.
RR. “Non-functional turf” means turf that is not regularly used for human recreational purposes or civic activities and serves a primarily ornamental or aesthetic purpose.
Non-functional turf includes, but is not limited to, turf located in medians, parkways, streetscapes, commercial landscaping, and other areas where public access or active use is limited or absent.
SS. “Operating pressure” means the pressure at which the parts of an irrigation system are designed be the manufacturer to operate.
TT. “Overhead sprinkler irrigation systems” means systems that deliver water through the air (e.g., spray heads and rotors).
UU. “Overspray” means the irrigation water which is delivered beyond the target area.
VV. “Permit” means an authorizing document issued by local agencies for new construction and rehabilitated landscapes.
WW. “Pervious” means any surface or material that allows the passage of water through the material and into the underlying soil.
XX. “Plant factor” or “plant water use factor” is a factor, when multiplied by ETo, estimates the amount of water needed by plants. For purposes of this Ordinance, the plant factor range for low water use plants is 0 to 0.3, the plant factor range for moderate water use plants is 0.4 to 0.6, and the plant factor range for high water use plants is 0.7 to 1.0. Plant factors cited in this Ordinance are derived from the Department of Water Resources 2000 publication “Water Use Classification of Landscape Species”.
YY. “Precipitation rate” means the rate of application of water measured in inches per hour.
ZZ. “Project applicant” means the individual or entity submitting a Landscape Documentation Package required under Section 19.28.110(6), to request a permit, plan check, or design review from the City. A project applicant may be the property owner or his or her designee.
AAA. “Rain sensor” or “rain sensing shutoff device” means a component which automatically suspends an irrigation event when it rains.
BBB. “Record drawing” or “as-builts” means a set of reproducible drawings which show significant changes in the work made during construction and which are usually based on drawings marked up in the field and other data furnished by the contractor.
CCC. “Recreational area” means areas dedicated to active play such as parks, sports fields, and golf courses where turf provides a playing surface.
Packet Page. 518
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-27
DDD. “Recycled water”, “reclaimed water”, or “treated sewage effluent water” means treated or recycled waste water of a quality suitable for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation and water features. This water is not intended for human consumption.
Packet Page. 519
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-28
EEE. “Reference evapotranspiration” or “ETo” means a standard measurement of environmental parameters which affect the water use of plants. ETo is expressed in inches per day, month, or year as represented in the sample materials referenced in Section 19.28.110(6)(B), and is an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of four- to seven-inch tall, cool season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration is used as the basis of determining the Maximum Applied Water Allowance so that regional differences in climate can be accommodated.
FFF. “Rehabilitated landscape” means any re-landscaping project that requires a permit, plans check, or design review, meets the requirements of Section 19.07.020, and the modified landscape area is equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet, is 50% of the total landscape area, and the modifications are completed within one year.
GGG. “Runoff” means water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied and flows from the landscape area. For example, runoff may result from water that is applied at too great a rate (application rate exceeds infiltration rate) or when there is a slope.
HHH. “Smart irrigation controller” means an automatic irrigation controller that uses evapotranspiration (weather-based) data or soil moisture sensor data to automatically adjust irrigation scheduling in response to changing environmental conditions, including temperature, rainfall, humidity, and soil moisture levels, in order to optimize water use efficiency.
III. “Soil moisture sensing g device” or “soil moisture sensor” means a device that measures the amount of water in the soil. The device may also suspend or initiate an irrigation event.
JJJ. “Soil texture” means the classification of soil based on its percentage of sand, silt, and clay.
KKK. “Special Landscape Area” (SLA) means an area of the landscape dedicated solely to edible plants, areas irrigated with recycled water, water features using recycled water and areas dedicated to active pan such as parks, sports fields, golf courses, and where turf provides a playing surface.
LLL. “Sprinkler head” means a device which delivers water through a nozzle.
MMM. “Static water pressure” means the pipeline or municipal water supply pressure when water is not flowing.
NNN. “Station” means an area served by one valve or by a set of valves that operate simultaneously.
OOO.“Swing joint” means an irrigation component that provides a flexible, leak-free connection between the emission device and lateral pipeline to allow movement in any direction and to prevent equipment damage.
PPP. “Turf” means a ground cover surface of mowed grass. Annual bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, Perennial ryegrass, Red fescue and Tall fescue are cool-season grasses.
Packet Page. 520
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-29
Bermudagrass, Kikuyugrass, Seashore Paspalum, St. Augustinegrass, Zoysiagrass, and Buffalo grass are warm-season grasses.
QQQ. “Valve” means a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system.
Packet Page. 521
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS – 19.28
III-19.28-30
RRR. “Water conserving plant species” means a plant species identified as having a low plant factor.
SSS. “Water feature” means a design element where open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water features include ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas and swimming pools (where water is artificially supplied). The surface area of water features is included in the high water use hydrozone of the landscape area. Constructed wetlands used for on-site wastewater treatment or stormwater best management practices that are not irrigated and used solely for water treatment or stormwater retention are not water features, and therefore, are not subject to the water budget calculation.
TTT. “Watering window” means the time of day irrigation is allowed.
UUU. “WUCOLS” means the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species published by the University of California Cooperative Extension, the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation, 2000. (MC 1320 1/4/10)
19.28.130 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
All landscape plans shall be subject to the applicable regulations of the Development Code, including, but not limited to, Article IV, Administration provisions.
Packet Page. 522
Ordinance No. MC- 1669
ORDINANCE NO. MC-1669
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING TITLE 19 (LAND USE/SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS); CHAPTER 19.28 (LANDSCAPING
STANDARDS); SECTION 19.28.120 OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT CODE (SBMC TITLE 19)
TO UPDATE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING
STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 1383
AND THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS the City of San Bernardino, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that efficient water use and sustainable landscape practices will support responsible resource management and contribute to the health, safety, and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (“MWELO”) is set forth in Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7 of the California Code of Regulations, and local agencies must adopt, implement, and enforce MWELO or a local water efficient landscape ordinance that is at least as effective as MWELO; and
WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 8, Section 18989.2, adopted pursuant to Senate Bill 1383, requires each jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance or other enforceable requirement requiring compliance with Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, Section 493.2(d)(2), (3), (4), and (7) of MWELO, as enacted January 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments also retain non-functional turf restrictions and related definitions to support implementation of the City’s water efficient landscaping standards and to provide clear standards for applicants, staff, and the public; and WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt and enforce the MWELO, as amended, such as provisions related to landscape design, irrigation efficiency, and organic mulch use; and WHEREAS, the Department of Water Resources’ amendments to MWELO were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and became effective on January 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino adopted Resolution No. 2026-13 – PC, forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and City Council:
a. Determine that Development Code Amendment 26-13 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and b. Approve the Development Code Amendment based on the Findings of Fact; and Packet Page. 523
Ordinance No. MC- 1669
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino desires to update the City’s enforceable MWELO requirements to maintain compliance with applicable state law and reduce the risk of state enforcement or penalties; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino now desires to amend its local regulatory scheme for MWELO to reflect the most recent changes to state law by amending Title 19, Chapter 19.28, Section 19.28.120 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code (SBMC Title 19).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Amendment of Section 19.28.120. Section 19.28.120 of Chapter 19.28 of Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. Certification. City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause publication to occur in a newspaper of general circulation and published and circulated in the City in a manner permitted under Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
SECTION 4. CEQA. The City Council determines that the Ordinance is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of an ordinance to implement statemandated water efficiency requirements will not result in significant effect on the environment.
The City is amending the existing Landscaping Standards in a capacity necessary to implement MWELO, as contained in Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 8, Section 18989.2 of the California Code of Regulations. The City Council hereby directs City staff to file a Notice of Exemption within five days of the adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 21
st day of October 2026.
Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Packet Page. 524
Ordinance No. MC- 1669
Attest:
Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Albert J. Maldonado, City Attorney
Packet Page. 525
Ordinance No. MC- 1669
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Ordinance No. MC-1669, introduced by the City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, at a regular meeting held the 7
th day of October, 2026. Ordinance No. MC-1669 was approve passed and adopted at a regular meeting held the 21st day of October 2026 by the following vote:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _____ _____ _______ _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
KNAUS _____ _____ _______ _______
FLORES _____ _____ _______ _______
ORTIZ _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this 22 nd day of October 2026
Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk
Packet Page. 526
This space for filing stamp only
OR#:
O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R
~ SINCE 1921 ~
600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Ana, California 92701-4542 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
State of California )
County of Orange ) ss
Notice Type:
Ad Description:
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, a newspaper published in the English language in the City of Santa Ana, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under date of June 2, 1922, Case No. 13,421. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Executed on: 10/10/2004
At Riverside, California
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUN
473 E CARNEGIE DR #200, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
(909) 889-9666 (909) 884-2536
SB 4081460
Vanessa Alvarado
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO/CITY CLERK - LEAD
201 N. E ST. BUILDING A
SAN BERNARDINO, CA - 92401
HRG - NOTICE OF HEARING
MCC Public Hearing Notice
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUN, a newspaper published in the English language in the city of SAN BERNARDINO, county of SAN BERNARDINO, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California by the Superior Court of the County of SAN BERNARDINO, State of California, under date 06/27/1952, Case No. 73081. That the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
09/26/2026
09/28/2026
SAN BERNARDINO
!A000007527734! Email
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the City of San Bernardino Mayor
and City Council will hold a public
meeting on October 07, 2026 at 5:00
PM in the City Council Chambers in
the Norman F. Feldheym Central
Library at 555 West 6thStreet, San
Bernardino, California. Visit the
City's agenda portal at
www.sbcity.org to access more
meeting information.
The purpose of the hearing is to
consider the following:
The City of San Bernardino proposes
to amend Development Code Section
19.28.120, Water Efficient
Landscaping Standards, to update
the City's landscaping requirements
to comply with applicable provisions
of the State's Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)
and SB 1383. The proposed
amendments would incorporate
requirements for soil preparation,
compost, mulch, recycled/postconsumer organic mulch, and restrictions on non-functional turf,
as well as related definitions and
project thresholds. The proposed
ordinance was unanimously
recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission on June 9,
2026. The proposed ordinance is
exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3). Notice is further given that
members of the public who wish to
comment on the public hearing you may participate in the following ways: 1) comments and contact
information can be emailed to
[email protected] by
2:30 P.M. the day of the scheduled
meeting; 2) attending the meeting in
person and providing your public
comment in person, not to exceed
three minutes. If you challenge the matter in court,
you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public meeting described in this notice or written
correspondence delivered to the City
Clerk at or prior to the public
meeting.
The City endeavors to be in total
compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. If you require
assistance or auxiliary aids to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office as far
in advance of the meeting as possible.
Additional information concerning
the above matter may be obtained
from, and written comments should
be addressed to, San Bernardino
Packet Page. 527
City Clerk, 290 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92401.
Telicia Lopez, CMC
City Clerk
9/26/26
SBS-4081460#
Packet Page. 528
DISCUSSION
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: October 21, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Lynn Merrill, Director of Public Works.
Department: Public Works
Subject: Proposed Draft Speed Hump Policy
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council:
1. Receive and file the presentation regarding the proposed City of San Bernardino draft Speed Hump Policy; and
2. Discuss the proposed policy and provide direction to staff regarding the policy framework, eligibility criteria, evaluation process, prioritization of approved requests, funding and maintenance responsibility, planning-level cost ranges, and implementation procedures; and
3. Direct staff to incorporate the Mayor and City Council's comments and return at a future meeting with a finalized Speed Hump Policy and Resolution for formal consideration and adoption.
City Manager’s Comments
The City Manager is seeking City Council direction regarding the proposed speed hump policy.
Executive Summary
The Public Works Department has prepared a draft Speed Hump Policy to establish a consistent, objective, and transparent process for evaluating requests for speed humps on residential streets throughout the City. The proposed policy provides standardized eligibility criteria, engineering warrants, petition requirements, design standards, installation procedures, and a prioritization framework for approved requests. The revised framework also identifies potential funding sources, assigns responsibility for ongoing maintenance, and provides planning-level cost ranges for engineering evaluation, design, installation, and post-installation monitoring. This item is presented for discussion and policy direction from the Mayor and City Council. Staff Packet Page. 529
will incorporate the Council's feedback and return at a future meeting with a final Speed Hump Policy and Resolution for formal consideration and adoption.
Background
Residents throughout the City have expressed concerns regarding excessive vehicle speeds, cut-through traffic, and pedestrian safety on residential streets. While speed humps can be an effective traffic calming measure, they are not appropriate for every roadway and must be evaluated using objective engineering criteria to ensure they improve public safety without creating unintended impacts.
Currently, the City does not have a formally adopted policy establishing a consistent process for evaluating requests for speed humps. Speed Hump Policy establishes a comprehensive framework for evaluating requests and identifies the engineering, operational, and community support requirements necessary before speed humps may be considered for installation. The policy also provides procedures for petition requirements, engineering studies, agency coordination, public notification, City Council approval, installation standards, and post-installation evaluations.
Discussion
The proposed policy is intended to provide a fair, transparent, and technically sound process for evaluating requests for speed humps while maintaining consistency with accepted traffic engineering practices.
Major components of the proposed policy include:
• Establishing standardized eligibility requirements for residential streets. • Requiring formal petitions demonstrating neighborhood support. • Requiring engineering studies evaluating traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, roadway geometry, safety, and operational conditions.
• Establishing minimum traffic warrants before installation may be recommended. • Requiring review and coordination with Police, Fire, emergency medical providers, school districts, transit agencies, utilities, and refuse service providers. • Requiring public notification and City Council approval prior to installation. • Establishing uniform design standards consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and City Standards. • Requiring post-installation monitoring to evaluate effectiveness and determine whether modifications or removal are warranted.
The policy establishes objective minimum criteria including, but not limited to:
• Local residential street classification.
• Posted speed limit of 25 mph or less.
• Adequate roadway geometry and sight distance.
• Appropriate roadway width and grades.
• Minimum traffic volume and speeding warrants.
Packet Page. 530
• Community support of at least 67 percent of affected residents. • Consideration of emergency response routes, transit operations, drainage, lighting, and planned capital improvement projects.
Prioritization of Approved Requests. Requests that satisfy the policy's eligibility criteria, petition requirement, engineering warrants, and agency review would be placed on an approved project list rather than installed strictly on a first-come, firstserved basis. When available funding is insufficient to construct all approved locations, staff would prioritize projects using objective factors, including: (1) severity and extent of documented speeding; (2) traffic volume and cut-through activity; (3) collision history and documented pedestrian/bicycle safety concerns; (4) proximity to schools, parks, senior facilities, transit stops, and other pedestrian generators; (5) roadway conditions and feasibility, including drainage, emergency response, and utility constraints; and (6) opportunities to coordinate with an already programmed paving or capital improvement project. Requests with similar priority would be ranked by the date the completed petition and supporting request were received. The prioritized list would be reviewed periodically and would remain subject to available funding and Council-approved appropriations.
Funding and Maintenance Responsibility. Potential funding sources include Measure I local street funds, Gas Tax, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA/SB 1) funds, traffic-safety funds, and other eligible street rehabilitation allocations. Finance and Public Works would confirm eligibility for each proposed expenditure, including construction and maintenance, under the applicable program requirements before programming funds. No single fund is designated as the exclusive source. Public Works would maintain City-installed asphalt humps, pavement markings, and associated signs through eligible street maintenance operating appropriations. Major reconstruction, relocation, or removal would be included in the CIP or operating budget as appropriate.
Annual CIP Programming. Staff proposes establishing a recurring Neighborhood Traffic Calming allocation during the annual CIP and operating-budget process beginning with FY 2027–28. Public Works would submit the prioritized eligible project list, expected annual request volume, estimated staff workload, installation costs, and maintenance needs with its annual budget request. Finance and Public Works would identify eligible funding and recommend reallocations from proposed street-project appropriations as needed, with coordinated delivery through paving projects wherever feasible. Council would approve a specific annual dollar allocation based on available founding sources such as Measure I local street funds, Gas Tax, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA/SB 1) funds, traffic-safety funds, and other eligible street rehabilitation allocations. The annual request would separately identify capital installation funding and recurring maintenance funding; the funded work plan and deferred projects would be reported each year.
Revenue and Fee Offsets. This item offers no application fee, assessment, or resident cost-sharing requirement; therefore, no new revenue is assumed to offset Packet Page. 531
processing, installation, or maintenance costs. The proposed program would be supported by Council-approved allocations of eligible transportation revenues. Staff recommend retaining a publicly funded request process because the improvements serve neighborhood traffic safety. If Council directs staff to consider fees or resident contributions, staff will return with a cost-recovery proposal, applicable legal review, and an evaluation of affordability and equitable access before any charge is implemented.
Planning-Level Cost Ranges. Planning-Level Cost Ranges. Preliminary installation costs for a typical asphalt speed hump, pavement markings, and warning signs are approximately $1,000–$2,000 per hump. For a street requiring two to three humps, the installation allowance is approximately $3,000–$6,000. Initial request processing is estimated separately under the staffing budget. Costs vary with roadway width, pavement condition, traffic control, and whether delivery is combined with other City work. These conceptual estimates would be refined before project approval. Staff are seeking policy direction from the Mayor and City Council regarding the proposed eligibility criteria, engineering warrants, petition requirements, approval process, prioritization of approved requests, funding approach, maintenance responsibility, cost framework, and installation standards. Following Council discussion and feedback, staff will revise the draft policy as appropriate and return at a future meeting with a final Speed Hump Policy and accompanying resolution for formal adoption.
Adoption of the policy would provide residents with a predictable process while ensuring that speed humps are installed only where engineering analysis demonstrates that they are appropriate and beneficial.
City staff presented the first workshop to the Public Safety and Human Relations Commission (PS&HRC) on May 11, 2026, and received positive feedback from the Commission and the community. A second workshop is planned for fall 2026. Staff will incorporate workshop and Council feedback before returning with the final policy and resolution for adoption.
Staffing Budget. If the policy is adopted and implemented, Public Works would incur staff costs as requests are received and evaluated. The preliminary estimate is eight combined staff hours per request, allocated as follows:
Position and assigned work Hours Burdened rate Cost
Traffic Engineer — engineering oversight,
agency coordination, and
recommendation review
2 $193.00/hr $386.00
Traffic Engineering Associate — intake,
petition screening, preliminary data
review, field evaluation, and
documentation
6 $174.00/hr $1,044.00
Total per request $1,430.00
Packet Page. 532
Annual requests Combined staff hours Annual processing cost 10 80 $14,300.00
On average the City will receive 10 requests per year. Annual processing cost equals the number of requests multiplied by $1,430.00.
Installation Costs and Annual Program Estimates. Preliminary installation costs for a typical pre-fab speed hump, including pavement markings and warning signs, range from $1,000 to $2,000 per hump. Installation of 30 speed humps annually would therefore cost approximately $30,000–$60,000
Annual program component Estimated annual cost
Initial processing of 10 requests $14,300
Installation of 30 speed humps $30,000–$60,000
Total initial processing and installation $44,300–$74,300 These planning estimates assume that all 10 requests qualify and proceed to installation, with three humps per street. Actual costs would depend on the number of approved requests, engineering recommendations, roadway width, pavement condition, traffic control requirements, and opportunities to coordinate installation with programmed paving projects. The annual estimate excludes additional traffic studies, detailed design, construction management, post-installation monitoring, drainage or utility modifications, pavement reconstruction, and ongoing maintenance. Any required additional work and maintenance allowance would be identified separately and included in the annual budget request. Beginning with FY 2027–28, Public Works and Finance would recommend a Neighborhood Traffic Calming allocation through the annual CIP and operating-budget process. The request would identify eligible funding sources, installation funding, staff workload, and recurring maintenance needs. No application fees or resident contributions are proposed. Implementation would remain subject to Council-approved appropriations, and adoption of the policy would not guarantee installation of every qualifying request. 2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
This project is consistent with Key Target No 3C: Improved quality of Life-Evaluate and enhance the quality of public safety services. Installation of the speed Humps will deter speeds in residential neighborhood and enhance safety.
Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving the presentation and providing policy direction. If the policy is adopted and implemented, installation costs are estimated at $1,000 - $2,000 per speed hump, or approximately $30,000 to $60,000 annually based on 30 installations. Personnel expenses are estimated at $1,430 per request, or approximately $14,300 annually based on 10 requests, bringing total annual costs to an estimated $44,300 to $74,300.
Packet Page. 533
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council:
1. Receive and file the presentation regarding the proposed City of San Bernardino draft Speed Hump Policy; and
2. Discuss the proposed policy and provide direction to staff regarding the policy framework, eligibility criteria, evaluation process, prioritization of approved requests, funding and maintenance responsibility, planning-level cost ranges, and implementation procedures; and
3. Direct staff to incorporate the Mayor and City Council's comments and return at a future meeting with a finalized Speed Hump Policy and Resolution for formal consideration and adoption.
Attachments
Attachment 1 Draft City of San Bernardino Speed Hump Policy Attachment 2 Speed Hump Eligibility Check list
Attachment 3 Speed Hump Warrants Check list
Attachment 4 Speed Hump Detail
Ward: All
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:
None
CC: Eric Levit, City Manager
Packet Page. 534
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
POLICY: SPEED HUMP POLICY -DRAFT
POLICY NO.: DATE:
* For the purposes of this policy, “public street” does not include alleys, whether public or private.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and procedures for the evaluation, approval and installation of speed humps for potential recommendation to the Mayor and City Council. This policy outlines the conditions under which speed humps may be considered for use on public streets*. The objective of this procedure is to establish a consistent standardized process for evaluating and responding to requests for speed control measures on residential streets.
In general, upon meeting the criteria listed herein related to eligibility and warrants, speed humps are typically installed along straight, flat residential roadways with a maximum posted speed of 25 mph or less, with the majority support of the neighbors.
Speed humps are intended to:
• Reduce excessive vehicle speeds on residential streets • Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists
• Reduce the likelihood of collisions
• Enhance neighborhood livability and traffic conditions • Potentially reduce cut-through traffic
While speed humps are implemented to reduce speeding and discourage cut-through traffic, they may have the following disadvantages:
• Possible diversion of traffic to adjacent streets
• Increased noise levels for homes located near speed humps • Potential delays in emergency response times
• Potential increase in vehicle damage claims
• Possible acceleration and speeding between humps
• Impacts to street maintenance and street sweeping operations Speed humps are not intended to address all traffic or speed-related concerns. Each request shall be carefully evaluated to ensure that existing roadway conditions, safety considerations, and community support justify their installation.
BACKGROUND
The use of speed humps is one of several traffic calming strategies available to the City. However, they are not appropriate in all situations. It is the policy of the City to carefully evaluate each request for speed hump installation to ensure that the proposed location and surrounding Packet Page. 535
DRAFT
SPEED HUMP POLICY
conditions meet all criteria and requirements established herein. Consideration shall be given to roadway characteristics, traffic conditions, safety impacts, and overall neighborhood effects.
Speed humps are one of several traffic calming measures available to the City; however, they are not appropriate in all situations. Other traffic calming strategies—such as traffic diverters, curb extensions, chicanes, mini traffic circles, and striping or lane reconfiguration may be considered based on site-specific conditions. It is the City’s policy to carefully evaluate each request to determine the most appropriate solution and to ensure the proposed installation meets all established criteria and requirements. This evaluation will consider roadway characteristics, traffic conditions, safety impacts, and overall neighborhood effects.
DEFINITION
Speed Hump: A raised area of pavement (or manufactured material), typically 3 to 4 inches high, designed to gradually reduce vehicle speeds while maintaining reasonable ride comfort. Speed humps may only be installed on eligible, straight, low-speed roadway sections that meet the City’s requirements for roadway width, posted speed limit, sight distance, drainage, access, and spacing. Rubber or other manufactured speed humps are not permitted. Each installation must include appropriately designed wheel-track gaps to allow fire engines, including fully loaded apparatus, to pass without engaging the raised portion. Speed humps cannot be installed on every street and must comply with all location and design standards established in this policy.
POLICY
The City of San Bernardino regards speed humps as a supportive traffic calming measure, to be implemented only where engineering analysis confirms they are appropriate and effective.
A. Initiation of requests for the installation of Speed Humps on a public street shall be in accordance with the following policies:
1. All requests for speed humps on a public street shall originate from the residents of the street in question.
2. The City Engineer shall investigate the request to identify the approximate location of the requested speed humps and the area of potential affect for petition circulation.
3. All requests shall be in the form of a formal petition based upon forms supplied by the Public Works Engineering Division.
4. The sponsor of the petition shall circulate the petition to all affected residents as determined by the City Engineer.
5. A separate petition shall be required for each street segment.
6. Each petition for the installation of Speed Humps shall contain the signatures of residents representing the support of at least 67 percent of the residents previously identified by the City Engineer as reflected on the petition form supplied by the Public Works Engineering Division. All residents that sign the petition in favor of the installation of speed humps shall also indicate an acknowledgment that they support a speed hump installation abutting the front of their property. Any signature that fails to indicate such acknowledgment shall be considered as not in favor of the installation of speed humps.
7. Completed Petitions shall be returned to the City Engineer, City of San Bernardino, 300 North “D” Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92418.
Packet Page. 536
DRAFT
SPEED HUMP POLICY
B. The Police Department, Fire Department, and ambulance services shall be notified of all requests for the use of Speed Humps on public streets and the intent to evaluate the request, conduct a traffic engineering study, and solicit comments.
C. The minimum warrants and design requirements established by this policy must be met in order to install Speed Humps on a public street.
D. Upon completion of an engineering evaluation and study by the Public Works Engineering Division indicating that the requested location meets the minimum warrants and design requirements for the use of Speed Humps on public streets as established by this policy, a noticed public hearing shall be conducted by the Mayor and City Council considering the approval of the use of Speed Humps at the requested location. All affected residents on the street in question, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be notified in advance of the public hearing.
E. Upon approval by the Mayor and Council for the use of Speed Humps on a public street, the Public Works Engineering Division will prepare the necessary work order for installation in accordance with this policy and other applicable City standards.
F. Prior to the installation of Speed Humps, the City Engineer shall notify the Fire Department, Police Department, ambulance services, school district, transit services, public utilities and refuse service providers for each proposed installation.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
To protect public safety and prevent drivers from losing control of their vehicles, speed humps may only be installed where specific safety and design conditions are met. A street must meet ALL of the following conditions in order:
1. Street Classification
• The street shall be classified as a local residential street in the City of San Bernardino General Plan and Circulation Element and consistent with the California Vehicle Code.
2. Traffic and Operational Conditions
• The posted speed limit shall be 25 miles per hour or less. • The roadway shall consist of no more than one travel lane in each direction. • The street shall not serve as a primary route for emergency responses, as determined in coordination with fire and emergency service providers. • The street shall not be located on an established transit route.
3. Geometric, Speed and Physical Characteristics
• The curb-to-curb width shall be 40 feet or less.
• The longitudinal grade shall be 5 percent or less.
• The street segment shall have a minimum uninterrupted length of 800 feet (i.e., without traffic signals, STOP, or YIELD controls) to accommodate proper spacing of at least two speed humps.
• The street shall have full-height barrier curbs (minimum 6 inches) on both sides of the entire segment; rolled or mountable curbs are not permitted.
Packet Page. 537
DRAFT
SPEED HUMP POLICY
• The street must have a minimum unobstructed sight distance of 250 feet in advance of proposed speed humps.
• The street must not have a posted speed limit greater than 25 miles per hour.
4. Safety and Visibility Requirements
• The street shall have adequate vertical and horizontal alignment, including:
o Good pavement condition
o Proper drainage
o Adequate street lighting
o No unusual features that could adversely affect safe operation of speed humps • The street shall provide adequate sight distance, meeting or exceeding the minimum stopping sight distance as defined in the latest Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Table 201.1).
5. Lighting Requirements
• Street lighting shall be present on all segments where speed humps are proposed. • Lighting shall provide a minimum illumination level of 1.0 horizontal foot-candle on the surface.
• Lighting shall conform to City Street Lighting Standards. • Speed humps should be located in close proximity to a streetlight luminaire where feasible.
6. Drainage and Stormwater Considerations
• The street shall not function as a major stormwater conveyance facility. • Speed humps shall not create adverse drainage conditions, including ponding or flow obstruction, as determined by the City Engineer
7. Design and Installation Standards
• Speed hump dimensions and profiles shall conform to the City of San Bernardino Standard Drawings.
• Speed humps shall be spaced as uniformly as practicable, with:
o Minimum spacing: 300 feet
o Maximum spacing: 600 feet
o Adjustments permitted based on-site constraints (e.g., driveways, hydrants, signage, property lines, and lighting).
• All required signing, striping, and pavement markings shall be installed in accordance with:
o This Speed Hump policy
o City standards
o The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) o Direction of the City Engineer
8. Capital Improvement Coordination
• The street shall not be scheduled for reconstruction or resurfacing within two (2) years of the installation request.
• Installation may occur after resurfacing is completed or may be incorporated into planned resurfacing work.
Packet Page. 538
DRAFT
SPEED HUMP POLICY
PROCEDURES
A. Request Initiation: Upon receipt of a formal request initiated by residents, the Public Works Department will conduct an evaluation of the street(s) in question to determine if the conditions are such that the above requirements will allow the installation of speed humps.
Requests for speed humps shall originate from residents of the street segment under consideration.
• The City Engineer shall evaluate the request to identify:
o Potential speed hump locations; and
o The area of potential impact for petition circulation • All requests shall be submitted through a formal petition using forms provided by the Public Works Engineering Division.
• The petition sponsor shall be responsible for circulating the petition to all affected residents (property owners) within the defined area, as determined by the City Engineer.
• A separate petition shall be required for each street segment. • Each petition shall include:
o Signatures representing at least 67 percent of affected. The 67% criterion will be calculated based upon the percentage of supporting signatures out of the total number of eligible addresses; and o The petition will include each affected address, a signature line, and a check box for residents to indicate their acceptance of a Speed Hump potentially being located in front of their residence.
• Any signature lacking the required acknowledgment shall be considered invalid.
• Completed petitions shall be submitted to the City Engineer for verification and further evaluation
B. Agency Notification
• The Police Department, Fire Department, school districts, and ambulance service providers shall be notified of:
o The request for speed humps
o The City’s intent to conduct an engineering evaluation and traffic study o The opportunity to provide comments
C. Minimum Requirements and Warrants
All eligibility criteria must be satisfied. In addition, one or more of the following warrants shall be met:
1. Traffic Volume: Average daily traffic between 500 and 3,500 vehicles
2. Traffic Speed:
o More than two-thirds (67%) of surveyed vehicles exceed the posted speed limit; or
o The 85th percentile speed exceeds the speed limit by at least 10 mph Packet Page. 539
DRAFT
SPEED HUMP POLICY
3. Community Support: At least 67% approval from affected residents
4. Collision History: Five or more speed-related collisions within a 12-month period along the roadway segment being considered for speed hump installation D. Approval Process
• If all criteria and warrants are met, a noticed public hearing shall be conducted by the Mayor and City Council.
• All affected residents, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be notified in advance of the public hearing.
E. Design and Installation
• Upon approval, the Public Works Engineering Division shall prepare the necessary work order for installation.
• Installation shall be completed in accordance with this policy and all applicable City standards.
F. Pre-Installation Notification
Prior to installation, the City Engineer shall notify:
• Fire Department
• Police Department
• Ambulance service providers
• School district(s)
• Transit agencies
• Public utilities
• Refuse service providers
G. Post-Installation Evaluation
• The City shall conduct a post-installation evaluation within 18 months to assess effectiveness and impact. The evaluation shall include:
o Traffic speed and volume data
o Collision history
o Emergency response considerations
o Resident feedback
• Installation shall not result in substantial traffic diversion, defined as 400 or more vehicles per day diverted to another local street, as determined by an approved traffic study.
INSTALLATION STANDARDS
Speed humps shall be installed in accordance with the following standards:
1. Speed humps shall be constructed in accordance with the adopted City standard drawings attached hereto.
Packet Page. 540
DRAFT
SPEED HUMP POLICY
2. Speed humps shall be installed across the entire paved roadway surface to the lip of gutter and shall be tapered to a flush condition beginning one (1) foot from the gutter lip to accommodate gutter flow.
3. A standard 30-inch “SPEED HUMP” (W17-1) warning sign shall be installed in advance of each speed hump:
o Signs shall be placed a minimum of 50 feet in advance when the 85th percentile speed is less than 35 miles per hour.
o The first sign in a series shall include a standard 15 mph advisory speed plaque.
4. Thermoplastic pavement markings shall be applied:
o On each speed hump in accordance with Section 3B.25, and Figure 3B-29 (Option A) of the CA MUTCD; and
o In advance of each speed hump in accordance with Section 3B.26, and Figure 3B31 of the CA MUTCD.
5. All required signage and pavement markings shall be installed concurrently with speed hump construction.
6. Double yellow centerline markings, extending 25 feet in advance of each speed hump in both directions, may be installed as determined by the City Engineer.
7. Speed humps shall not be placed within 200 feet of:
o Signalized intersections
o STOP-controlled locations
o Horizontal curves
8. Speed humps shall not be placed over manholes and shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from fire hydrants.
9. Speed humps should be located downstream of drainage inlets, where feasible.
10. Speed humps should be located at abutting property parcel lines, where feasible.
11. Speed humps should be located as close as practicable to street lighting to enhance visibility.
12. Speed humps shall not be located within 10 feet of driveway approaches.
13. Minimum offset from crosswalks shall be 50 feet.
SPEED HUMP REMOVAL
The removal of speed humps may be necessary after City conducts follow up studies after installation, and modify or remove speed humps if:
• The speed humps are ineffective in achieving the intended reduction in vehicle speeds or improvement in safety;
• The speed humps are found to create or contribute to safety concerns, including but not limited to adverse traffic operations, emergency response impacts, or drainage issues; • The speed humps result in substantial traffic diversion to adjacent streets, as determined by a City-approved traffic study;
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A: Speed Hump Eligibility Checklist
Appendix B: Speed Hump Warrants Checklist
Packet Page. 541
DRAFT
SPEED HUMP POLICY
Appendix C: Speed Hump Detail
Packet Page. 542
Speed Hump Eligibility Checklist
Street Name: ____________________________
Limits (From/To): ________________________
Date: _______________
Reviewed By: _____________________________
1. Street Classification
☐ Street is classified as a local residential street per General Plan and California Vehicle Code
2. Traffic and Operational Conditions
☐ Posted speed limit is 25 mph or less
☐ No more than one lane in each direction
☐ Not a primary emergency response route
☐ Not located on an established transit route
☐ No significant traffic diversion (≥ 400 vehicles/day) anticipated (traffic study completed if required)
3. Geometric and Physical Characteristics
☐ Curb-to-curb width is ≤ 36 feet
☐ Longitudinal grade is ≤ 5%
☐ Minimum 800 feet uninterrupted length (no signals, STOP, or YIELD controls) ☐ Full-height barrier curbs (≥ 6 inches) present on both sides לאורך entire segment
4. Safety and Visibility Requirements
☐ Adequate vertical and horizontal alignment
☐ Pavement condition is good
☐ Drainage is adequate
☐ No unusual features affecting safe operation
Packet Page. 543
☐ Minimum 250 feet unobstructed sight distance in advance of each hump ☐ Sight distance increased by 20% if grade > 3%
5. Lighting Requirements
☐ Street lighting is present along the segment
☐ Minimum illumination level of 1.0 horizontal foot-candle met ☐ Lighting meets City Street Lighting Standards
☐ Speed hump locations are near streetlight luminaires (where feasible)
6. Drainage and Stormwater
☐ Street is not a major stormwater conveyance facility
☐ 100-year storm flow does not exceed top of curb elevations
7. Design and Installation Standards
☐ Speed hump design conforms to City Standard Drawings
☐ Proposed spacing between humps is 300–600 feet
☐ Spacing adjusted as needed for site constraints (driveways, hydrants, signs, lighting, etc.)
☐ Signing, striping, and markings comply with:
• ☐ City standards
• ☐ CA MUTCD
• ☐ City Engineer direction
8. Capital Improvement Coordination
☐ Street is not scheduled for reconstruction or resurfacing within 2 years ☐ If applicable, installation coordinated with planned resurfacing Final Determination
Packet Page. 544
☐ Eligible
☐ Not Eligible
Comments / Notes:
Packet Page. 545
Speed Hump Warrant Checklist
Street Name: ____________________________
Limits (From/To): ________________________
Date: _______________
Reviewed By: _____________________________
Eligibility Criteria
☐ All eligibility criteria listed on the eligibility checklist has been met.
In addition, one or more of the following warrants shall be met:
1. Traffic Volume
Average daily traffic volume was documented as _____________veh/day on ____________.
☐ Average daily traffic volume documented is between 500 and 3,500 veh/day.
2. Traffic Speed
The 85th percentile speed was documented at ___________mph on _____________. ☐ More than two-thirds (67%) of surveyed vehicles exceed the posted speed limit; or ☐ The 85th percentile speed exceeds the posted speed limit by at least 10 mph.
3. Community Support
☐ At least 67% approval from affected residents.
4. Collision History
☐ Five or more speed-related collisions within a 12-month period along the roadway segment being considered for speed hump installation.
Packet Page. 546
Packet Page. 547
DISCUSSION
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: October 21, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Lynn Merrill, Director of Public Works
Department: Public Works
Subject: Presentation for Meyers Creek Drainage Study Report Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California:
1. Direct City staff to develop a capital improvement program project based on Alternative 1 of the Meyers Creek Drainage Study Report.
Or alternatively,
2. Direct City staff to develop a capital improvement program project based on Alternative 2 of the Meyers Creek Drainage Study Report.
City Manager's Comments
Report (PDR) for the Meyers Creek Drainage Study has been completed. Two Alternatives have been identified in the report as potential solutions to the various operational challenges that are present Meyers Creek. The report has evaluated various elements within the two alternatives such as the estimated construction cost, right-of-way needs, environmental impacts, mitigation requirements, permitting timeline, traffic impacts, operations and maintenance impacts, utility conflicts, and agency coordination.
Background
The City of San Bernardino initiated the Meyers Creek Drainage Study to address recurring flooding, sediment deposition, and drainage deficiencies affecting the Meyers Creek corridor near Meyers Road, Belmont Avenue, and Little League Drive. Recent residential development within the watershed has increased the frequency and volume Packet Page. 548
of stormwater runoff entering Meyers Creek.
At the same time, the existing drainage system has experienced repeated maintenance challenges associated with sediment-laden flows. Significant sediment deposition partially or completely clogged portions of the Meyers Road storm drain system during major storm events in 2006 and 2010, resulting in emergency maintenance activities and ongoing concerns regarding public safety, roadway overtopping, and downstream flooding. The study was undertaken to identify a long-term solution that would improve flood protection, reduce sediment impacts, and provide a reliable drainage system for the surrounding community.
Funding for this study was allocated from the Storm Drain Construction Fund in the amount of $315,319.
Discussion
Q3 Consulting completed a comprehensive hydrologic, hydraulic, sediment transport, environmental, and constructability assessment of the approximately 811-acre Meyers Creek watershed. The study found that the existing culverts at Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue are undersized and represent significant hydraulic bottlenecks during major storm events. Hydraulic modeling demonstrated that floodwaters overtop these crossings and spread into adjacent streets and developed areas. The analysis also confirmed that Meyers Creek transports substantial quantities of sediment from the steep upstream watershed. Without improvements, flooding, sediment deposition, and emergency maintenance activities are expected to continue. Two conceptual alternatives were developed and evaluated.
Alternative 1 (Storm Drain) consists of constructing a backbone storm drain system within existing roadway corridors to capture overtopping floodwaters at Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue and convey flows underground to Cable Creek. This option minimizes property acquisition and environmental impacts but relies on extensive underground infrastructure and provides limited benefits for long-term sediment management.
Alternative 2 (Improved Channel) consists of constructing the ultimate Meyers Creek flood control facility consistent with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan. The project includes an inline debris basin upstream of Meyers Road (29.9-acre foot), a concrete-lined channel, replacement of undersized roadway crossings, maintenance access roads, and associated flood control improvements. This alternative provides both flood conveyance and sediment management benefits while creating a regional facility capable of accommodating future watershed conditions.
The Improved Channel Alternative was identified as the preferred solution. While the construction cost for Alternative 2 is significantly higher, the Improved Channel Alternative would qualify for dedication to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Long-term operation and maintenance would not fall under the City’s Packet Page. 549
responsibility. In addition, the project may present multiple benefits beyond flood mitigation, which favors multi-agency partnerships and grant funding opportunities.
Prior to the completion of the study, a meeting was held between San Bernardino County Flood Control District, City of San Bernardino, and Q3 Consulting. Comments from the County were incorporated into the alternatives where applicable. Of the two options, Alternative 2 was considered significantly more desirable by the County and could open the opportunity for a cost-sharing agreement and grant funding opportunities. Funding can be further discussed by the City and County if Alternative 2 is pursued by the City with the assistance of the County’s Planning Division.
Alternative Comparison Table
Category Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm
Drain
Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
Drainage
Approach
Subsurface RCB with drop inlets
and laterals
Engineered concrete-lined open
channel with upstream 29.9 acrefeet debris basin
Conveyance
Capacity
100-year flows intercepted via
storm drain
100-year flows fully contained
within channel
Construction
Cost
~$25.0 million ~$64.1 million
Right-of-Way
Needs
Minimal (mostly within City ROW;
minor easements at outlets)
Significant (11 parcels, ~7.9 acres
of acquisition)
Environmental
Impacts
Limited (mostly within disturbed
ROW)
Higher (riparian/streambed
impacts, SBKR habitat)
Mitigation
Requirements
Outlet to Cable Creek may require
1600/401 agreements
Full stream alteration mitigation +
SBKR consultation
Permitting
Timeline
12–18 months 18–36 months (longer if SBKR
consultation required)
Constructability Trenching in roadways; staged
closures; utility conflicts
Major grading; full road closures;
culvert replacement
Traffic Impacts Moderate (intersection closures,
detours)
High (full closures at Meyers &
Belmont Roads)
O&M
Responsibility
City of San Bernardino County Flood Control District (postdedication) Annual O&M
Cost
~$30,000 ~$147,000
Utility Conflicts Conflicts with sewer, gas, water,
telecom lines
Full utility relocation at two
crossings
Agency
Coordination
City + CDFW/RWQCB/SWRCB +
District
City + CDFW/RWQCB + potential
USFWS (SBKR) + District
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
Packet Page. 550
This project is consistent with Key Target No. 1e: “Improved Operational & Financial Capacity – Minimize risk and litigation exposure. Approval of this drainage study will result in public improvements being constructed that minimize risk and litigation exposure through upgrading the existing drainage system.
Fiscal Impact
There is no impact to General Fund for this action. Funding for the study was provided from a previous allocation from the Storm Drain Construction Fund.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California:
1. Direct City staff to develop a capital improvement program project based on Alternative 1 of the Meyers Creek Drainage Study Report.
Or alternatively,
2. Direct City staff to develop a capital improvement program project based on Alternative 2 of the Meyers Creek Drainage Study Report.
Attachments
Attachment 1 Presentation – Meyers Creek Drainage Study Attachment 2 Preliminary Design Report – Meyers Creek Drainage Study Ward:
Fifth Ward
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:
February 5, 2025 Approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for Focused Drainage Study for Meyers Creek
Drainage System
January 18, 2023 Award of Professional Services Agreement for Focused Drainage Study for Meyers Creek Drainage Study
CC
Eric Levitt, City Manager
Packet Page. 551
Presented by:
Remi Candaele, PE; Director
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
City Council September 16, 2026
Packet Page. 5521
Where Is Meyers Creek?
• Definitions:
Watershed: An area of land that catches rain and
channels it downhill.
Tributary: A smaller stream that flows into a larger
stream of river.
• Northwestern portion of the City of San
Bernardino
• Foothill watershed to Cable Creek east off
Interstate 215
• Meyers Creek flows south through the
Verdemont community
• Crosses Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue
• Discharges to Cable Creek near Little League
Drive
• Tributary watershed: approximately 811 acres
Q3 Consulting 2
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
Packet Page. 553
Why is a Drainage Study Needed?
• Storm drain clogging
and channel deposition
documented in 2006
and 2010
• Mud and debris
reached local streets in
November 2022
• New development has
increased runoff
entering Meyers Creek
• Future development
• Emergency sediment
removal places
demands on City staff
Q3 Consulting 3
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler Meyers Rd, 2022
Meyers Rd Crossing, 2010
Meyers Rd Crossing, 2006
Packet Page. 554
What Did the Study Find?
Q3 Consulting 4
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
• The Existing Crossings (Meyers
Road and Belmont Avenue) Act As
“Bottleneck”.
• The Existing Creek does not have
the capacity to convey the
estimated 10-year or 100-year
events.
• Floodwaters start breaching out
approximately 1,000 feet north of
Meyers Road.
• Fine sediment deposition is likely
from construction activities and
the former agricultural operations.
Packet Page. 555
Q3 Consulting 5
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
Packet Page. 556
Alternatives Considered
Q3 Consulting 6
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
• Two Long-Term Solutions Were
Evaluated
• Alternative 1: Backbone Storm
Drain
Capture overflowing water and
convey it underground to Cable
Creek.
• Alternative 2: Improved Channel
and Debris Basin
Capture debris upstream and
convey storm flows through an
improved concrete-lined channel.
Packet Page. 557
Alternatives Considered
Q3 Consulting 7
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
Packet Page. 558
Alternative 1: Backbone
Storm Drain
Q3 Consulting 8
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
• Underground Conveyance
• Approximately 2,300 feet of backbone
storm drain
• New laterals along Meyers Road and
Belmont Avenue
• Reinforced concrete boxes up to
approximately 11 feet by 7 feet
• Discharge to Cable Creek
• Preliminary construction cost:
approximately $25.0 million
• Primary Benefit: Lower cost and less
property acquisition
• Primary Limitation: Addresses
overflowing water but provides
limited upstream debris control
Cable Creek at Little League Dr. (Existing)
Proposed Outlet Structure (Concept) Packet Page. 559
Alternative 2: Improved
Channel and Debris Basin
Q3 Consulting 9
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
• Convey All Floodwaters and Manage
Debris
• Approximately 29.9 acre-feet of debris
storage with habitat and recharge
• Concrete-lined channel beginning
approximately 1,000 feet north of
Meyers Road
• New 32-foot-span arch crossings at
Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue
• Maintenance roads, outlet works,
spillway, and bank protection
• Preliminary cost: approximately $64.1
million
Meyers Creek (Existing)
Proposed Channel (Concept) Packet Page. 560
Alternative 2: Improved Channel and Bridge Crossings
Q3 Consulting 10
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Bubbler
Existing Culvert at Meyers Road Proposed Culvert (Concept) Packet Page. 561
Alternative 2: Improved Channel and Debris Basin
Q3 Consulting 11
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
Conceptual Rendering of Upstream Debris Basin Packet Page. 562 Comparison of Alternatives
Q3 Consulting 12
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
Category Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain Alternative 2 – Improved Channel & Debris Basin Conveyance Capacity 100-year flows 100-year flows and debris Construction Cost ~$25.0 million ~$64.1 million
Right-of-Way Needs Minimal (mostly within City right-of-way) Significant (11 parcels or 7.9 acres of acquisition) Environmental
Impacts/Mitigation
Limited (mostly within disturbed ROW) Higher (riparian/streambed impacts, SBKR habitat) Permitting Timeline 12–18 months 18–48 months
Constructability Trenching in roadways; staged closures; utility conflicts
Major grading; full road closures; culvert
replacement
O&M Responsibility City of San Bernardino County Flood Control District (post-dedication) Annual O&M Cost ~$30,000 + As-Needed Debris Removal ~$147,000 Packet Page. 563
Next Steps
Q3 Consulting 13
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Staff gage
Bubbler
• Identify funding sources and grant opportunities
• Discuss potential partnerships with other agencies
• Potential interim solutions:
Construct berm deflectors north/south of Meyers Rd and Belmont Ave Coordination with local land owners may be necessary
Packet Page. 564
14 QUESTIONS
Remi Candaele, MS, PE, QSD, QISP
949.259.6441
[email protected]
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Packet Page. 565
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
Preliminary Design Report:
MEYERS CREEK DRAINAGE STUDY
City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California April 1, 2026
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
201 North “E” Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Prepared by:
Q3 Consulting
27051 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 270
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Contact : Remi Candaele, P.E.
[email protected]
949.259.6441
Packet Page. 566
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.1 Context ..................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-6
1.3 Watershed Setting ..................................................................................................... 1-7
1.4 Flood Insurance Rate Map ........................................................................................ 1-10
1.5 Previous Studies ...................................................................................................... 1-10
1.6 Project Alternatives .................................................................................................. 1-11 2 Hydrology Studies ........................................................................................................... 2-14
2.1 Hydrology Approach ................................................................................................ 2-14
2.2 Rainfall .................................................................................................................... 2-15
2.3 Results .................................................................................................................... 2-16 3 Hydraulics ...................................................................................................................... 3-19
3.1 Hydraulic Approach ................................................................................................. 3-19
3.2 Results .................................................................................................................... 3-22 4 Preliminary Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Costs ........................................................... 4-24
4.1 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain ....................................................................... 4-24
4.2 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel ............................................................................. 4-26 5 Sedimentation and Scour ................................................................................................ 5-31
5.1 Sediment Size ......................................................................................................... 5-31
5.2 Conceptual Sediment and Debris Yield .................................................................... 5-33
5.3 Field Observations ................................................................................................... 5-36
5.4 Review of Historical Aerials ...................................................................................... 5-36
5.5 Future Studies ......................................................................................................... 5-37 6 Permitting and Environmental Constraints Constructability Assessment ........................... 6-38
6.1 Approach ................................................................................................................ 6-38
6.2 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain ....................................................................... 6-38
6.3 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel ............................................................................. 6-40 7 Constructability Assessment ........................................................................................... 7-44
7.1 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain ....................................................................... 7-44
7.2 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel ............................................................................. 7-45 8 Project Timeline .............................................................................................................. 8-48
8.1 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain ....................................................................... 8-48 Packet Page. 567
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-3 Q3 Consulting
8.2 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel ............................................................................. 8-48 9 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... 9-50 10 References .................................................................................................................... 10-52 11 Technical Appendices ................................................................................................... 11-53 Appendix A: Hydrologic Soil Group Map ............................................................................. 11-54 Appendix B: Land Use Map ................................................................................................ 11-55 Appendix C: Hydrology Maps ............................................................................................. 11-56 Appendix D: Hydrology Results .......................................................................................... 11-57 Appendix E: Proposed Alternative Conceptual Plans .......................................................... 11-58 Appendix F: HEC-RAS Model Results – 100-YR 24-Hour Event ............................................. 11-59 Appendix G: Preliminary Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Costs for Proposed Channel Improvements 11-60
Appendix H: Preliminary Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Costs for Proposed Storm Drain ... 11-61 Appendix I: NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Intensity Duration and Depth Data ....................... 11-62 Appendix J: FEMA FIRM Map ............................................................................................. 11-63 Appendix K: Precast Arched Waterway............................................................................... 11-64 Appendix L: Tract Maps ..................................................................................................... 11-65 Appendix M: As-Builts ........................................................................................................ 11-66 Appendix N: Environmental Constraints Analysis ............................................................... 11-67 Appendix O: Sedimentation and Scour ............................................................................... 11-68 Tables and Figures
Table 1-1 Meyers Creek Watershed Land Uses ............................................................................ 1-8 Table 2-1: SCAG Database Classifications to San Bernardino Hydrology Manual Classification .. 2-14 Table 2-2 Water-Year Rainfall Statistics (Gilbert Street USGS) .................................................... 2-16 Table 2-3 Rainfall Intensity Data ............................................................................................... 2-16 Table 2-4 Rainfall Depth Data .................................................................................................. 2-16 Table 2-5 Existing Condition Rational Method Results - Clearwater ........................................... 2-17 Table 2-6 SAUH AES Results for Existing Condition Upper Tributaries ........................................ 2-17 Table 2-7 Proposed Condition Rational Method Hydrology for Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain .............................................................................................................................................. 2-18 Table 2-8 Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph Method for Alternative 2 – Improved Channel .... 2-18 Table 3-1 Manning’s N for Land Cover ....................................................................................... 3-20 Table 3-2 HEC-RAS Boundary Condition Methods ..................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-3 WSPG Storm Drain Sizing Results .............................................................................. 3-23 Table 3-4 HEC-RAS Results, 100-year Storm Event ................................................................... 3-23 Table 4-1: Anticipated O&M Costs ............................................................................................ 4-26 Table 4-2 Parcel Acquisition Costs ........................................................................................... 4-28 Packet Page. 568
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-4 Q3 Consulting
Table 4-3: Anticipated O&M Costs ............................................................................................ 4-30 Table 5-1: Conceptual Sediment Yield Estimates ...................................................................... 5-35 Table 5-2: Conceptual Sediment Yield Estimates – Tributaries A and B Only to Proposed Debris Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 5-35 Table 7-1 Potential Right-of-Way Acquisition ............................................................................. 7-47 Table 8-1 Conceptual Timeline for Alternative 1 ........................................................................ 8-49 Table 8-2 Conceptual Timeline for Alternative 2 ........................................................................ 8-49 Table 9-1 Comparison Table – Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 ..................................................... 9-51 Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Figure 1-2 Watershed Setting ..................................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 1-3 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................. 1-13 Figure 5-1 Particle Size Distribution of Meyers Creek Bed Sediment Samples (November 2023) . 5-32 Packet Page. 569
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-5 Q3 Consulting
1 Introduction
1.1 Context
The City of San Bernardino has tasked Q3 Consulting to perform an assessment of the Meyers Canyon Drainage system and develop a conceptual alignment to improve Meyers Canyon. The drainage area is classified as online E-11 of the County of San Bernardino (County)’s Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan (CSDP) No. 7. Six Tracts have recently been developed within the drainage area, including Tracts 16502, 16533, 17329, 17367, 20150, and 20539 (Appendix L:). The Meyers Canyon drainage system crosses successively W Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue W before its confluence with the unimproved Cable Creek. Downstream of the existing confluence and North Little League Drive, Cable Creek has been improved to an engineered channel with a soft bottom and hardened banks, environmental mitigation, and other conveyance considerations. Cable Creek is owned and maintained by the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District (District).
The hydrology study of Meyers Creek extends from its headwaters to its point of confluence with Cable Creek. The original focused study, dated July 2025,evaluates conceptual drainage improvements from 500’ north of Meyers Road to the confluence with Cable Creek. The updated focused study was extended to approximately 1,500’ upstream of Meyers Road at the request of the District to incorporate an inline debris basin.
Currently, Meyers Creek is channelized as an earthen, unlined, trapezoidal channel from approximately 200 feet upstream of the Meyers Road crossing to 200 feet downstream of the lowwater crossing at Belmont Avenue. The channel presents a steep longitudinal slope averaging 4.1- percent. Upstream of Meyers Road, the current course of Meyers Creek may have been altered from its historical path or could diLer from the anticipated course in the vicinity of parcels APN#026106101 and APN#034811112 due to berming resulting from grading activities by the local private residents.
Existing drainage infrastructure along Meyers Road includes an existing 48-inch RCP which conveys stormwater flows from Tracts 17329 and 20539. The 48-inch RCP facility is designed to convey up to 243 cfs and runs southbound under Little League Drive until it reaches Meyers Road where it turns westbound towards Meyers Creek. The 48-inch RCP expands to a 81-inch RCP and receives flows from two CMP risers and a curb inlet along Meyers Road. The RCP expands to a 87-inch diameter before out letting to Meyers Creek downstream of the Meyers Road Culvert. These improvements were completed in 1991 and the As-Builts are included in Appendix M:.
The low-water crossing of Meyers Creek at Belmont Avenue was improved in 2007 by replacing the failing double 36-inch CMP with a double 36-inch RCP culvert was added at Belmont Avenue. The Meyers Road concrete box culvert was improved to be 10’ x 7.5’ and receives flow from two catch basins to the west of the culvert. The culvert has significant blockage (~20%) at the downstream side Packet Page. 570
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-6 Q3 Consulting
due to vegetation and accumulated sediments. Two catch basins were constructed just north of where Little League Drive crosses over Cable Creek. Both Culverts outlet to Cable Creek.
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map
1.2 Objectives
The preparation of the Preliminary Design Study is motivated by several factors, including:
Packet Page. 571
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-7 Q3 Consulting
- The increase in frequency and volume of stormwater runoL flows to Meyers Creek resulting from the development of Tracts 17329 and 20539;
- Eliminating emergency maintenance operations from City StaL to remove significant sediment accumulation in the 87-inch RCP, Meyers Creek downstream of Meyers Road, and in adjacent streets. Evidence of sediment-laden flows in the Meyers Rd Storm Drain and adjacent street has been documented over time. Significant deposition of fine sediment (silt) resulted in the partial to full clogging of Meyers Rd Storm both in 2006 and 2010. - Providing flood protection and an eLective drainage system to the local residents.
1.3 Watershed Setting
Meyers Creek is a tributary to Cable Creek. The watershed tributary to Cable Creek Channel consists of approximately 10.7 square miles lying to the east of Cajon Canyon Wash, and includes Cable Canyon, Ames Canyon, Hopper Canyon, Meyers Canyon and Meecham Canyon. Ground elevation in the watershed varies from approximately 5,600 feet at the Monument Peak to approximately 1,550 feet at the confluence of Cable Creek and Devil Creek Diversion Channel. Slopes in the upper, northeast, watershed can exceed 30% while the terrain exhibits milder slopes in the southwest (2% to 6% grades).
Upstream of the confluence with Meyers Creek, the upper Cable Creek watershed encompasses 6.5 square miles of tributary area. An inline spreading grounds with a total storage capacity of 993 acrefeet was constructed by the District to provide 415 acre-feet of detention volume and 578 acre-feet of sediment and debris accumulation.
Downstream of Little League Drive, Cable Creek was improved by the District as a trapezoidal channel with grouted riprap lined side slopes, a 40-foot bottom width, and an overall depth of 12 feet.
Upstream of Little League Drive, the District, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) have partnered to create a debris and detention basin at the existing Cable Creek spreading grounds. The proposed project will provide long-term flood protection,
The Meyers Creek subwatershed is part of the Lytle Creek system, characterized by steep, sedimentprone hillsides draining onto alluvial fan deposits. Meyers Creek contributes approximately 811 acres of tributary area to Cable Creek at Little League Drive. The composition of Meyers Creek with respect to land use has shifted in recent years due to the large residential developments currently in construction along the eastern side of the subwatershed. The undeveloped region of the watershed contained eLective slopes of 5% on average. Cable Creek contributes as a mid-slope tributary, draining mountainous slopes via a canyon reach into Lytle Creek. Its watershed includes headwater catchments, with significant runoL and sediment delivery during peak storms (Appendix C:) as discussed further in Section 2 of this report.
Packet Page. 572
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-8 Q3 Consulting
Land use in the area primarily consists of single-family dwellings units, schools, parks, and streets (SCAG, 2012). The specific designation for residential density has been updated since the 2012 general plan from general residential to low density. Several parcels in the north western section of the watershed were switched from general residential(1110) to rural residential (1150) in SCAG classifications. Large sections of the residential development from the southeastern portion of the watershed went from general residential (1110) to rural residential (1150). As a conservative estimate of density, 5-7 dwelling units per acre (as classified in the San Bernardino Hydrology Manual) was utilized in the rational method analysis. Impervious area was calculated using the inverse of the parcels to account for roadways.
Table 1-1 Meyers Creek Watershed Land Uses
Classification
2012 General
Plan SCAG
2019 General
Plan SCAG
1110-Single Family
Residential 45.3% 32.8%
1150-Rural Residential 0.0% 12.6%
1240-Public Facilities 0.5% 0.6%
1430-Utility Facilities 0.1% 0.0%
1800-Open Space and
Recreation 51.3% 51.3%
Impervious 2.8% 2.7%
Packet Page. 573
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-9 Q3 Consulting
Figure 1-2 Watershed Setting
Packet Page. 574
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-10 Q3 Consulting
1.4 Flood Insurance Rate Map
The existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map was used to determine if the project site is located within the limits of the 100-year floodplain. Review of the existing FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), panel 06071C7930J indicates that the vicinity of Meyers Creek is mapped in a Flood Designation Zone A, which indicates that the vicinity of the project extents fall within the 100-year floodplain. Refer to Appendix J.
No detailed mapping study was performed by FEMA, the City, or the District.
1.5 Previous Studies
No detailed studies have been prepared by the City or the District to evaluate the Meyers Creek subwatershed. However, several regional studies have been performed in its vicinity, which provide some indication as.
The District prepared a Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan (CSDP) Number 7 for the Cable Creek-Lytle Creek watershed (1982). Meyers Creek Channel is referenced as Project No. 7-E11. The existing storm drain lateral along Meyers Road is referenced as Project No. 7-E12, which was completed by the City in 1991. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Meyers Road, the District identifies two potential debris basins to be implemented in the West Fork (subwatershed A) and East Fork of Meyers Creek (subwatershed B), respectively. These debris basins are referenced as Project No. 7-E10. The CSDP No.7 references a concrete-lined facility for Meyers Creek Channel from the upper debris basins to the its confluence with Cable Creek. Specifically, a trapezoidal concrete-lined channel (8- foot bottom and 7-foot tall) is proposed between the proposed debris basin and Meyers Road to convey a 100-year peak discharge of 1,574 cfs. Downstream of Meyers Road, a U-shaped concretelined channel (10-foot bottom and 8-foot tall) is proposed to convey 1,974 cfs. Construction costs were estimated at $1.2 Million in 1982, or $4.3 Million in today’s value adjusted per the ENR Construction Cost Index (1982: 3,705 ; 2025: 13,200).
CM Engineering Associates (1986) prepared a drainage study for Bailey Canyon for the District. Bailey Canyon is the next downstream tributary to Cable Creek from Meyers Creek. The goal was to establish the alignment and configuration of the ultimate facility for Bailey Canyon Channel consistent with the District’s Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan Project No. 7-E14 and E-14A. The report identifies that highly debris laden flows are anticipated from the mountainous drainage area of 525 acres. A high-level hydrology delineation and hydrology study is included, which determined 349 acres of tributary drainage area for the Meyers Creek subwatershed at Meyers Road. Using the rational method, the study computed peak discharges of 636 cfs and 993 cfs for the 10- and 100-year storm events, respectively.
The District performed the Cable Creek Drainage Study (1994) to analyze the conditions of the Cable Creek watershed and make recommendations for improvements to the Cable Creek mainstem system from the mouth of Cable Creek Canyon to its confluence with Devil Creek Diversion Channel.
Packet Page. 575
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-11 Q3 Consulting
Based on an evaluation of the watershed, basin topography, site conditions, and discussions with the County and City StaL, three main recommendations were made: (1) a detention basin is proposed for implementation within the existing Cable Creek Spreading Grounds, eLectively reducing to 100-year peak discharge from 10,830 cfs down to 5,675 cfs ; (2) due to extremely steep topography of the watershed, the implementation of debris basins within each canyon was deemed undesirable. Instead, an extension of the existing levee system along Cable Creek was recommended; and (3) downstream of the detention basin, the District has the required right-of-way to improve the existing channel to a grouted riprap trapezoidal channel section.
1.6 Project Alternatives
Q3 presented two conceptual project alternatives to the City in April 2024. The two project alternatives evaluated in this Project Design Report (PDR) include Alternative 1(Backbone Storm Drain) and Alternative 2 (Improved Channel).
1.6.1 Alternative 1 (Backbone Storm Drain)
The first alternative consists of constructing 2,300 linear feet of backbone storm drain under Little League Drive from Meyers Road to its discharge to Cable Creek east of Little League Drive. Two storm drain laterals are proposed, one 72-inch RCP along Meyers Road to replace the existing westbound (reversed) 81-inch RCP, and an 84-inch RCP along Belmont Avenue. The backbone storm drain would begin at the intersection with Meyers Road as a 7’x6’ RCB. Its size would increase progressively to 11’x7’ RCB with the confluence with the Belmont Avenue lateral storm drain and as the longitudinal slope becomes milder downstream. The outlet to Cable Creek would include wingwalls and an energy dissipation feature, such as riprap apron, velocity rings, and an impact basin. The ultimate configuration would be determined during final engineering.
Standard catch basin inlets and street curb inlets are proposed at the intersections of Little League Drive with Belmont Avenue and Meyers Road, respectively. Similar standard catch basins and street curb inlets are not suLicient to capture a significant portion of the overtopping flows from Meyers Creek that may occur at Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue during major flood events. Instead, Alternative 1 relies on a series of longitudinal drop channels placed at strategic locations within the northside (westbound) parkway. A series of longitudinal, rectangular, open inletss would be 8-feet wide and up to 50-foot long. The longitudinal, rectangular, inlets would be surrounded by cable railing or covered with grated inlets for fall prevention and divert captured flows to the storm drain laterals. Should the Alternative be retained by the City, the dimensions and configuration of the longitudinal, rectangular drop channels would be determined during final engineering. Preliminary design plan and profiles are included in Appendix E:.
1.6.2 Alternative 2 (Improved Channel)
The second alternative consists of improving the existing Meyers Creek channel to its ultimate condition to convey the 100-year peak discharge. Upon receiving direction from the District, the proposed channel configuration follows the District’s Standard Plan (S.P.) 192E for a concrete-lined Packet Page. 576
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-12 Q3 Consulting
channel section. The proposed channel would consist of both concrete-lined bottom and side slopes. The proposed channel includes two dikes on both sides of the channel, allowing for future maintenance, consistent with the District S.P. 100.
An inline debris basin is proposed upstream the channel improvements at the confluence of Meyers Creek tributaries A (west) and B (east). The debris basin is designed to capture approximately 29.9 acre-feet of debris from tributaries A and B. Maintenance access ramps around the perimeter and to the bottom of the basin are included in the concept and connect for ingress/egress with the abandoned City road of Meyers Road. A low-flow tower and an inline spillway allow for the basin to fully drain. Side slopes, spillway, and upstream transition structures will be protected with rock slope protection. The spillway configuration allows for the full 100-year discharge to overtop and run down the channel.
The proposed concrete-lined channel would pick up flows from the proposed debris basin approximately 1,500’ north of Meyers Road. Downstream of the basin spillway, the concrete-lined channel would begin with a 40’ bottom wide section allowing the channel to capture all flows and transitioning the proposed channel to a 12’ bottom width. Downstream of Belmont Avenue, the bottom width increases to 30’ as the longitudinal slope flattens to 0.5%. The channel dikes transition progressively until they meet the existing grade.
The existing crossings at Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue would be improved to convey the full 100- year, clear, peak discharge. Notably:
- The existing 10’ x 7.5’ RCB culvert at the Meyers Road crossing would be replaced with a precast arch culvert (32’ span by 11’ 0 ¾” rise).
- The existing double 36” RCP culvert would be replaced with another precast arch culvert (32’ span by 11’ 0 ¾” rise).
Preliminary plans and profiles for this alternative are included in Appendix E:.
Packet Page. 577
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
1-13 Q3 Consulting
Figure 1-3 Project Alternatives
Packet Page. 578
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
2-14 Q3 Consulting
2 Hydrology Studies
2.1 Hydrology Approach
Hydrologic computations were performed to determine peak discharge runoL from the tributary watershed at strategic locations along the proposed Alternatives. The hydrologic analysis was conducted in accordance with the 1986 San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and its 2010 Hydrology Manual Addendum. The Hydrology Manual Addendum specifies the use of NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall values for hydrologic analyses.
The 1986 San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual limits the applicability of the rational method to drainage areas smaller than 640 acres. The limitation assumes that rainfall is distributed uniformly over the entire drainage area under that threshold. The Meyers Creek subwatershed (811 acres) is of elongated shape exhibiting significant topographic relief, thus reducing the likelihood of uniform rainfall patterns. For this reason, the unit hydrograph method was used to size the proposed concrete-lined channel (Alternative 2). The rational method was, however, used to size the local infrastructure, such as storm drains, catch basins, and other local drainage features, notably in Alternative 1.
A watershed delineation was carried out using available topographic data, aerial imagery from Google Earth, and an understanding of the location of existing culverts. The following topographic information was utilized:
- USGS Lidar 1 Meter Contours for San Bernardino (2022) - USGS NED 1/3 arc-second Contours for San Bernardino (2022) A 10-foot composite Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was compiled and used as the basis for delineation. GIS watershed delineation tools were employed to generate drainage catchments and flow paths, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual (1986). Drainage areas were further refined based on observations made during our site reconnaissance on November 10, 2022 and November 29, 2023.The longest flowpath through the watershed is roughly 13,500 feet with an elevation drop of 2,577 feet.
Land uses within the watershed were translated from the SCAG classifications to the classifications utilized in the San Bernardino Hydrology Manual. As discussed in Section 1, the residential land uses were translated to 5-7 Dwellings per acre as a conservative approach considering future development in the watershed.
Table 2-1: SCAG Database Classifications to San Bernardino Hydrology Manual Classification SCAG Database Classes San Bernardino Hydrology Manual Classes 1110-Single Family Residential 5-7 Dwellings per acre
1150-Rural Residential 5-7 Dwellings per acre
1240-Public Facilities School
1430-Utility Facilities Natural Good Cover, “Meadows”
1800-Open Space and Recreation Public Park or Shrub/Scrub Packet Page. 579
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
2-15 Q3 Consulting
The single area unit hydrographs were computed using the land uses identified in the National Land Cover Database (2016). Since the development is expected to mitigate an increase in flows, the existing land cover for the development region is appropriate for use in the hydrologic calculations.
2.1.1 Rational Method
The addendum to the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual states that the correct antecedent moisture condition (AMC) should be used depending on if the watershed falls within a designated arid region. Refer to Addendum Figure ADD-1. The entire Meyers Creek subwatershed falls within the AMCIII region. Antecedent Moisture Condition (AMC) II was used for the 10-year storm and AMC III was used for the 100-year storm.
2.1.2 Single Area Unit Hydrographs
Due to the limits on rational method hydrology as discussed in Section 2.1, unit hydrographs were developed for the upper tributaries to Meyers Creek. A map of the tributary areas is included in The hydrologic results from the UH computations were then input to a rational method analysis for the downstream portion of the Meyers Creek Watershed prior to its confluence with Cable Creek. Unit hydrographs were created for Upper Tributaries A (West Meyers Creek), B (East Meyers Creek), and E (Tracts No. 17329 and 20150). Additional Single Area Unit Hydrographs were computed for the watershed at the Meyers Road crossing, Belmont Avenue crossing, Meyers Road Storm Drain at Meyers Road and Little League Drive, and confluence with Cable Creek. These hydrographs were utilized for sizing the proposed channel in Alternative 2. Tables, figures, and equations for low rates, yield fraction, loss fraction, and curve numbers were derived from the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Loss rates were calculated for each soil type, land use and AMC within each watershed and an area average loss rate was calculated for each overall watershed for the 10, 100, and 500-year storm events.
Hydrologic computations were performed using the proprietary AES software.
2.2 Rainfall
Daily rainfall data are available on the USGS website for the Gilbert Street Precipitation Gage Station in the City of San Bernardino (USGS Station ID#340742117161701). Available daily rainfall records span from October 2005 to January 2024. To support our assessment, water-year summaries were generated for Water Year 2005 through 2023. Total rainfall in inches and maximum daily rainfall in inches are summarized in Error! Reference source not found..
The wettest water-year on record is 2023 (October 2022 – September 2023) with a total of 25.72 inches. Other above average water-years include 2010, 2011, 2017, and 2019. The highest daily rainfall is 3.46 inches on November 21, 2013. Conversely, water-years 2006, 2007, 2018, and 2021 were relatively dry.
Packet Page. 580
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
2-16 Q3 Consulting
Table 2-2 Water-Year Rainfall Statistics (Gilbert Street USGS) Water-Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Rainfall (inch) 3.2 4.33 13.7 10.1 17.8 23.5 9.01 9.52 12.42 Daily Max Rainfall
(inch)
2.2 0.9 2.6 1.76 1.98 3.2 1.66 2.04 3.46
Water-Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Rainfall (inch) 11.09 8.84 21.57 6.81 19.85 12.55 8.19 10.99 25.72 Daily Max Rainfall
(inch)
1.81 1.49 2.07 1.96 3.34 1.57 1.63 2.33 2.47
The District’s Hydrology Manual Addendum (2010) requires the use of NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall values when completing hydrologic analyses for the 10-, 100-, and 500-year storms. Complete data sets from NOAA are included in Appendix I:. Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 summarize the rainfall intensityduration and depth-duration statistics per NOAA Atlas 14, respectively. Due to the larger distribution of rainfall patterns within the watershed, the rainfall used for hydrologic analysis varied slightly across the subareas and tributaries.
Table 2-3 Rainfall Intensity Data
Rainfall Duration 10–yr. Intensity
(in/hr.)
100-yr Intensity
(in/hr.)
500-yr Intensity
(in/hr.)
5-min 4.39 7.08 9.61
15-min 2.54 4.09 5.56
30-min 1.89 3.04 4.15
1-hr 1.43 2.31 3.17
2-hr 1.0 1.57 2.14
3-hr 0.60 0.91 1.74
Table 2-4 Rainfall Depth Data
Rainfall Duration 10-yr Depth (in) 100-yr Depth (in) 500-yr Depth (in) 5-min 0.39 0.62 0.80
30-min 1.00 1.62 2.08
1-hr 1.53 2.46 3.17
3-hr 2.70 4.15 5.24
6-hr 3.94 5.97 7.47
24-hr 7.89 12.0 15.0
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Existing Condition
The table below shows the results of the existing rational method study. Complete results and output are included in Appendix C: and Appendix D:. The results for the single area unit hydrographs used Packet Page. 581
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
2-17 Q3 Consulting
for the existing rational method are below. The lag time was not included in the rational method input because the flow was specified as a constant source flow, code 16, rather than a user specified flow, code 7, to avoid AES software issues.
Table 2-5 Existing Condition Rational Method Results - Clearwater Node Location Q10(CFS) Q100(CFS)
108 US Meyers Creek/ Meyers Rd 941 1738
109 DS Meyers Creek/ Meyers Rd 980 1809
111 US Meyers Creek/ Belmont Rd 1248 2267
112 DS Meyers Creek/ Belmont Rd 1248 2267
115 US Cable Creek 1268 2308
116 DS Cable Creek 1310 1284
Table 2-6 SAUH AES Results for Existing Condition Upper Tributaries Watershed Area(acres) Q10(CFS) Q100(CFS) Q500(CFS)
A 186 276 538 702
B 341 577 1064 1356
E 135 305 432 689
2.3.2 Alternative 1 - Backbone Storm Drain
Results from the HEC-RAS model (Refer to Section 3) were used to determine discharge overtopping at the Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue crossings, resulting from the undersized culverts. Complete results from HEC-RAS are included in Section 3.2 for the proposed storm drain. The HEC-RAS peak flow was subtracted from the existing condition rational method peak flow to size the storm drain system accordingly. The as-built, Tract No. 17329-1 Storm Drain Improvements by Allard Engineering was used to obtain the existing 100-year design flows and pipe sizing at the Little League Drive and Meyers Road junction.
Table 2-7 summarizes the peak discharge results for Alternative 1. Overtopping peak discharges reaching Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue are identified. Because the low-water crossing at Belmont Avenue is only four feet lower than the adjacent left bank, significant volumes of floodwaters overtop at Belmont Avenue. Both lateral storm drains are sized to convey the 521 and 729 CFS coming from Meyers Creek at Meyers and Belmont Road, respectively.
The final ultimate section of the Backbone Storm Drain under Little League Drive is a 11’x7’ RCB, which would be able to convey 1821 CFS. Refer to WSPG calculations under Section 3.
Packet Page. 582
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
2-18 Q3 Consulting
Table 2-7 Proposed Condition Rational Method Hydrology for Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain Node Location Q10(CFS) Q100(CFS)
703 (HEC-RAS Captured by Meyers
Rd Lateral Storm Drain)
Meyers Creek/ Meyers Rd 153 521
707 Little League Rd/ Meyers Rd 446 1021
804 (HEC-RAS Captured by
Belmont Ave Lateral Storm Drain)
Meyers Creek/ Belmont Rd 446 1022
709 Little League/ Belmont Rd 430 729
711 DS Cable Creek 915 1821
2.3.3 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
Table 2-8 summarizes the peak discharge results for Alternative 2. All flows are contained within the channel, as the channel will be improved to meet the District’s standards.
Table 2-8 Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph Method for Alternative 2 – Improved Channel Location Q500 – Clearwater (CFS)
US Meyers Creek/ Meyers Rd
Concentration Point A
2401.4
US Meyers Creek/ Belmont Rd
Concentration Point B
3151.4
Confluence Cable Creek
Concentration Point D
3148.6
Packet Page. 583
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
3-19 Q3 Consulting
3 Hydraulics
3.1 Hydraulic Approach
3.1.1 Existing Condition
The goal of the hydraulic analyses is to define the flood plain limits based on the depths derived from the hydraulic model. Along with the flood plain limits, the hydraulic model will help determine where floodwaters overtop Meyers Creek and how those overtopping floodwaters travel through the downstream neighborhood. The peak, volume, and velocities of floodwaters will also be quantified to help sit and size proposed drainage improvements that meet the City drainage criteria.
A two-dimensional, unsteady-state hydraulic model was created with HEC-RAS Version 6.3 (USACE, 2023) to model the flood event throughout the floodplain. DiLerent stimulations were created for existing and ultimate condition channel and storm drain, for the 10-, 100-, and 500-year storms. The downstream control was set to Base Flood Elevation of 1786 feet NAVD88 in Cable Creek, as referenced on FEMA DFIRM Panel #0607137930J.
A separate existing condition model was built assuming a 20% blockage at the Meyers Rd crossing in the existing condition. Clearwater hydraulics were performed only. The intent is to model and evaluate the current conveyance obstruction caused by accumulated debris, sediment, and overgrown vegetation inside and at the downstream outlet of the crossing culvert.
Water depth, velocity, and water surface elevation result maps were created in RAS Mapper. Several assumptions were made to build the HEC-RAS hydraulic models, including:
3.1.1.1 Topographic Mapping
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Southern California Wildfires 1-meter, Zone 5 LiDAR, MayOctober 2018. The limits of the model tie-in to the FEMA-designated floodplain of Cable Creek. The topographic mapping was also converted from meters to feet.
3.1.1.2 2D Mesh
2D flow areas were created as part of the geometry of the existing and proposed conditions in the hydraulic models, respectively. The model extends from approximately 1,200 linear feet upstream of W Meyers Road to the confluence of Meyers Creek with Cable Creek. The cell size for both 2D flow areas were set to 30 feet by 30 feet. Break lines were incorporated as barriers or controls of flows in the hydraulic model.
3.1.1.3 Hydraulic Roughness
A range of n-values from .016-0.15 were applied for the entire extent of the 2D flow area (NCLD, 2016).
Infiltration was not considered as the soils are saturated during a 100-year event.
Packet Page. 584
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
3-20 Q3 Consulting
Table 3-1 Manning’s N for Land Cover
Nation Land Cover Data Class Manning’s n
Shrub-Scrub 0.05
Grassland-Herbaceous 0.04
Developed, Open Space 0.035
Evergreen Forest 0.15
Mixed Forest 0.12
Developed, High Intensity 0.016
Developed, Low Intensity 0.08
Developed, Medium Intensity 0.12
3.1.1.4 Model Boundary Conditions
Multiple boundary conditions were set, including stage hydrographs, flow hydrographs, normal depth, and precipitation for the watershed. Unsteady flow hydrographs were applied at the upstream boundaries, including Meyers Creek West Tributary A (US BC Trib A) and Meyers Creek East Tributary B (US BC Trib B). The Meyers Creek DS stage hydrograph was applied at the downstream boundary of Meyers Creek since the FEMA DFIRM map for Cable Creek only references the steady-state Base Flood Elevation. The stage hydrograph was built using the UH results and derived from WSPG.
Other boundary conditions at the east and west side of the 2D domain are set to normal depth of the channel from the friction slope since the East-West streets are sloped at approximately 0.5%.
A rain-on-grid approach was applied to the entire 2D domain using a hyetograph built from NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall statistics. The hyetograph was built using HEC-HMS.
Downstream boundary conditions were taken from the stage hydrograph at Meyers Creek and critical depth calculated from the slope of 0.0186 foot/foot at Cable Creek downstream of Little League Drive.
The initial water surface elevation across the entire 2D domain was set at 1765.85 feet.
Packet Page. 585
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
3-21 Q3 Consulting
Table 3-2 HEC-RAS Boundary Condition Methods
Storage/ 2D Flow Areas Boundary Condition
Meyers Creek DS Stage Hydrograph
BC Trib B Flow Hydrograph
US BC Trib A Flow Hydrograph
Tract16420 SD Flow Hydrograph
East DS Normal Depth
East Project Boundary Normal Depth
Little League DS Normal Depth
DS Normal Depth
West Project Boundary Normal Depth
3.1.1.5 Unsteady Flow Analysis Settings
The unsteady flow computations were initially run using the Energy Equation to set up the model and address any major instabilities. The final models were run using the Full Dynamic Wave or Full Momentum equations in accordance with HEC-RAS User Manual Ch 8. The 100-year run has a simulation time window of 24 hours. The computation time step was set to 0.5 second and the output time intervals were set to every 5 minutes.
3.1.1.6 Culvert Modeling
Culverts were modeled as 1D hydraulic structures connected within the 2D grid. The hydraulic structures were set up in the middle of the 2D flow areas using the SA/2D Area Connection Data Editor. Culvert inlets and outlets connect automatically to cells at the upstream and downstream ends. Meyers Road has a 10x7.5 feet RCB with flared wingwalls and 77 feet long with a weir length of 78 feet. The Belmont Ave crossing has two 36-inch RCP with a groove end entrance 61 feet long with a weir length of 107 feet. The 100 feet long 36-inch diameter culvert is modeled to carry street flow into the creek at the Meyers Road crossing. The proposed swale is modeled as 1641 feet long 84” RCP down Little League Drive
3.1.2 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain
WSPG is a steady-state hydraulic model used to compute gradually varied flow profiles in open channels and closed conduits, which is supported by the District and the City. WSPG models were developed based on the alignments included in the proposed design for alternative 1 and utilizing the rational method peak 100-year flow rates calculated for the proposed storm drain system. The results of these runs were used to size the system to convey the 100-year event flows without flooding. Overtopping flows at Belmont Avenue and Meyers Road calculated in the existing condition HEC-RAS model were added to the system where catch basins were proposed to prevent flooding during the 100-year event as part of the rational method analysis.
Packet Page. 586
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
3-22 Q3 Consulting
The tailwater elevation is set to the FEMA’s BFE elevation of 1786, and the hydraulic grade line was kept 2 feet below the existing ground elevation for the 100-year peak discharge. Only the main storm drain, and laterals were modeled, disregarding the majority of the subarea flows from the catch basins. The invert of the laterals was set to 0.5-2 feet above the main pipeline elevation to avoid hydraulic jumps.
3.1.3 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
The methodology employed to evaluate the existing conditions are similar to that used in evaluating the improved channel, i.e. a HEC-RAS2D model. Inputs for the model were derived using the Single Area Unit Hydrograph model described in the Hydrology section of this report and identified as Upper Tributaries A and B. The SAUH at Concentration Point E was also utilized as an input for the model.
The proposed condition HEC-RAS2D model does not include the debris basin, as the basin dynamics may not be fully modeled.
Preliminary concrete-lined channel cross sections were determined through Hydraulic Toolbox with the 100-yr storm event flows and confirmed with the results from the HEC-RAS 2D modeling. The channel grading upstream of the Meyers Road Culvert was sized to carry the flow tributary to the culvert. Additionally, the channel expands gradually to capture the maximum flow through Meyers Canyon and minimize flooding along the road adjacent to the creek. The HEC-RAS 2D model was used to determine the necessary outlet dimensions required to maximize capture of flows through Meyers Canyon. The same size culverts at Meyers Road and at Belmont Avenue were incorporated.
Constant channel grading was also used for the approximate 400’ reach downstream of the Belmont Avenue crossing.
The slope of the channel was controlled by the required channel inverts at the crossings. The CONSPAN precast arch waterway, or approved equivalent, rises approximately 11’. Using a minimum cover of 4’ and a 1’ concrete thickness for the culvert wall, the invert for the upstream end of both crossings was found so that the existing street profile could be maintained. A 0.5% slope for both culverts set the downstream invert and starting station elevation for the downstream section of the channel profile.
The reach downstream of the Belmont culvert sloped at 0.5% to the existing ground. The upstream end of the proposed channel matches the existing ground before dropping four feet within a grade control structure. The channel continues at constant slope to the invert at the culvert.
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Existing Condition
Model Results for the existing condition with and without a blockage at Meyers Road are included in in Appendix F:. The results are included in the summary table in Section 3.2.4.
Packet Page. 587
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
3-23 Q3 Consulting
3.2.2 Alternative 1: Backbone Storm Drain
The main pipes carrying the overland flow at Meyers and Belmont Rd will be 72” and 84” RCP’s which connect to the RCB along Little League Drive that transitions from a 7’x6’ to 9’x7’ to 11’x7’ RCB and outlets into Cable Creek. The hydraulic grade line is well below the 2 feet of cover from the existing ground.
Table 3-3 WSPG Storm Drain Sizing Results
Location Pipe/ Box Size
Meyers Rd from Meyers Creek to Little League Dr 6’ RCP
Meyers Rd from Magnolia Ave to Little League Dr 6’ RCP
Little League from Meyers Rd to Belmont Rd 7’x6’ RCB
Belmont Rd from Meyers Creek to Little League Dr 7’ RCP Little League from Belmont Rd to Cable Creek 9’x7’ RCB to 11’x7’ RCB
3.2.3 Alternative 2: Improved Channel
Proposed channel alignments, profiles, and typical cross sections are included in the conceptual design plans. Exhibits illustrating the eLects of the proposed channel and culverts calculated in HEC-RAS 2D are included in Appendix F: and flow rates and volumes are included in Section 3.2.4.
3.2.4 2D Model Results Summary
HEC-RAS 2D models of the existing and proposed channel condition showed an increase in flow within the channel with the proposed improvements. Clearing the vegetation and debris within the existing culvert had minor aLects on overtopping and increased the flow in the channel by approximately 20 CFS in comparison to the over 1,700 CFS increase in flow seen with the proposed channel improvements.
Table 3-4 HEC-RAS Results, 100-year Storm Event
Existing (20%
Blockage)
Existing (No
Blockage)
Proposed Channel
ID Scenarios Max Q
(cfs)
V
(acre/ft)
Max Q
(cfs)
V
(acre/ft)
Max Q
(cfs)
V
(acre/ft)
4 US Meyers Creek/
Meyers Rd
1438 445 1438 445 1912 416
7 DS Meyers Creek/
Meyers Rd
971 428 1117 438 1956 515
2 US Meyers Creek/
Belmont Rd
1618 535 1688 540 2485 645
16 DS Meyers Creek/
Belmont Rd
658 360 678 361 2401 647
11 US Little League 177 18 176 18 18 1.9
12 DS Little League 614 95 601 93 65 8
Packet Page. 588
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
4-24 Q3 Consulting
4 Preliminary Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Costs
4.1 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain
4.1.1 Methods
Anticipated Construction Costs
The preliminary engineer’s assessment of probable costs for demolition and construction considers the following general items for the proposed storm drain:
• Demolition of portions of the existing storm drain, outlet structure, and roadway sections.
Demolition costs include cutting and removing asphalt and base above the proposed alignment and the existing alignment that will need to be removed. Existing storm drains sections at the intersection of Little League Drive and Meyers Road and along Meyers Road from Little League Drive to Meyers Creek will be sawcut and removed. Demolished RCP will need to be oL hauled along with trenched soils that cannot be used for backfilling; • Construction of RCP, RCB, and appurtenances;
• Construction of Rectangular Channels and Catch Basins; • Construction of transition structures, junctions, and manholes; • Construction of an outlet structure.
A preliminary engineer’s estimate of probable costs is prepared for the preferred design using recent bids from Riverside County and San Bernardino County projects of similar scope and size, quotes received from vendors, and RS means of construction cost data. Given that the proposed project is evaluated at a schematic design level only, the estimate is based on the following assumptions:
• Design and construction contingency of 20% to capture all design aspects that have not been detailed in the preliminary design;
• Final engineering design and engineer’s support during construction phase (10%) • Construction staking (5%)
• CEQA Planning and Permitting (1.5%)
• Agency Project Management (5%)
• Construction Administration (10%)
• Contractor’s General Conditions and General Requirements (20%) • Contractor’s Overhead and Profit (8%)
• Contractor’s Insurance and Bonds (2%)
• Escalation assumes that construction activities will start in January 2026 and will last 12 months.
A mid-point construction date is in July 2026. Escalation is based on an annual inflation rate of 5%.
• Soil remediation, independent inspections are not included.
Anticipated Operation and Maintenance Costs
Packet Page. 589
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
4-25 Q3 Consulting
Under Alternative 1, the proposed backbone storm drain facility would be constructed within the City’s street right-of-way. The long-term maintenance of the backbone storm drain facility would be handled by the City.
Anticipated operation and maintenance cost estimates are based on general routine maintenance costs of storm drain and channel facilities publicly disclosed by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Orange County Public Works, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works as part of the maintenance contracts. Routine operation and maintenance activities include:
• Inspection and cleaning of the transition structures, junction, and manholes; • Inspection and cleaning of the rectangular channels with grated inlets/ fall prevention railing and catch basins during dry-weather and wet-weather seasons; • Major sediment removal of the backbone storm drain and its laterals; • (If necessary) Inspect and repair/repaint storm drain stenciling at catch basins; • Long-term repairs such as major structural repairs and/or rehabilitation are not included since the facilities would be new when constructed. Major rehabilitation is anticipated on a 25- to 50- year cycle only.
4.1.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition
Under Alternative 1, the proposed storm drain configuration remains within the ultimate City’s rightof-way, except at its outlet where the project would require an encroachment permit from the District. Along W. Meyers Road and Belmont Ave, the construction of the rectangular channel inlets would likely require either dedication of the ultimate right-of-way or a temporary construction encroachment permit from the private owners. No encroachment of the privately-owned parcels is anticipated.
Preliminary engineer’s estimates of probable costs do not include any right-of-way acquisition costs.
4.1.3 Environmental Mitigation
Refer to Section 6.1.2. Impacts are limited to the outlet in Cable Creek. The project is not anticipated to cause substantial adverse impacts requiring riparian mitigation. No costs for riparian mitigation are included.
4.1.4 Total Construction Cost
Total capital costs are anticipated to be $25.0 million.
4.1.5 Anticipated Operation and Management Cost
Detailed anticipated O&M costs are presented in Table 4-1.
Packet Page. 590
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
4-26 Q3 Consulting
Table 4-1: Anticipated O&M Costs
Maintenance Activity and Description Frequency Annual
Costs
Junction and Transition Structures:
- Sediment and trash is evacuated through an access/
inspection manhole.
- Maintain record of inspections for the life of the system. - For accumulated sediment and debris, cleanout solids
exceeding 6 inches of build up, remove sediment and
debris.
- Inspect for standing water within 48 hours of heavy rain events to ensure proper drainage.
Twice a year during
wet season,
including
inspection just
before the wet
season.
$18,000
Catch Basins:
- Sediment and trash is evacuated through an access/
inspection manhole.
- Maintain record of inspections for the life of the system. - For accumulated sediment and debris, cleanout solids
exceeding 6 inches of build up, remove sediment and
debris.
- Inspect for standing water within 48 hours of heavy rain events to ensure proper drainage downstream.
Twice a year during
wet season,
including
inspection just
before the wet
season
$12,000
TOTAL $30,000
4.2 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
4.2.1 Methods
Anticipated Construction Costs
The preliminary engineer’s assessment of probable costs for demolition and construction considers the following general items for the proposed channel improvements:
• Demolition of portions of the existing storm drain and outlet structure • Demolition of roadway sections
• Grading of debris basin
• Grading of trapezoidal channel
• Installation of precast arched culverts at Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue • Reconstruction of catch basins, curb and gutters, and sidewalks • Construction of spillway and outlet works for the debris basin • Construction of an outlet structure
• Construction of access road and access gates
• Construction of chain link fencing along project perimeter • Lining of basin slopes with rip rap and protection fabric • Lining of channel slopes with concrete lining
Packet Page. 591
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
4-27 Q3 Consulting
A preliminary engineer’s estimate of probable costs is prepared for the preferred design using recent bids from San Bernardino County and Riverside County projects of similar scope and size, quotes received from vendors, and RS means of construction cost data. Given that the proposed project is evaluated at a schematic design level only, the estimate is based on the following assumptions:
• Design and construction contingency of 20% to capture all design aspects that have not been detailed in the preliminary design;
• Final engineering design and engineer’s support during construction phase (10%) • Construction Staking (5%)
• CEQA Planning and Permitting (5%)
• Agency Project Management (5%)
• Construction Administration (10%)
• Contractor’s General Conditions and General Requirements (20%) • Contractor’s Overhead and Profit (8%)
• Contractor’s Insurance and Bonds (2%)
• Escalation assumes that construction activities will start in July 2026 and will last 18 months. A mid-point construction date is in March 2027. Escalation is based on an annual inflation rate of 5%.
• Soil remediation and independent inspections are not included.
Anticipated Operation and Maintenance Costs
Meyers Creek Channel is referenced as Project No. 7-E11 in the District’s CSDP Number 7. The intent is for the City to transfer ownership of the ultimate channel facility (Alternative 2) upon construction to the District. Under Alternative 2, the District will be the responsible stakeholder for the long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) of the proposed ultimate channel facility.
Anticipated operation and maintenance cost estimates are based on general routine maintenance costs of storm drain and channel facilities publicly disclosed by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Orange County Public Works, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works as part of the maintenance contracts. Routine operation and maintenance activities include:
• Inspection and cleaning of the transition structures, junction, and manholes; • Major sediment removal of the channel facility;
• (If necessary) Inspect and repair/repaint storm drain stenciling at catch basins; • Minor structural repairs of the connections
• Inspection, clearing and repair of the access roads and ramps, and vegetation abatement of the channel facility;
• Annual regulatory compliance (MS4, 408) for the channel facility; • Long-term repairs such as major structural repairs and/or rehabilitation are not included since the facilities would be new when constructed. Major rehabilitation is anticipated on a 25- to 50- year cycle only.
Packet Page. 592
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
4-28 Q3 Consulting
4.2.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition
The proposed channel improvements cross ten diLerent parcels as shown in Appendix E:. Right of way acquisition costs were calculated by assessing existing costs per acre for nearby undeveloped parcels for sale. Since the best available parcel data varied slightly from the county assessor’s area values, the total cost of parcels was calculated by multiplying the per acre cost by the County Assessor’s parcel area. Then a ratio of the parcel areas required over the total parcel areas developed in GIS was used to find the total cost of parcel acquisition by parcel. The sum of these costs was used for the total cost of parcel acquisition.
All parcels within the right of way of the proposed earthen channel are privately owned. The total area acquisition is 7.91 AC as measured with the best available parcel data.
Using an average per acre land cost of $500,000/AC, the total cost of parcel acquisition is approximately $4,710,000. The total parcel value including areas not required for the right of way is approximately $28,715,000.
Table 4-2 Parcel Acquisition Costs
APN Area (AC)
Area Required for Proposed
Right-of-Way (AC)
Percent Area
Required (%)
Assessors
Area (AC)
Partial Cost
026106101 5.05 0.95 19% 4.50 $425,276
026106106 1.64 0.01 1% 1.65 $4,533
026106107 1.81 0.18 10% 1.81 $87,391
026106109 1.03 0.33 32% 1.02 $161,778
026106128 0.36 0.11 30% 0.36 $54,137
026113102 3.77 0.80 21% 3.87 $409,071
026113103 20.51 0.50 2% 19.83 $241,114
034820112 1.39 0.10 7% 1.39 $48,837
034811119 1.36 0.95 70% 1.36 $475,223
034811120 12.01 3.99 33% 15.14 $2,516,478
034811112 10.17 0.89 9% 6.50 $285,705
Sum 59.08 7.91 - 57.43 $4,709,543
4.2.3 Environmental Mitigation
Refer to Section 6.2.2. Several potential environmental impacts have been identified and potential associated mitigation costs evaluated.
The Aquatic Resource Delineation (ECORP, 2024) delineated 0.835 acre of streambed and 0.624 acre of associated riparian habitat within the channel limits. Assuming a 4:1 mitigation ratio for stream channelization, the project would be required to repair 3.3 acres of riparian streambed under the Section 1600 agreement. Unit costs may vary from $150,000 to $500,000 per acre of mitigation. As Packet Page. 593
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
4-29 Q3 Consulting
part of the improvements, mitigation to the habitat for local, native, species such as the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) would be provided.
No aquatic resource delineation has been performed for the limits of the proposed debris basin, as the scope of the work was extended to incorporate a debris basin upon consultation with the District.
However it is anticipated that mitigation will be required for the extents of disturbance of the basin, or 3.6 acres. Should the Improved Channel alternative be retained, a supplemental aquatic resource delineation should be performed during final design and include the area to be impacted by the proposed debris basin
Long-term permitting, monitoring, and report may cumulate to $50,000 to $150,000.
4.2.4 Total Capital Cost
The anticipated capital cost for the project is estimated at $64.1 million.
4.2.5 Anticipated Operation and Management Cost
Anticipated O&M costs would include the removal of debris and sediment from the debris basin, cleaning of outlet structure from the debris basin, maintenance of catch basins and two Precast Waterways, or approved equivalent, two times per year. The maintenance access for the precast Waterways and channel will be determined during the final engineering. Detailed anticipated O&M costs are presented in Table 4-1.
Packet Page. 594
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
4-30 Q3 Consulting
Table 4-3: Anticipated O&M Costs
Maintenance Activity and Description Frequency Annual
Costs
Routine Inspection and Cleaning:
- Visual inspections for debris, sediment buildup, and
structural integrity.
- Cleaning of inlets, manholes, and pipe systems using
vacuum trucks or flushing.
- Sediment and trash is evacuated.
- Maintain record of inspections for the life of the system. - Inspect for standing water within 48 hours of heavy rain events to ensure proper drainage.
Twice a year
during wet
season,
including
inspection just
before the wet
season.
$10,000
Debris Basin:
- Sediment and debris remvoval, offhauling, and disposal at designated facilities.
- Vegetation management, including removal of invasive
plants, trimming, and disposal.
- Structural repairs, as needed, of spillway and rock slope protection.
- Maintain record of inspections for the life of the system.
Twice a year
during wet
season,
including
inspection just
before the wet
season
$100,000
Catch Basins and Culverts:
- Sediment and trash is evacuated through an access/
inspection manhole.
- Maintain record of inspections for the life of the system. - For accumulated sediment and debris, cleanout solids
exceeding 6 inches of build up, remove sediment and
debris.
Twice a year
during wet
season,
including
inspection just
before the wet
season
$12,000
Vegetation & Access Road Maintenance
- Sediment and trash is evacuated through an access/
inspection manhole.
- Grading or resurfacing access roads.
- Repairing gates, fences, and signage to deter illegal dumping or trespassing.
- Mowing, herbicide application, and brush clearance for fire and vector control.
- Maintain record of maintenance activities for the life of the system.
Annually $25,000
TOTAL $147,000
Packet Page. 595
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
5-31
5 Sedimentation and Scour
5.1 Sediment Size
The NRCS Web Soil Survey defines a typical geologic profile in the upper Meyers Creek Subwatershed as gravelly loamy sand (Ramona Greenfield formations) from 0 to 36 inches, which transitions to fine gravelly sand from 36 to 70 inches. Loamy sand generally has a moderate potential for erosion. The typical geological profile is consistent with the visual observations made by Q3 StaL during the November 27, 2023, site visit.
Meyers Creek Tributary with exposed soil profile
along thalweg (November 2023)
Exposed soil profile of Meyers Creek
(November 2023)
Q3 StaL performed sediment sampling at four locations in the Meyers Creek subwatershed. All samples were collected using industry-standard protocols in the main stem of Meyers Creek at locations of interest. Samples were sent to Diaz-Yourman and Associates (DYA) for geotechnical testing, including five sieve analyses and one hydrometer (#200 sieve).
One sample was collected at the headwall outlet of the Meyers Rd Storm Drain (84” RCP) into Meyers Creek. The sediment composition and gradation appear much finer than the representative profile in Meyers Creek. Three other samples were collected in the mainstem of Meyers Creek. Limited erosion is apparent on the bed and banks of Meyers Creek due to the natural, established, vegetation, and coarse-grained bed materials that form an armoring layer.
Results from the sieve analysis reveal that:
1. All three samples in the mainstem of Meyers Creek returned consistent particle size distributions. The D50 is approximately 1.2 mm and is characterized as poorly graded sand with gravel (SP). Bed sediment includes between 14 and 31% of gravel (larger than 5mm). All three samples contained less than 1% of silt/clay (#200 sieve or smaller).
2. The soil deposit sample collected at the outlet of the Meyers Rd Storm Drain exhibits a D50 of 0.25 mm. The soil sample is classified as poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
Packet Page. 596
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
5-32 Q3 Consulting
90% of the materials are classified as coarse to fine sand. 10% of the sampled materials passed the #200 sieve and are classified as clay or silt.
Figure 5-1 Particle Size Distribution of Meyers Creek Bed Sediment Samples (November 2023) A separate memorandum was prepared by Q3 Consulting to evaluate the source of mud and debris flows that discharged onto North Little League Drive and W Meyers Road after the November 7-8, 2022 storm event. Significant amounts of mud were observed past Belmont Ave next to the parking lot of Little League Drive. The particle size distribution results indicate that the finer sediments Packet Page. 597
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
5-33 Q3 Consulting
collected at the headwall of the 84” RCP could originate from the construction activities at Tract No. 17329, from the catastrophic failure of Detention Basin 2, or from historical deposits of the former agricultural operations upstream of the Meyers Rd Storm Drain. Refer to 0.
5.2 Conceptual Sediment and Debris Yield
5.2.1 Approach, methodologies, and assumptions
The USACE Los Angeles District Debris Method (USACE, 2000) consists of a set of predictive equations expressing the single event unit debris yield of a watershed as a function of physiographic, hydrologic, and meteorologic parameters. These predictive equations were developed by multiple regression analyses of single event debris data observed in the San Gabriel Ranges of southern California.
As defined in this method, the “total debris yield” is the total debris outflow from a watershed measurable at a specific concentration point for a specified event. It may include clay, silt, sand, gravel, boulders, tree stumps, and other organic materials. The “debris production” is the gross erosion within a watershed while the “debris yield” is the quantity of debris actually delivered to a concentration point of interest. The entire debris production of the watershed may not necessarily reach its outlet because it is stored temporarily within the watershed due to the lack of transporting capacity of the conveyance system.
There are five empirical equations that were derived on the basis of watershed size ranging from 0.1 to 200 square miles. The multiple regression analyses indicated that the unit debris yield (DY) for a watershed is highly correlated with the following basin parameters: relief ratio (RR) analogous to watershed slope, drainage area (A), unit peak flow (Q), and the non-dimensional fire factor (FF).
Equation 2 is usually applied to drainages 3 to 10 square miles in area. Equation 1, which is a function of precipitation rather than runoL, is used for basins 0.1 to 3; however, if frequency discharge information is available, Equation 2 may be used for areas less than 3 square miles (USACE, 2002).
Equation 2 was applied herein to the drainages of interest less than 3 square miles in size since frequency discharge information was available; thus, Equation 2 was applied to every subbasin:
logDY = 0.85logQ + 0.53logRR + 0.04logA + 0.22FF
where:
• DY = unit debris yield (yd3/mi2),
• RR = relief ratio (feet/mile),
• A = drainage area (acres),
• FF = non-dimensional fire factor, and
• Q = unit peak flow (cfs/mi2)
Packet Page. 598
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
5-34 Q3 Consulting
5.2.2 Limitations
The general limitations related to the applications of the USACE Los Angeles District Debris Method in the prediction of debris yield are as follows: (1) geographic constraints, (2) drainage area constraints, (3) topographic constraints, (4) frequency constraints, and (5) input constraints. The frequency and input constraints pertain to small events less than 20-percent annual chance and low runoL or precipitation. Since the recurrence interval in this study is 100-year, only the geographic, drainage area and topographic constraints remain. This method is intended to be used for the estimation of debris yield mainly from coastal-draining mountainous watersheds located in southern California. Since the predictive equations were derived from data observed in the San Gabriel Range, the use of these equations for watershed conditions diLerent from those of the San Gabriel Range must be specifically addressed. The method is applicable only to watersheds with areas ranging from
0.1 to 200 square miles and with a high proportion of their total area in steep, mountainous terrain.
The use of this method to compute debris yields for watersheds in mild-sloped valley areas with a high percentage of piedmonts and alluvial fans or valley fill areas may result in estimates that are higher than actual yield. If the sediment transport capacity is less than the statistical debris method results, the sediment transport capacity governs the debris yield.
5.2.3 Adjustment-Transposition (A-T) factor
The use of predictive equations developed from data pertaining to watersheds, which historically demonstrate extremely high unit yields will result in overestimates of debris yields when applied to areas with less erosional activity. Recognizing this limitation, and the importance of uncertain geomorphic and geologic parameters, the USACE Los Angeles District developed an AdjustmentTransposition (A-T) factor. Using Table B-1 of the Los Angeles District Debris Method manual, the resulting A-T factor was computed to 0.65.
Due to the potential risk of wildfires occurring in this region, the Fire Factor (FF) used in the analysis of each subbasin was assigned a minimum value of 4.5 based on fire factor (Tables A-1 and A-2; USACE, 2000).
5.2.4 Computational results
Debris yield calculations were performed for the entire watershed, assuming that all debris and sediments would reach Meyers Creek. However, debris basins will be constructed. There are also several natural planforms that may help capture sediments and act as debris barriers. Further investigations should be performed during final engineering. Refer to Table 5-1 and Table 5-2.
The conceptual debris basin has a storage capacity of 29.9 acre-feet, which would capture 27% of the anticipated debris from a 10-year event. The conceptual design includes ingress/egress maintenance access routes to ensure that larger debris can be removed on a regular basis.
Packet Page. 599
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
5-35
subbasin drainage
area {sq
mi}
relief
ratio
{ft/mi}
fire
factor
for 4
years
since
100%
Wildfire
A-T
factor
Max 1-Hr
100-Yr
Precipitation
{in}
1-percent annual chance storm
Qp
{cfs}
qp
{cfs/mi2}
flood
volume
{ac-ft}
debris
yield
{ac-ft}
bulked
volume
{ac-ft}
bulking
factor
Qp,bulked
{cfs}
debris
yield
{cu-yd}
Meyers
Creek
1.254 1889 4.5 0.65 2.31 2,316 1,847 623 254.7 878 1.41 3,263 410,909 Max 1-Hr 10-
Yr
Precipitation
{in}
10-percent annual chance storm
Qp
{cfs}
qp
{cfs/mi2}
flood
volume
{ac-ft}
debris
yield
{ac-ft}
bulked
volume
{ac-ft}
bulking
factor
Qp,bulked
{cfs}
debris
yield
{cu-yd}
1.43 1,373 1,095 353 163.3 516 1.46 2,008 263,409
Table 5-1: Conceptual Sediment Yield Estimates
subbasin drainage
area {sq
mi}
relief
ratio
{ft/mi}
fire
factor
for 4
years
since
100%
Wildfire
A-T
factor
Max 1-Hr
100-Yr
Precipitation
{in}
1-percent annual chance storm
Qp
{cfs}
qp
{cfs/mi2}
flood
volume
{ac-ft}
debris
yield
{ac-ft}
bulked
volume
{ac-ft}
bulking
factor
Qp,bulked
{cfs}
debris
yield
{cu-yd}
Meyers
Creek
0.936 1889 4.5 0.65 2.31 2,070 2,212 496 170.8 667 1.34 2,783 275,596 Max 1-Hr 10-
Yr
Precipitation
{in}
10-percent annual chance storm
Qp
{cfs}
qp
{cfs/mi2}
flood
volume
{ac-ft}
debris
yield
{ac-ft}
bulked
volume
{ac-ft}
bulking
factor
Qp,bulked
{cfs}
debris
yield
{cu-yd}
1.43 1,234 1,318 286 110.1 396 1.38 1,709 177,548
Table 5-2: Conceptual Sediment Yield Estimates – Tributaries A and B Only to Proposed Debris Basin Packet Page. 600
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
5-36
5.3 Field Observations
Sediment sampling along the mainstem of Meyers Creek indicates a median particle size (D₅₀) of approximately 1.2 mm, classified as poorly graded sand with gravel (SP), and containing less than 1% fines (silt and clay). This grain size distribution typically suggests high mobility and a susceptibility to entrainment during moderate storm events, particularly in steep-sloped channels. However, field observations reveal that the downstream channel segment, which was graded over 35 years ago with a slope of approximately 2%, exhibits minimal signs of headcutting, scouring, or bank erosion. Side slopes remain intact with less than 6 inches of incision, suggesting long-term geomorphic stability under current flow and sediment regimes.
This apparent contradiction between theoretical mobility and observed stability implies that the channel has reached a state of dynamic equilibrium, where sediment transport capacity is roughly balanced with sediment supply. The coarse fraction (14–31% gravel) may act as a natural armoring layer, protecting the bed from incision despite the steep slope and non-cohesive material.
Additionally, low sediment input from the upstream watershed, intermittent flow conditions, and vegetation reinforcement along the banks may contribute to the long-term persistence of the earthen channel geometry. This finding supports the viability of maintaining an open-channel solution in some areas, with minimal hard armoring, provided that hydraulic and sediment conditions are preserved during design modifications.
5.4 Review of Historical Aerials
Aerial imagery and topographic maps obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) EROS Data Center were reviewed for multiple time points, including July 1952, November 1967, May 1970, August 1975, December 1980, October 1986, April 1994, and March 2008. Prior to October 1986, the Meyers Creek drainage functioned as an active, braided alluvial fan system, distributing stormwater and sediment across a wide depositional area from Meyers Creek Road downslope to its confluence with Cable Creek. Overbank flow dispersal and sediment deposition were visually evident across successive decades, with flow paths meandering but remaining largely confined west of Little League Road. The aerial patterns confirm a historically dynamic system with moderate to high sediment mobility, typical of ephemeral channels in the San Bernardino foothills.
Following the onset of residential development around October 1986, the downstream segment of Meyers Creek was engineered into an unlined trapezoidal channel, extending from West Meyers Road to the Cable Creek floodplain. This channelization eLort introduced longitudinal confinement, reduced lateral flow dispersion, and formalized the drainage path through developed land. Since that time, aerial imagery shows minimal lateral migration or incision, and the channel banks appear to have maintained their integrity, suggesting the reach has stabilized over the past 35 years. This observed long-term stability despite a relatively steep channel slope (~2%) and non-cohesive bed material, which supports the field-based interpretation that the creek is operating under dynamic equilibrium conditions, balancing sediment transport and supply across typical storm events.
Packet Page. 601
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
5-37 Q3 Consulting
Refer to 0 for aerial photographs.
5.5 Future Studies
Should Alternative 2 be pursued and alternative lining options be considered, further sediment transport investigations are recommended during the final design phase. This should include detailed cross-sectional surveys to document current channel geometry and slope, sediment transport modeling using field-calibrated parameters, and critical shear stress calculations to identify reaches that may exceed mobility thresholds under proposed flow conditions.
The sediment transport models should be based on functions that handle coarse, non-cohesive bed material (D₅₀ ≈ 1.2 mm sand + gravel), episodic high flows, and steep gradients (longitudinal slope >2%). The following sediment transport models/functions should be evaluated:
• Meyer-Peter Müller (MPM) for baseline bedload behavior • Wilcock-Crowe for gradation-aware modeling (if platform allows) • Engelund-Hansen if suspended load or total transport is needed for sandy reaches Where necessary, localized grade control structures or bed armoring can be designed to stabilize transitions or outlet structures. Additionally, establishing a monitoring program during and after construction can ensure that channel adjustments remain within acceptable limits and that the existing dynamic balance is not unintentionally disrupted.
Packet Page. 602
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
6-38
6 Permitting and Environmental Constraints
Constructability Assessment
6.1 Approach
ECORP prepared an Environmental Constraints Analysis to compare, identify, and assess anticipated environmental constraints for the two proposed alternatives (May 2025). The analysis reviewed subject sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study (IS) checklist to identify potential environmental constraints for the purposes of this PDR. The findings are preliminary only and are not intended to replace a full CEQA analysis, should an alternative be selected.
Overall, both alternatives would require the need to further study Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology, Greenhouse Gas, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. A summary of the recommendations and findings are presented herein. A full copy of the Environmental Constraints Analysis can be found under Appendix N.
6.2 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain
6.2.1 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction would generate temporary emissions from equipment and dust, but operational emissions are negligible due to the passive nature of stormwater infrastructure. A streamlined Air Quality and GHG Emissions Assessment is recommended during CEQA to ensure significance thresholds (e.g., SCAQMD) are not exceeded. Permitting requirements would include:
• CEQA Air Quality/GHG technical memo
• Conformance with South Coast AQMD thresholds
• Dust control measures (per SCAQMD Rule 403)
6.2.2 Biological Resources
There are limited impacts due to the alignment being within the right-of-way. While within the street right-of-way, the critical habitat of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) could overlap with parts of the alignment and may still require trapping and agency consultation. Permitting requirements would include:
• Biological Resources Assessment
• Focused surveys: SBKR, nesting birds, special-status plants • For the outlet to Cable Creek: CDFW 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 404 for the WOTUS, and Section 401 WQ Certification
Packet Page. 603
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
6-39 Q3 Consulting
6.2.3 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Multiple previous studies exist within a mile of the proposed project. Two studies encompass portions of the proposed project alignment, including the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Verdemont Heights Towne Center Project (2006) and the Cultural Resource Survey and Clearance for an AT&T Fiberoptic Communication Cable Re-Route from San Bernardino Northwest to San Bernardino National Forest Boundary (1988). The records search determined that 19 previously recorded resources are located within a mile of the Project Area. Of those 19 resources, 18 are historic-period resources and one is of an undermined age. One resource, the historic-period Cable Creek Levy, falls within the proposed storm drain alignment. Permitting requirements would include:
• CEQA cultural resources report
• AB 52 Tribal Consultation
• Inadvertent discovery procedures in specs
• Section 106 consultation (if federal funding or permit triggers)
6.2.4 Energy
Temporary construction-related fuel use; negligible operational energy demand. A streamlined energy/GHG assessment is recommended to demonstrate minimal long-term impact. • No specific permits are anticipated. However, the preparation of a CEQA GHG/energy memorandum is anticipated.
6.2.5 Geology, Soils, & Paleontology
The project is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. Some ground disturbance may aLect paleontological resources. Both a geotechnical evaluation and a paleo records search are recommended. Requirements would include:
• Site-specific geotechnical report (required for design) • Paleontological records search & mitigation plan
6.2.6 Hydrology & Water Quality
The proposed alignment is mostly located in a FEMA-designated Flood Hazard Zone X, or outside of the 1% annual probability floodplain. At the discharge location into Cable Creek, the project would encroach onto Zone AE of Cable Creek with the banks being protected by levees.
The project would disturb more than one acre of area and be subject to both the Construction General Permit and post-construction MS4 Permit requirements. Anticipated requirements include:
• SWPPP + NPDES General Construction Permit (State Water Board) • For the outlet in Cable Creek: Section 401 WQ Certification Packet Page. 604
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
6-40 Q3 Consulting
6.2.7 Land Use & Planning
No changes are required since the proposed alignment falls within the built in existing right-of-way.
6.2.8 Noise
Construction noise may impact nearby residents; project is exempt from local noise ordinance if mitigated. A focused construction noise analysis is recommended. Anticipated requirements include:
• Noise technical report
• Compliance with construction hours (7 AM–8 PM)
6.2.9 Transportation & TraLic
Long segments of road trenching need phased closures. The preparation of TraLic Control Plans is recommended to maintain emergency access and minimize disruption. Refer to Section 7.1.5.
6.2.10 Other Resources
Other resources, including Aesthetics, Agriculture, Hazards, Recreation, Utilities, Population, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire were reviewed. No significant constraints were identified as the proposed alignment avoids scenic highways, parks, and utilities. The project is neither located in active agricultural zones or near mineral resources.
6.3 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
6.3.1 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction would generate temporary emissions from equipment and dust, but operational emissions are negligible due to the passive nature of stormwater infrastructure. A streamlined Air Quality and GHG Emissions Assessment is recommended during CEQA to ensure significance thresholds (e.g., SCAQMD) are not exceeded. Permitting requirements would include:
• CEQA Air Quality/GHG technical memo
• Conformance with South Coast AQMD thresholds
• Dust control measures (per SCAQMD Rule 403)
6.3.2 Biological Resources
The channel improvements would impact existing moderate to dense patches of disturbed vegetation, including the California buckwheat scrub and scale broom scrub, which present moderate-quality habitat for special status species.
Should Alternative 1 be selected, the impacts of the alignment on several sensitive species should be evaluated, notably for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), the Crotch bumble bee, the coastal California gnatcatcher, the arroyo toad, bats, and burrowing howls. Additional focused plant surveys should be performed for sensitive plant species such as Nevin’s barbery, slenderPacket Page. 605 Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
6-41 Q3 Consulting
horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woollystar. All surveys shall be performed during the adequate season.
An aquatic resource delineation was performed in May 2024 for the extents of Alternative 2, which mapped a total of 0.237 acre of ephemeral drainage, 0.835 acre of streambed, and 0.624 acre of associated riparian habitat. No wetlands were observed nor are the existing aquatic features supporting wetland characteristics.
No aquatic resource delineation has been performed for the limits of the proposed debris basin, as the scope of the work was extended to incorporate a debris basin upon consultation with the District.
However, it is anticipated that mitigation will be required for the extents of disturbance of the basin, or 3.6 acres. Should the Improved Channel alternative be retained, a supplemental aquatic resource delineation should be performed during final design and include the area to be impacted by the proposed debris basin.
Meyers Creek is a non-navigable and non-relatively permanent water. Meyers Creek does not appear to support any surface-water related interstate commerce. It does not appear to meet the current definition of Waters of the US and is not likely to be considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
However, Meyers Creek would likely be considered Waters of the State. The area mapped as streambed at Meyers Creek and its riparian habitat would likely be regulated under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Permitting requirements would include:
• Section 7 Consultation with USFWS (if federal nexus, e.g., via Army Corps) • CDFW 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement
• Section 401 WQ Certification
• Biological Resources Assessment
• Focused surveys: SBKR, nesting birds, bats, gnatcatcher, arroyo toad, special-status plants during the Spring-Summer seasons
• For the outlet to Cable Creek: CDFW 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 404 for the WOTUS, and Section 401 WQ Certification
6.3.3 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Multiple previous studies exist within a mile of the proposed project. One study covers portions of the proposed project alignment, including the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Verdemont Heights Towne Center Project (2006). The records search determined that 19 previously recorded resources are located within a mile of the Project Area. Permitting requirements would include:
• CEQA cultural resources report
• AB 52 Tribal Consultation
• Inadvertent discovery procedures in specs
• Section 106 consultation (if federal funding or permit triggers) Packet Page. 606
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
6-42 Q3 Consulting
6.3.4 Energy
Temporary construction-related fuel use; negligible operational energy demand. A streamlined energy/GHG assessment is recommended to demonstrate minimal long-term impact. • No specific permits are anticipated. However, the preparation of a CEQA GHG/energy memorandum is anticipated.
6.3.5 Geology, Soils, & Paleontology
The project is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. Some ground disturbance may aLect paleontological resources. Both a geotechnical evaluation and a paleo records search are recommended. Requirements would include:
• Site-specific geotechnical report (required for design) • Paleontological records search & mitigation plan
6.3.6 Hydrology & Water Quality
The proposed alignment is mostly located in a FEMA-designated Flood Hazard Zone A, or within a 1% annual probability floodplain. Channelization would reduce the footprint of the FEMAdesignated floodplain and remove flooding impacts on adjacent properties.
The project would disturb more than one acre of area and be subject to both the Construction General Permit and post-construction MS4 Permit requirements. Anticipated requirements include:
• SWPPP and Notice of Intent under the Construction General Permit (State Water Board) • For the outlet in Cable Creek: Section 401 WQ Certification
6.3.7 Land Use & Planning
Acquisition of privately-owned would be required. The City may need to review its General Plan and Zoning, depending on the outcome of the acquisition process. Anticipated requirements include:
• CEQA documentation should review and reflect any land use changes, if deemed applicable.
6.3.8 Noise
Construction noise may impact nearby residents; project is exempt from local noise ordinance if mitigated. A focused construction noise analysis is recommended. Anticipated requirements include:
• Noise technical report
• Compliance with construction hours (7 AM–8 PM)
6.3.9 Transportation & TraLic
Full closure of W. Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue would be required, which would trigger rerouting and coordination with local residents.
Packet Page. 607
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
6-43 Q3 Consulting
Long segments of road trenching need phased closures. The preparation of TraLic Control Plans is recommended to maintain emergency access and minimize disruption. Refer to Section 7.1.5.
6.3.10 Other Resources
Other resources, including Aesthetics, Agriculture, Hazards, Recreation, Utilities, Population, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire were reviewed. No significant constraints were identified as the proposed alignment avoids scenic highways, parks, and utilities. The project is neither located in active agricultural zones or near mineral resources.
Packet Page. 608
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
7-44
7 Constructability Assessment
7.1 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain
7.1.1 Earthwork
Alternative 1 would result in approximately 32,500 cubic-yard of soil excavation during construction, of which 12,000 cubic-yard would be potentially reused as backfill and the delta (20,500 cubic-yard) to be hauled oL locally. Dependent on the geotechnical report, native soils may be allowed as backfill for trench repair. The impacts of earth moving operations should be evaluated during the CEQA process.
7.1.2 TraLic Impacts
Within the project area, Little League Drive is classified as a secondary arterial and Meyers Road is classified as a collector. Belmont Avenue east of Little League Drive is considered a collector while the portion to the west of Little League Drive is considered a local street. The proposed project alignment will significantly limit traLic flow through Little League Drive.
The conceptual storm drain alignment is oLset by 2 feet from the street centerline of Little League Drive. Assuming that the trench width would range from 11 feet to 15 feet, the alignment should allow for one travel lane of traLic in each direction, except at intersection and near the outlet to Cable Creek. Additionally, both intersections of Belmont Avenue and Meyers Road with Little League drive will need to be closed for cold milling of the full intersection. Construction at the intersection of W.
Meyers Road should be specifically reviewed to preserve limited access to Verdemont Estates as closing W. Meyers Road would result in a significant detour for the residents of over 100 parcels and 65 private homes.
The academic school year will also need to be considered as the project borders North Verdemont Elementary School. Primary drop-oL/pick-up zones are avoided with the current project boundaries.
Access to the Little League Baseball Complex on Little League Drive will be restricted during construction. However, access to the facility is possible from the north and south ends of the block and can be considered for construction.
Residential access will also be aLected by construction and require additional consideration. A traLic control plan indicating detour routes and temporary traLic conditions should be prepared.
7.1.3 Utility Interference and Existing Infrastructure
Significant portions of the existing 81” and 87” RCP storm drain along W. Meyers Road would need to be removed and the three existing catch basins would need to be retrofitted for the new storm drain alignment which is sloped in the opposite direction of the existing alignment. Additionally, two CMP risers on the north side of Meyers Road would be demolished to allow for construction of the proposed rectangular channels and catch basins. The proposed alteration to the 48-inch RCP lateral Packet Page. 609
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
7-45 Q3 Consulting
alignment on Meyers Road would require demolition of a portion of the existing 48-inch RCP and protection of an 8-inch sewer, 12-inch drinking water, and telephone/communication lines.
Alternative storm drain alignments should be evaluated during final engineering. Currently, the proposed 9’x7’ RCB facility is aligned between the Natural Gas line and the 8-inch sewer line between the Belmont Ave. intersection and the Cable Creek outlet. Relocation of the 8-inch sewer line is unlikely. However, crossing of the 10-inch sewer line should be considered in the final storm drain alignment to avoid conflicts. To remain conservative, a line item for the relocation of the 8-inch sewer line is included in the cost estimate.
7.1.4 Required Easements
The proposed storm drain crosses through two parcels, Assessor Parcel Numbers #026113291 and 026117218, owned by the City of San Bernardino and San Bernardino Flood Control District, respectively. An easement would be required from the District.
Along W. Meyers Road and Belmont Ave, the construction of the grated channel inlets would likely require either dedication of the ultimate right-of-way or a temporary construction encroachment permit from the private owners. The location and configuration of the grated channel inlet should be coordinated with the anticipated location of future driveways, access roads, pedestrian path-oftravel, and utilities. No encroachment of the privately-owned parcels is anticipated.
No acquisition is anticipated.
7.2 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
7.2.1 Earthwork
Proposed channel improvements would require significant cutting and filling to grade the proposed cross sections. The conceptual grading anticipates approximately 138,000 cubic-yard of earthwork cuts and 12,000 cubic-yard of fill. Of those earthwork quantities, 98,000 cubic-yard of cuts are anticipated for the debris basin. The costs and logistics and associated costs of oL-hauling operations should be further considered during final engineering.
7.2.2 TraLic Impacts
Channel construction will block traLic from flowing across Meyers Creek through Meyers Road and a small portion of Belmont Avenue. A number of homes’ sole access route to Little League Drive is Belmont Avenue. As discussed previously, Little League drive is classified as a secondary arterial, Meyers Road is classified as a collector, and Belmont Avenue east of Little League drive is considered a collector while the portion to the west of Little League Drive is considered a local street. Temporary access will need to be provided for the following APNs: 026112112, 026113101, 034811112, 034811119, 034811120, 034811122, and 034811123.
Currently, Meyers Road is the only access to Verdemont Estates, the development to the northwest of the Meyers Road crossing. Future development could provide alternative access for Verdemont Packet Page. 610
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
7-46 Q3 Consulting
Estates during construction on Meyers Road, however, with the current roadways, temporary access development will be required during construction. No current CAL TRANS right-of-way allows for convenient extension of West Meyers Road into the town Devore Heights.
7.2.3 Utility Interference and Existing Infrastructure
Multiple utilities, including a 16-inch water line, an encased 4-inch AT&T cable, a telephone and electric bank conduit, and a 3-inch plastic natural gas line, cross Meyers Creek at the existing W.
Meyers Road culvert. All these utilities will need to be replaced after demolition and reconstruction of the existing road and culvert. The relocation of those lines will require coordination as they appear to service the homes that are to the west of the crossings.
Coordination with SCE will also be required as an existing electrical pole is located at the northeast corner of the W. Meyers Road culvert and would require protection in place or relocation. Current conceptual plans allow potentially suLicient spacing for protection; however, the potential utility conflict should be addressed further in final design.
At the Belmont Avenue crossing, there appears to be no underground utilities based on existing asbuilts. However, an existing pole located at the northwest side of the Meyers Creek crossing, which would require protection in place or relocation. Current conceptual plans allow potentially suLicient spacing for protection; however, the potential utility conflict should be addressed further in final design.
All utility findings should be verified during final engineering by obtaining confirmation from all utility purveyors.
7.2.4 Required Easements
The proposed alignment runs through privately-owned parcels. It is anticipated that the project may require right-of-way acquisition from 11 separate parcels, as shown in Appendix E:. A total of 7.91 AC will need to be acquired for the proposed design right-of-way.
Packet Page. 611
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
7-47 Q3 Consulting
Table 7-1 Potential Right-of-Way Acquisition
APN Area (AC)
Area Required for Proposed Right-of-Way
(AC)
Percent Area
Required (%)
026106101 5.05 0.95 19%
026106106 1.64 0.01 1%
026106107 1.81 0.18 10%
026106109 1.03 0.33 32%
026106128 0.36 0.11 30%
026113102 3.77 0.80 21%
026113103 20.51 0.50 2%
034820112 1.39 0.10 7%
034811119 1.36 0.95 70%
034811120 12.01 3.99 33%
034811112 10.17 0.89 9%
Sum 59.08 7.91 -
To do so, the District and the City would need to follow the following process, consistent with both state laws (California Government Code and Eminent Domain Law) and local city ordinances and procedures:
• A Preliminary Engineering Report and Parcel Impact Study are prepared to determine which properties will be aLected.
• A fair mark value appraisal
• A first written oLer
• Negotiation, including Eminent Domain, if deemed necessary. • City Council Authorization
Negotiation with multiple owners could be lengthy and result in the preparation of a resolution of necessity or more.
In addition, temporary construction easements would be required from a total of 11 parcel owners to grade the proposed channel dikes to the existing ground.
Packet Page. 612
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
8-48 Q3 Consulting
8 Project Timeline
For each alternative, a conceptual implementation timeline was prepared based on projects of similar scope and size. Funding for either alternative has not been secured to date. Timeline is provided for informational purposes only and may be updated as funding and additional information becomes available.
8.1 Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm Drain
The critical path for Alternative 1 begins with CEQA compliance, including technical studies and AB 52 tribal consultation, which is expected to take 6 to 12 months. Following CEQA clearance, the project will require regulatory permitting—particularly a CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement and water quality certification from the Regional Water Board—alongside final design development and coordination with utility agencies. Right-of-way access and easement agreements must be secured in parallel with design. Once design and permits are finalized, the project can proceed to bidding and construction, which is anticipated to last approximately 12 months and will involve significant road closures and utility coordination. Refer to timeline in next page.
8.2 Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
Alternative 2 would require ROW acquisition from 11 parcels (~7.9 acres), subject to fair market valuation and City Council approval. CEQA compliance, AB 52 tribal consultation, and regulatory permitting (CDFW 1600, RWQCB 401, SWRCB NPDES) may take 18-36 months to complete, with additional time for consultation with USFWS if SBKR habitat is confirmed. ROW acquisition could proceed in parallel but may extend 18-60 months depending on negotiations and need for eminent domain. The construction phase may last up to 18 months.
Packet Page. 613
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
8-49
Table 8-1 Conceptual Timeline for Alternative 1
Task Duration
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Grant Funding Application / Project Financing 18 months Final Design & Utility Coordination 18 months Environmental Permitting 12 months Community Outreach 27 months Procurement / Construction Bid 6 months Construction 12 months Final Walk and Closeout 3 months Table 8-2 Conceptual Timeline for Alternative 2
Task Duration
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Grant Funding Application / Project Financing 18 months Right-of-Way Acquisition 48 months Final Design & Utility Coordination 30 months Environmental Permitting 30 months Community Outreach 39 months Procurement / Construction Bid 6 months Construction 18 months Final Walk and Closeout 3 months Packet Page. 614
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
9-50
9 Summary of Findings
This Preliminary Design Report for the Meyers Creek Drainage Study evaluates two conceptual alternatives to address chronic flooding, sedimentation, and drainage ineLiciencies in the Meyers Creek subwatershed in the City of San Bernardino. Both alternatives—the construction of a backbone storm drain (Alternative 1) and the improvement of the existing creek channel (Alternative 2)—were developed to accommodate the 100-year peak discharge while minimizing downstream impacts to Cable Creek and the surrounding community. Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling confirmed that each alternative would significantly improve stormwater conveyance and reduce flooding at Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue, with variations in right-of-way requirements, environmental constraints, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.
The analysis determined that both alternatives would require CEQA compliance and agency permitting, though Alternative 2 involves more extensive biological surveys, habitat mitigation, and private property acquisition. Cost estimates for construction and permitting range from approximately $25.3 million for Alternative 1 to $64.1 million for Alternative 2, with higher anticipated long-term maintenance costs for the channel facility. TraLic impacts, utility conflicts, and constructability challenges vary, with Alternative 1 requiring staged road trenching and Alternative 2 resulting in full road closures during culvert replacement. Ultimately, both alternatives oLer eLective drainage solutions but diLer in their implementation pathways, permitting timelines, and operational ownership.
A summary matrix was prepared to summarize the findings identified under this PDR. Refer to Table Table 9-1.
Packet Page. 615
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
9-51 Q3 Consulting
Table 9-1 Comparison Table – Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2 Category Alternative 1 – Backbone Storm
Drain
Alternative 2 – Improved Channel
Drainage Approach Subsurface RCB with drop inlets
and laterals
Engineered concrete-lined open
channel with upstream 29.9 acrefeet debris basin
Conveyance
Capacity
100-year flows intercepted via
storm drain
100-year flows fully contained
within channel
Construction Cost ~$25.0 million ~$64.1 million
Right-of-Way
Needs
Minimal (mostly within City ROW;
minor easements at outlets)
Significant (11 parcels, ~7.9 acres
of acquisition)
Environmental
Impacts
Limited (mostly within disturbed
ROW)
Higher (riparian/streambed
impacts, SBKR habitat)
Mitigation
Requirements
Outlet to Cable Creek may require
1600/401 agreements
Full stream alteration mitigation +
SBKR consultation
Permitting
Timeline
12–18 months 18–36 months (longer if SBKR
consultation required)
Constructability Trenching in roadways; staged
closures; utility conflicts
Major grading; full road closures;
culvert replacement
Traffic Impacts Moderate (intersection closures,
detours)
High (full closures at Meyers &
Belmont Roads)
O&M
Responsibility
City of San Bernardino County Flood Control District
(post-dedication)
Annual O&M Cost ~$30,000 ~$147,000
Utility Conflicts Conflicts with sewer, gas, water,
telecom lines
Full utility relocation at two
crossings
Agency
Coordination
City + CDFW/RWQCB/SWRCB +
District
City + CDFW/RWQCB + potential
USFWS (SBKR) + District
Packet Page. 616
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
10-52 Q3 Consulting
10 References
SBCFCD, 1986, Hydrology Manual, San Bernardino County, August.
SBCFCD, San Bernardino County Flood Control District Standard Plats.
Public Works Standards, In., Standard Plans for Public Works Construction (2021 Edition) USACE, 2022, River Analysis System, HEC-RAS, Version 6.5, Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Davis, California, March.
Advanced Engineering Software, 2015, Flood Routing Analysis using County Hydrology Manual of San Bernardino (1986).
Advanced Engineering Software, 2015, Rational Method Hydrology Computer Program Package (Reference: 1986 San Bernardino Co. Hydrology Criterion).
Advanced Engineering Software, 2015, CH1.
NRCS, 2019, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for San Bernardino County, California, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USGS, 2018, Lidar: Southern California Wildfires.
USDA, 2022, NAIP 4-Band 8 Bit Imagery: California.
SCAG, 2021, 2019 Annual Land Use.
SCAG, 2021, 2012 Annual Land Use.
USGS, 2019, National Land Cover Database (NLCD).
Packet Page. 617
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
11-53 Q3 Consulting
11 Technical Appendices
Packet Page. 618
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
Q3 Consulting
Appendix A: Hydrologic Soil Group Map
Packet Page. 619
A-1
Packet Page. 620
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
Q3 Consulting
Appendix B: Land Use Map
Packet Page. 621
B-1
Packet Page. 622
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
Q3 Consulting
Appendix C: Hydrology Maps
Packet Page. 623
Consulting
27051 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 270
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
949.259.6770
FOR CITY OF SAN BERNADINO APR 2024
BENCH MARK: PREPARED BY:
NAVD 88
CCS ZONE 5,NAD83
FIGURE
Table 1:
Feet
0 500 1000
Packet Page. 624
Consulting
27051 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 270
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
949.259.6770
FOR CITY OF SAN BERNADINO APR 2024
BENCH MARK: PREPARED BY:
NAVD 88
CCS ZONE 5,NAD83
FIGURE
Table 1:
Feet
0 500 1000
Packet Page. 625
C-3 Packet Page. 626
C-4 Packet Page. 627
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
11-56 Q3 Consulting
Appendix D: Hydrology Results
Packet Page. 628
10YR-FUTURE-STORMDRAIN.docx Page 1 of 17
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2015 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 22.0 Release Date: 07/01/2015 License ID 1673
Analysis prepared by:
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * HYDROLOGY STUDY - MEYERS CREEK - PROPOSED STORM DRAIN * * RATIONAL METHOD - 10YR *
* 04/15/2024 *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 10MEYSD.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:35 07/23/2024
============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*--
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *USER-DEFINED TABLED RAINFALL USED*
NUMBER OF [TIME,INTENSITY] DATA PAIRS = 6
1) 5.00; 4.390
2) 15.00; 2.540
3) 30.00; 1.890
4) 60.00; 1.430
5) 120.00; 1.000
6) 360.00; 0.598
*ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 2 18.0 13.0 0.020/0.020/0.050 0.50 1.50 0.0312 0.125 0.0150 3 22.0 17.0 0.020/0.020/0.050 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 4 25.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.050 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 5 30.0 25.0 0.020/0.020/0.050 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 6 19.0 14.0 0.020/0.020/0.050 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 701.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 990.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 2001.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1888.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.407
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.945
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.43 0.98 0.500 32 9.48
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" C 0.35 0.57 0.500 69 9.48
COMMERCIAL A 0.16 0.98 0.100 32 7.41
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.90
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.467
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.15
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.94 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.15
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 701.00 TO NODE 702.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1888.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1872.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 208.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0769 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 6.15
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 6.15 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.56 Tc(MIN.) = 7.97
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 702.00 = 1198.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 702.00 TO NODE 702.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ Packet Page. 629
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 7.97
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.840
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 0.62 0.98 0.500 32
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" C 1.18 0.57 0.500 69
COMMERCIAL A 0.04 0.98 0.100 32
COMMERCIAL C 0.08 0.57 0.100 69
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.71
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.475
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.92 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.06
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.86 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.80 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.03
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 702.00 TO NODE 703.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1872.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1860.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 320.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0375 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 12.03
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 5.07 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.05 Tc(MIN.) = 9.02
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 703.00 = 1518.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 703.00 TO NODE 703.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.02
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.646
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 2.63 0.98 0.500 32
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" C 0.72 0.57 0.500 69
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.89
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.66
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 7.21 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.84 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.48 Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.01
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 703.00 TO NODE 704.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1860.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1858.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 152.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0118 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 21.01
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.30 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.77 Tc(MIN.) = 9.79
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 704.00 = 1670.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 704.00 TO NODE 704.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 9.79
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.504
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.62 0.98 0.500 32
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 0.11 0.75 0.500 56
COMMERCIAL A 0.40 0.98 0.100 32
COMMERCIAL B 0.16 0.75 0.100 56
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.96
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.402
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.43
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 9.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.87 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 26.51
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 704.00 TO NODE 704.00 IS CODE = 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED CONSTANT SOURCE FLOW AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED CONSTANT SOURCE FLOW = 153.30(CFS)
USER-SPECIFIED AREA ASSOCIATED TO SOURCE FLOW = 96.60(ACRES) * CUMULATIVE SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 153.30 AREA(AC.) = 96.60 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 179.81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 106.10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 704.00 TO NODE 705.00 IS CODE = 31 Packet Page. 630
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1858.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1858.10 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 115.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 87.0 INCH PIPE IS 65.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.39
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 87.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 179.81
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.36 Tc(MIN.) = 10.14
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 153.30
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 705.00 = 1785.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 705.00 TO NODE 705.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 10.14
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.438
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.12 0.98 0.500 32
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" C 2.40 0.57 0.500 69
COMMERCIAL A 0.44 0.98 0.100 32
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.70
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.456
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.96 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.11
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 13.46 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.82 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 37.06
* SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 153.30 AREA(ACRES) = 96.6 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 190.36 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 110.1 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 705.00 TO NODE 706.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1858.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1858.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 77.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 81.0 INCH PIPE IS 63.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.31
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 81.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 190.36
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.20 Tc(MIN.) = 10.35
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 153.30
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 706.00 = 1862.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 706.00 TO NODE 706.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 10.35
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.401
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
COMMERCIAL A 0.07 0.98 0.100 32
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 0.69 0.98 0.500 32
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.463
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.02
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 14.22 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.83 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 38.63
* SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 153.30 AREA(ACRES) = 96.6 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 191.93 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 110.8 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 706.00 TO NODE 707.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1858.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1856.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 86.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 36.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.77
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 191.93
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 10.42
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 153.30
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 707.00 = 1948.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 707.00 TO NODE 707.00 IS CODE = 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED CONSTANT SOURCE FLOW AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED CONSTANT SOURCE FLOW = 254.41(CFS)
Packet Page. 631
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
USER-SPECIFIED AREA ASSOCIATED TO SOURCE FLOW = 134.80(ACRES) * CUMULATIVE SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 407.71 AREA(AC.) = 231.40 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 446.34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 245.62 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 707.00 TO NODE 708.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1856.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1833.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 578.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 60.0 INCH PIPE IS 44.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 28.43
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 60.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 446.34
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.34 Tc(MIN.) = 10.76
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 407.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 708.00 = 2526.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 708.00 TO NODE 708.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 10.76
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.324
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 0.82 0.98 0.500 32
SCHOOL A 3.02 0.98 0.600 32
COMMERCIAL A 1.23 0.98 0.100 32
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.463
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.11
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 19.29 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.87 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 19.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 50.75
* SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 407.71 AREA(ACRES) = 231.4 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 458.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 250.7 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 708.00 TO NODE 709.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1833.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1828.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 96.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 57.0 INCH PIPE IS 43.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 31.53
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 57.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 458.46
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 10.81
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 407.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 709.00 = 2622.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 709.00 TO NODE 709.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.81
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.31
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.40
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.87
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 19.29
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 19.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 50.75
* SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 407.71 AREA(ACRES) = 231.4 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 458.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 250.7 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 709.00 TO NODE 709.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ ***MEMORY FUNCTION CAN NOT BE ACCESSED - PROCESS IGNORED.*** **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 801.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 284.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1863.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1851.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.016
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.017
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
Packet Page. 632
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 0.44 0.98 0.500 32 7.02
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.500
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.40
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.44 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.40
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 801.00 TO NODE 802.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1851.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1843.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 194.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0412 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 20.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.674
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 0.64 0.98 0.500 32
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.500
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.31
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.74 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.85 Tc(MIN.) = 8.87
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.64 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.84
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.08 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.49 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.10
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.08 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.90
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 802.00 = 478.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 802.00 TO NODE 803.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1843.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1838.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 128.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0391 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 20.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.486
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 0.73 0.98 0.500 32
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.500
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.08
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.10 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.02 Tc(MIN.) = 9.89
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.73 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.97
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.81 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.49 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.88
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.11 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.20
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 803.00 = 606.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 803.00 TO NODE 804.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1838.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1833.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 173.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0289 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 20.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.262
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 1.57 0.98 0.500 32
COMMERCIAL A 0.27 0.98 0.100 32
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.97
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.441
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.23
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.38 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.21 Tc(MIN.) = 11.10
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.69
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.65 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.46 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.21
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.62
Packet Page. 633
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 804.00 = 779.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 804.00 TO NODE 804.00 IS CODE = 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED CONSTANT SOURCE FLOW AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED CONSTANT SOURCE FLOW = 430.00(CFS)
USER-SPECIFIED AREA ASSOCIATED TO SOURCE FLOW = 271.54(ACRES) * CUMULATIVE SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 430.00 AREA(AC.) = 271.54 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 439.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 275.19 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 804.00 TO NODE 805.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1833.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1832.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 87.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 75.0 INCH PIPE IS 56.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 17.75
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 75.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 439.21
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 11.18
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 430.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 805.00 = 866.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 805.00 TO NODE 805.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 11.18
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.247
SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN
RESIDENTIAL
"5-7 DWELLINGS/ACRE" A 2.34 0.98 0.500 32
COMMERCIAL A 0.31 0.98 0.100 32
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.453
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.69
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.45 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.85
* SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 430.00 AREA(ACRES) = 271.5 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 445.85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 277.8 Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 805.00 TO NODE 709.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1832.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1830.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 148.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 72.0 INCH PIPE IS 56.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 18.80
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 72.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 445.85
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 11.31
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 430.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 800.00 TO NODE 709.00 = 1014.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 709.00 TO NODE 709.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.31
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.22
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.45
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.98
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.30
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.30
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 15.85
* SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 430.00 AREA(ACRES) = 271.5 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 445.85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 277.8 ** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER SOURCE
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE FLOW 1 50.75 10.81 3.314 0.87( 0.40) 0.46 19.3 700.00
407.7
2 15.85 11.31 3.222 0.98( 0.45) 0.46 6.3 800.00
430.0
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER SOURCE
Packet Page. 634
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE FLOW 1 66.41 10.81 3.314 0.89( 0.41) 0.46 25.3 700.00
407.7
2 65.00 11.31 3.222 0.89( 0.41) 0.46 25.6 800.00
430.0
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 66.41 Tc(MIN.) = 10.81
EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 25.31 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.41 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.89 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 25.6
* CUMULATIVE SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 837.71 AREA(AC.) = 502.9 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 904.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 528.5 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 709.00 = 2622.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 709.00 TO NODE 710.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1830.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1789.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1360.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 81.0 INCH PIPE IS 62.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 30.36
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 81.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 904.12
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.75 Tc(MIN.) = 11.56
* TOTAL SOURCE FLOW(CFS) = 837.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 700.00 TO NODE 710.00 = 3982.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 710.00 TO NODE 710.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.56
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.18
AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.41
AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.89
AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.46
EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 25.31
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 25.59
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 66.41
* SOURCE FLOW DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 837.71 AREA(ACRES) = 502.9 * SUMMED DATA: FLOW(CFS) = 904.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 528.5 Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 900.00 TO NODE 901.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
>>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 533.00
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1849.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1828.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20
SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.153
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.992
SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II):
DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc
LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.)
SCHOOL A 0.77 0.98 0.600 32 9.69
PUBLIC PARK A 0.01 0.98 0.850 32 11.36
COMMERCIAL A 0.28 0.98 0.100 32 7.15
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.97
SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.470
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.37
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 901.00 TO NODE 902.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 5 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1828.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1816.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 341.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 25.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.050
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.73 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.39
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.89
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.19
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.46 Tc(MIN.) = 8.61
* 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.721
Packet Page. 635
Meyers Creek – Proposed Storm Drain 2024