Attachment 2 - Preliminary Design Report - Meyers Creek Drainage Study — Mayor and City Council, October 21, 2026 (part 5 of 5)

Potential pollutants of concern include bacteria vitus, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, and oxygen demanding substances. There is no evidence to suggest that any other pollutants will be produced from the project site other than these.
303(d) listed impairment:

Lytle Creek: Patheogens
Santa Ana River Reach 4: Pathogens
Prado Flood Control Basin: Pathogens and Nutrients
Santa Ana River Reach 2: Pathogens
Santa Ana River Reach 1 and Tidal prism Santa Ana River : NONE TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-5
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool –
http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
NONE
Unlined Downstream Water Bodies
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool –
http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
Meecham Creek
Cable Creek
Cajun Creek Wash
Lytle Creek Wash
Santa Ana River
Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
Yes Complete Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Assessment. Include Forms

4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 and Hydromodification BMP Form 4.3-10 in submittal No
Watershed–based BMP included in a RWQCB
approved WAP
Yes Attach verification of regional BMP evaluation criteria in WAP • More Effective than On-site LID
• Remaining Capacity for Project DCV
• Upstream of any Water of the US
• Operational at Project Completion
• Long-Term Maintenance Plan
No
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: San Bernardino, California,
USA*
Latitude: 34.2112°, Longitude: -117.3637°
Elevation: 2012.6 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.161
(0.133-0.195)

0.222
(0.184-0.270)

0.301
(0.249-0.368)

0.366
(0.300-0.450)

0.453
(0.359-0.577)

0.521
(0.404-0.678)

0.590
(0.447-0.787)

0.662
(0.487-0.909)

0.762
(0.537-1.09)

0.841
(0.573-1.25)
10-min 0.230
(0.191-0.280)

0.318
(0.264-0.387)

0.432
(0.357-0.527)

0.524
(0.430-0.645)

0.649
(0.515-0.827)

0.746
(0.579-0.971)

0.846
(0.640-1.13)

0.949
(0.698-1.30)

1.09 (0.770-1.56)

1.21 (0.821-1.79)
15-min 0.278
(0.231-0.338)

0.384
(0.319-0.468)

0.522
(0.432-0.637)

0.634
(0.520-0.780)

0.785
(0.623-1.00)

0.903
(0.701-1.17)

1.02 (0.774-1.36)

1.15 (0.845-1.58)

1.32 (0.931-1.89)

1.46 (0.993-2.16)
30-min 0.414
(0.344-0.504)

0.572
(0.475-0.697)

0.777
(0.643-0.949)

0.944
(0.774-1.16)

1.17 (0.927-1.49)

1.34 (1.04-1.75)

1.52 (1.15-2.03)

1.71 (1.26-2.35)

1.97 (1.39-2.82)

2.17 (1.48-3.22)
60-min 0.629
(0.523-0.765)

0.870
(0.722-1.06)

1.18 (0.977-1.44)

1.43 (1.18-1.77)

1.78 (1.41-2.26)

2.04 (1.59-2.66)

2.31 (1.75-3.09)

2.60 (1.91-3.56)

2.99 (2.11-4.28)

3.30 (2.25-4.89)
2-hr 0.964
(0.801-1.17)

1.27 (1.06-1.55)

1.68 (1.39-2.05)

2.01 (1.65-2.47)

2.45 (1.94-3.12)

2.79 (2.17-3.63)

3.14 (2.38-4.19)

3.51 (2.58-4.81)

4.01 (2.83-5.74)

4.40 (3.00-6.53)
3-hr 1.23
(1.02-1.50)

1.60 (1.33-1.95)

2.09 (1.73-2.55)

2.48 (2.03-3.05)

3.00 (2.38-3.83)

3.41 (2.65-4.44)

3.83 (2.90-5.10)

4.25 (3.13-5.84)

4.84 (3.42-6.93)

5.31 (3.61-7.87)
6-hr 1.84
(1.53-2.24)

2.36 (1.96-2.88)

3.04 (2.51-3.71)

3.58 (2.94-4.41)

4.31 (3.42-5.49)

4.87 (3.78-6.34)

5.44 (4.12-7.26)

6.03 (4.43-8.27)

6.82 (4.81-9.76)

7.44 (5.06-11.0)
12-hr 2.51
(2.08-3.05)

3.23 (2.68-3.93)

4.16 (3.44-5.08)

4.91 (4.03-6.04)

5.90 (4.68-7.51)

6.65 (5.16-8.65)

7.41 (5.61-9.88)

8.17 (6.02-11.2)

9.20 (6.49-13.2)

10.00 (6.81-14.8)
24-hr 3.44
(3.05-3.96)

4.51 (3.99-5.20)

5.88 (5.19-6.80)

6.98 (6.11-8.13)

8.43 (7.14-10.2)

9.53 (7.90-11.7)

10.6 (8.60-13.4)

11.7 (9.24-15.2)

13.2 (9.99-17.8)

14.3 (10.5-20.0)
2-day 4.25
(3.77-4.90)

5.70 (5.04-6.57)

7.58 (6.68-8.76)

9.09 (7.96-10.6)

11.1 (9.44-13.4)

12.7 (10.5-15.6)

14.3 (11.6-18.0)

15.9 (12.6-20.6)

18.1 (13.7-24.5)

19.9 (14.5-27.7)
3-day 4.51
(3.99-5.19)

6.15 (5.44-7.09)

8.30 (7.32-9.60)

10.1 (8.80-11.7)

12.5 (10.6-15.0)

14.4 (11.9-17.6)

16.3 (13.2-20.5)

18.3 (14.4-23.7)

21.0 (15.9-28.4)

23.2 (17.0-32.4)
4-day 4.82
(4.27-5.55)

6.65 (5.88-7.67)

9.06 (7.99-10.5)

11.1 (9.68-12.9)

13.8 (11.7-16.6)

16.0 (13.2-19.6)

18.2 (14.7-22.9)

20.5 (16.2-26.6)

23.7 (18.0-32.0)

26.3 (19.2-36.7)
7-day 5.44
(4.82-6.27)

7.65 (6.77-8.82)

10.6 (9.34-12.2)

13.0 (11.4-15.2)

16.4 (13.9-19.7)

19.0 (15.8-23.4)

21.8 (17.7-27.5)

24.7 (19.5-32.0)

28.8 (21.8-38.8)

32.0 (23.4-44.7)
10-day 5.84
(5.18-6.73)

8.30 (7.34-9.57)

11.6 (10.2-13.4)

14.3 (12.5-16.7)

18.1 (15.3-21.8)

21.1 (17.5-26.0)

24.3 (19.7-30.6)

27.6 (21.7-35.7)

32.2 (24.4-43.5)

35.9 (26.3-50.2)
20-day 7.11
(6.30-8.19)

10.2 (9.04-11.8)

14.4 (12.7-16.7)

18.0 (15.8-21.0)

23.0 (19.5-27.7)

27.0 (22.4-33.2)

31.2 (25.3-39.3)

35.7 (28.2-46.3)

42.1 (31.9-56.8)

47.3 (34.6-66.0)
30-day 8.33
(7.38-9.59)

12.0 (10.6-13.8)

16.9 (14.9-19.6)

21.2 (18.5-24.7)

27.2 (23.0-32.7)

32.0 (26.6-39.4)

37.1 (30.1-46.8)

42.7 (33.6-55.3)

50.6 (38.3-68.2)

57.1 (41.7-79.6)
45-day 10.1
(8.91-11.6)

14.3 (12.6-16.5)

20.1 (17.8-23.3)

25.1 (22.0-29.3)

32.3 (27.4-38.9)

38.1 (31.7-46.9)

44.4 (36.0-55.9)

51.2 (40.3-66.3)

61.0 (46.1-82.3)

69.1 (50.5-96.5)
60-day 11.8
(10.5-13.6)

16.5 (14.6-19.1)

23.1 (20.3-26.7)

28.7 (25.1-33.5)

36.9 (31.2-44.4)

43.6 (36.1-53.6)

50.8 (41.1-63.9)

58.7 (46.2-76.0)

70.1 (53.0-94.6)

79.7 (58.3-111)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 1 of 4
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=34.2112&lon=-117.3637&da... 11/2/2017 PF graphical
Back to Top
Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 2 of 4
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=34.2112&lon=-117.3637&da... 11/2/2017 Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 3 of 4
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=34.2112&lon=-117.3637&da... 11/2/2017 Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 4 of 4
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=34.2112&lon=-117.3637&da... 11/2/2017 TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-6
Section 4 Best Management Practices (BMP)

4.1 Source Control BMP

4.1.1 Pollution Prevention
Non-structural and structural source control BMP are required to be incorporated into all new development and significant redevelopment projects. Form 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 are used to describe specific source control BMPs used in the WQMP or to explain why a certain BMP is not applicable. Table 7-3 of the TGD for WQMP provides a list of applicable source control BMP for projects with specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities.

The source control BMP in this table must be implemented for projects with these specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities.

The preparers of this WQMP have reviewed the source control BMP requirements for new development and significant redevelopment projects. The preparers have also reviewed the specific BMP required for project as specified in Forms 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. All applicable non-structural and structural source control BMP shall be implemented in the project.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-7
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
Included if not applicable, state reason Not
Applicable
N1 Education of Property Owners, Tenants
and Occupants on Stormwater BMPs
Practical education materials will be provided to property owner and Truck & Auto Sales and Maintenance staffs covering various water quality issues that will need to be addressed on their specific site. These materials will include general practices that contribute to the protection of storm water quality and BMP’s that eliminate or reduce pollution during property improvements. The developer will request these materials in writing at least 30 days prior to intended distribution and will then be responsible for publication and distribution.

N2 Activity Restrictions
Restrictions may be developed by property owner or other mechanisms. Pesticide applications will be performed by an applicator certified by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Vehicle washing will be prohibited.

N3 Landscape Management BMPs
According to the California Stormwater Quality Associations Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, landscape planning is implemented to reduce groundwater and storm water contamination. This will be accomplished through an debris basins, infiltration basins, and landscape areas.

N4 BMP Maintenance See section 5, Table 5.1 for details on BMP maintenance N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance
(How development will comply)
Not applicable
N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances Not applicable
N7 Spill Contingency Plan Not applicable
N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No underground storage tank on the site.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-8
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure
Compliance
Not applicable
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
Included Not if not applicable, state reason
Applicable
N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation If necessary
N11 Litter/Debris Control Program
Where and how trash, debris and refuge containers are stored is dictated by municipal code.

N12 Employee Training
Gardenaers and other maintenance staff will have training regarding the location and maintenance of the BMP.

N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Not applicable
N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program
Catch basins will be inspected a minimum of once every three months during the dry season and a minimum of once every two months during the rainy season.

N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and
Parking Lots
Parking lot and onsite pavement will be maintained by the owner.

N16 Other Non-structural Measures for Public
Agency Projects
Not applicable
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-9
N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES
permits
Yes, if necessary.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-10
Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
If not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
S1 Provide storm drain system stencilling and signage
(CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-13)
Signs will be placed above storm drain inlets to warn the public of prohibitions against waste disposal
S2
Design and construct outdoor material storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA
New Development BMP Handbook SD-34)
No material storages areas in the project
S3
Design and construct trash and waste storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA
New Development BMP Handbook SD-32)
Where and how trash, debris and refuge containers are stored is dictated by municipal code
S4
Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape
design, water conservation, smart controllers, and
source control (Statewide Model Landscape
Ordinance; CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-12)
Rain sensors will be incorporated into the onsite sprinkler system so that no unnecessary watering of landscaped areas occurs after storm events.

S5
Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of
1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or
pavement
New landscaped areas will be constructed at a minimum of 1 inch below existing paved areas
S6
Protect slopes and channels and provide energy
dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-10)
Slopes and Channel will be protected with appropriate measure per San Bernardino County Standard.

S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development
BMP Handbook SD-31)
No covered dock areas, Not applicable
S8
Covered maintenance bays with spill containment
plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook
SD-31)
No Bays, Not applicable
S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans
(CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33)
No Vehicle Wash at the site, Not applicable
S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD-36)
No outdoor Processing, Not applicable
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-11
Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One
Describe BMP Implementation OR,
If not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
S11
Equipment wash areas with spill containment
plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook
SD-33)
No equipment wash areas, Not applicable
S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-30)
No Fueling Areas, Not applicable
S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development
BMP Handbook SD-10)
No Hillside Landscaping, Not applicable
S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas No food Preparation, Not applicable S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD-33)
No Community Car Wash, Not applicable
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-12

4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices
Site design practices associated with new LID requirements in the MS4 Permit should be considered in the earliest phases of a project. Preventative site design practices can result in smaller DCV for LID BMP and hydromodification control BMP by reducing runoff generation. Describe site design and drainage plan including:

Refer to Section 5.2 of the TGD for WQMP for more details.

Form 4.1-3 Preventative LID Site Design Practices Checklist Site Design Practices
If yes, explain how preventative site design practice is addressed in project site plan. If no, other LID BMPs must be selected to meet targets Minimize impervious areas: Yes No
Explanation: We will build landscaping, park, multiple planter areas in addition to debris basin and an infiltration basin.

Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No
Explanation: Runoff from impervious surfaces will be conveyed through landscaped areas so that infiltration is maximized.

Runoff will also be intercepted by debris basin and an infiltration basin.

Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No Explanation: The site currently drains South to Meecham Creek. Post developed flow will also drain south to the Meecham Creek via the proposed drainage system and street gutter.This is consistent with existing and Master Planned flow patterns.

Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No
Explanation: Impervious areas will drain into landscaped areas and numerous planter areas..

Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No Explanation: There are no environmentally sensitive areas with in the proposed sub-division and existing vegetation will be kept as much as possible.

Re-vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No
Explanation: Part of the disturbed areas will be revegeated, see landscape plan.

Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No Explanation: No compaction will be performed within the area where the debis basins and the infiltration basin are proposed.

Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No Explanation: Runoff will also be intercepted by the proposed debis basins and infiltration basin and numerous landscaped areas/planters within the sub-division.

Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction : Yes No Explanation: No compaction will be performed within the area where landscape/planter areas are proposed. § A narrative of site design practices utilized or rationale for not using practices § A narrative of how site plan incorporates preventive site design practices § Include an attached Site Plan layout which shows how preventative site design practices are included in WQMP
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-13

4.2 Project Performance Criteria
The purpose of this section of the Project WQMP is to establish targets for post-development hydrology based on performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID design capture volume), and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection of any downstream waterbody segments with a HCOC. If the project has more than one outlet for stormwater runoff, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet.

Methods applied in the following forms include:
§ For LID BMP Design Capture Volume (DCV), the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires use of the P6 method (MS4 Permit Section XI.D.6a.ii) – Form 4.2-1 § For HCOC pre- and post-development hydrologic calculation, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires the use of the Rational Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section D). Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 calculate hydrologic variables including runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff from the project site pre- and post-development using the Hydrology Manual Rational Method approach. For projects greater than 640 acres (1.0 mi2), the Rational Method and these forms should not be used. For such projects, the Unit Hydrograph Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section E) shall be applied for hydrologic calculations for HCOC performance criteria.

Refer to Section 4 in the TGD for WQMP for detailed guidance and instructions.

Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DA 1)
1 Project area DA 1 (ft2):
1,393,920
2 Imperviousness after applying preventative
site design practices (Imp%): 40%
3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): 0.28
Rc = 0.858(Imp%)^3-0.78(Imp%)^2+0.774(Imp%)+0.04
4 Determine 1-hour rainfall depth for a 2-year return period P2yr-1hr (in): 0.87 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 1.2885 (Using C1=1.4807) P6 = Item 4 *C1, where C1 is a function of site climatic region specified in Form 3-1 Item 1 (Valley = 1.4807; Mountain = 1.909; Desert = 1.2371) 6 Drawdown Rate
Use 48 hours as the default condition. Selection and use of the 24 hour drawdown time condition is subject to approval by the local jurisdiction. The necessary BMP footprint is a function of drawdown time. While shorter drawdown times reduce the performance criteria for LID BMP design capture volume, the depth of water that can be stored is also reduced.
24-hrs
48-hrs
7 Compute design capture volume, DCV (ft3): 82,179 (Using C2=1.963) DCV = 1/12 * [Item 1* Item 3 *Item 5 * C2], where C2 is a function of drawdown rate (24-hr = 1.582; 48-hr = 1.963) Compute separate DCV for each outlet from the project site per schematic drawn in Form 3-1 Item 2 TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-14
Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DA 2)
1 Project area DA 2 (ft2):
239,580
2 Imperviousness after applying preventative
site design practices (Imp%): 40%
3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): 0.28
Rc = 0.858(Imp%)^3-0.78(Imp%)^2+0.774(Imp%)+0.04
4 Determine 1-hour rainfall depth for a 2-year return period P2yr-1hr (in): 0.87 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 1.2885 (Using C1=1.4807) P6 = Item 4 *C1, where C1 is a function of site climatic region specified in Form 3-1 Item 1 (Valley = 1.4807; Mountain = 1.909; Desert = 1.2371) 6 Drawdown Rate
Use 48 hours as the default condition. Selection and use of the 24 hour drawdown time condition is subject to approval by the local jurisdiction. The necessary BMP footprint is a function of drawdown time. While shorter drawdown times reduce the performance criteria for LID BMP design capture volume, the depth of water that can be stored is also reduced.
24-hrs
48-hrs
7 Compute design capture volume, DCV (ft3): 14,125 (Using C2=1.963) DCV = 1/12 * [Item 1* Item 3 *Item 5 * C2], where C2 is a function of drawdown rate (24-hr = 1.582; 48-hr = 1.963) Compute separate DCV for each outlet from the project site per schematic drawn in Form 3-1 Item 2 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: San Bernardino, California,
USA*
Latitude: 34.2112°, Longitude: -117.3637°
Elevation: 2012.6 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

0.222
(0.184-0.270)

0.301
(0.249-0.368)

0.366
(0.300-0.450)

0.453
(0.359-0.577)

0.521
(0.404-0.678)

0.590
(0.447-0.787)

0.662
(0.487-0.909)

0.762
(0.537-1.09)

0.841
(0.573-1.25)
10-min 0.230
(0.191-0.280)

0.318
(0.264-0.387)

0.432
(0.357-0.527)

0.524
(0.430-0.645)

0.649
(0.515-0.827)

0.746
(0.579-0.971)

0.846
(0.640-1.13)

0.949
(0.698-1.30)

1.09 (0.770-1.56)

1.21 (0.821-1.79)
15-min 0.278
(0.231-0.338)

0.384
(0.319-0.468)

0.522
(0.432-0.637)

0.634
(0.520-0.780)

0.785
(0.623-1.00)

0.903
(0.701-1.17)

1.02 (0.774-1.36)

1.15 (0.845-1.58)

1.32 (0.931-1.89)

1.46 (0.993-2.16)
30-min 0.414
(0.344-0.504)

0.572
(0.475-0.697)

0.777
(0.643-0.949)

0.944
(0.774-1.16)

1.17 (0.927-1.49)

1.34 (1.04-1.75)

1.52 (1.15-2.03)

1.71 (1.26-2.35)

1.97 (1.39-2.82)

2.17 (1.48-3.22)
60-min 0.629
(0.523-0.765)

0.870
(0.722-1.06)

1.18 (0.977-1.44)

1.43 (1.18-1.77)

1.78 (1.41-2.26)

2.04 (1.59-2.66)

2.31 (1.75-3.09)

2.60 (1.91-3.56)

2.99 (2.11-4.28)

3.30 (2.25-4.89)
2-hr 0.964
(0.801-1.17)

1.27 (1.06-1.55)

1.68 (1.39-2.05)

2.01 (1.65-2.47)

2.45 (1.94-3.12)

2.79 (2.17-3.63)

3.14 (2.38-4.19)

3.51 (2.58-4.81)

4.01 (2.83-5.74)

4.40 (3.00-6.53)
3-hr 1.23
(1.02-1.50)

1.60 (1.33-1.95)

2.09 (1.73-2.55)

2.48 (2.03-3.05)

3.00 (2.38-3.83)

3.41 (2.65-4.44)

3.83 (2.90-5.10)

4.25 (3.13-5.84)

4.84 (3.42-6.93)

5.31 (3.61-7.87)
6-hr 1.84
(1.53-2.24)

2.36 (1.96-2.88)

3.04 (2.51-3.71)

3.58 (2.94-4.41)

4.31 (3.42-5.49)

4.87 (3.78-6.34)

5.44 (4.12-7.26)

6.03 (4.43-8.27)

6.82 (4.81-9.76)

7.44 (5.06-11.0)
12-hr 2.51
(2.08-3.05)

3.23 (2.68-3.93)

4.16 (3.44-5.08)

4.91 (4.03-6.04)

5.90 (4.68-7.51)

6.65 (5.16-8.65)

7.41 (5.61-9.88)

8.17 (6.02-11.2)

9.20 (6.49-13.2)

10.00 (6.81-14.8)
24-hr 3.44
(3.05-3.96)

4.51 (3.99-5.20)

5.88 (5.19-6.80)

6.98 (6.11-8.13)

8.43 (7.14-10.2)

9.53 (7.90-11.7)

10.6 (8.60-13.4)

11.7 (9.24-15.2)

13.2 (9.99-17.8)

14.3 (10.5-20.0)
2-day 4.25
(3.77-4.90)

5.70 (5.04-6.57)

7.58 (6.68-8.76)

9.09 (7.96-10.6)

11.1 (9.44-13.4)

12.7 (10.5-15.6)

14.3 (11.6-18.0)

15.9 (12.6-20.6)

18.1 (13.7-24.5)

19.9 (14.5-27.7)
3-day 4.51
(3.99-5.19)

6.15 (5.44-7.09)

8.30 (7.32-9.60)

10.1 (8.80-11.7)

12.5 (10.6-15.0)

14.4 (11.9-17.6)

16.3 (13.2-20.5)

18.3 (14.4-23.7)

21.0 (15.9-28.4)

23.2 (17.0-32.4)
4-day 4.82
(4.27-5.55)

6.65 (5.88-7.67)

9.06 (7.99-10.5)

11.1 (9.68-12.9)

13.8 (11.7-16.6)

16.0 (13.2-19.6)

18.2 (14.7-22.9)

20.5 (16.2-26.6)

23.7 (18.0-32.0)

26.3 (19.2-36.7)
7-day 5.44
(4.82-6.27)

7.65 (6.77-8.82)

10.6 (9.34-12.2)

13.0 (11.4-15.2)

16.4 (13.9-19.7)

19.0 (15.8-23.4)

21.8 (17.7-27.5)

24.7 (19.5-32.0)

28.8 (21.8-38.8)

32.0 (23.4-44.7)
10-day 5.84
(5.18-6.73)

8.30 (7.34-9.57)

11.6 (10.2-13.4)

14.3 (12.5-16.7)

18.1 (15.3-21.8)

21.1 (17.5-26.0)

24.3 (19.7-30.6)

27.6 (21.7-35.7)

32.2 (24.4-43.5)

35.9 (26.3-50.2)
20-day 7.11
(6.30-8.19)

10.2 (9.04-11.8)

14.4 (12.7-16.7)

18.0 (15.8-21.0)

23.0 (19.5-27.7)

27.0 (22.4-33.2)

31.2 (25.3-39.3)

35.7 (28.2-46.3)

42.1 (31.9-56.8)

47.3 (34.6-66.0)
30-day 8.33
(7.38-9.59)

12.0 (10.6-13.8)

16.9 (14.9-19.6)

21.2 (18.5-24.7)

27.2 (23.0-32.7)

32.0 (26.6-39.4)

37.1 (30.1-46.8)

42.7 (33.6-55.3)

50.6 (38.3-68.2)

57.1 (41.7-79.6)
45-day 10.1
(8.91-11.6)

14.3 (12.6-16.5)

20.1 (17.8-23.3)

25.1 (22.0-29.3)

32.3 (27.4-38.9)

38.1 (31.7-46.9)

44.4 (36.0-55.9)

51.2 (40.3-66.3)

61.0 (46.1-82.3)

69.1 (50.5-96.5)
60-day 11.8
(10.5-13.6)

16.5 (14.6-19.1)

23.1 (20.3-26.7)

28.7 (25.1-33.5)

36.9 (31.2-44.4)

43.6 (36.1-53.6)

50.8 (41.1-63.9)

58.7 (46.2-76.0)

70.1 (53.0-94.6)

79.7 (58.3-111)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment
Does project have the potential to cause or contribute to an HCOC in a downstream channel: Yes No Go to: http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
If “Yes”, then complete HCOC assessment of site hydrology for 2yr storm event using Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 and insert results below (Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 may be replaced by computer software analysis based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual) If “No,” then proceed to Section 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis Condition Runoff Volume (ft3) Time of Concentration (min) Peak Runoff (cfs) Pre-developed
1 Form 4.2-3 Item 12
2 Form 4.2-4 Item 13
3 Form 4.2-5 Item 10
Post-developed
4 Form 4.2-3 Item 13
5 Form 4.2-4 Item 14
6 Form 4.2-5 Item 14
Difference
7 Item 4 – Item 1
8 Item 5 – Item 2
9 Item 6 – Item 3
Difference
(as % of pre-developed)
10 %
Item 7 / Item 1
11 %
Item 8 / Item 2
12 %
Item 9 / Item 3
WQMP Project Report
County of San Bernardino Stormwater Program
Santa Ana River Watershed Geodatabase
Thursday, November 02, 2017
Note: The information provided in this report and on the Stormwater Geodatabase for the County of San Bernardino Stormwater Program is intended to provide basic guidance in the preparation of the applicant’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and should not be relied upon without independent verification.

Project Site Parcel Number(s): 034812120, 034811125, 034812125, 034811114, , 034812123, 034812121, 026103109, 026103110, 034811113, 034812118, 034811105, 034812114
Project Site Acreage: 143.133
HCOC Exempt Area: No
Closest Receiving Waters:
(Applicant to verify based on local drainage facilities and topography.) System Number - 311
Facility Name - Meecham Creek
Owner - SBCFCD
Closest channel segment’s susceptibility to
Hydromodification: M
Highest downstream hydromodification
susceptibility: High
Is this drainage segment subject to TMDLs? No
Are there downstream drainage segments
subject to TMDLs? No
Is this drainage segment a 303d listed stream? No
Are there 303d listed streams downstream? Yes
Are there unlined downstream waterbodies? No
Project Site Onsite Soil Group(s): A, B, C
Environmentally Sensitive Areas within 200': None
Groundwater Depth (FT): -148
Parcels with potential septic tanks within 1000': Yes
Known Groundwater Contamination Plumes
within 1000': No
Studies and Reports Related to Project Site: Devore Drainage Tokay Hill to Blue Cut Preliminary Report on Proposed North SBFCP
School Site Map
Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan
SBVMWD High Groundwater / Pressure Zone Area
San Bernardino - WAP Report Page 1 of 1
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap_report/report.asp?septic=Yes&SECAREA=&PNUM=... 11/2/2017

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-16
Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume
Weighted Curve Number
Determination for:

Pre-developed DA
1a Land Cover type
2a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
3a DMA Area, ft2sum of areas of
DMA should equal area of DA
4a Curve Number (CN) use Items
1 and 2 to select the appropriate CN
from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for
WQMP
Weighted Curve Number
Determination for:

Post-developed DA

DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H
1b Land Cover type
2b Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
3b DMA Area, ft2sum of areas of
DMA should equal area of DA
4b Curve Number (CN) use Items
5 and 6 to select the appropriate CN
from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for
WQMP
5 Pre-Developed area-weighted CN: 7 Pre-developed soil storage capacity, S (in S = (1000 / Item 5) – 10
9 Initial abstraction, Ia (in):

Ia = 0.2 * Item 7
6 Post-Developed area-weighted CN: 8 Post-developed soil storage capacity, S (in) S = (1000 / Item 6) – 10
10 Initial abstraction, Ia (in):

Ia = 0.2 * Item 8
11 Precipitation for 2 yr, 24 hr storm (in):

Go to: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 12 Pre-developed Volume (ft3):

Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 9)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 9 + Item 7) 13 Post-developed Volume (ft3):

Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 10)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 10 + Item 8) 14 Volume Reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement, (ft3):

VHCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 12
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-17
Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration
Compute time of concentration for pre and post developed conditions for each DA (For projects using the Hydrology Manual complete the form below)
Variables
Pre-developed DA1
Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA
Post-developed DA1
Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA
DA 1 DMA B DMA C DMA D DA 1 DMA B DMA C DMA D
1 Length of flowpath (ft) Use Form 3-2
Item 5 for pre-developed condition
2 Change in elevation (ft)
3 Slope (ft/ft), So = Item 2 / Item 1
4 Land cover
5 Initial DMA Time of Concentration
(min) Appendix C-1 of the TGD for WQMP
6 Length of conveyance from DMA
outlet to project site outlet (ft)
May be zero if DMA outlet is at project
site outlet
7 Cross-sectional area of channel (ft2)
8 Wetted perimeter of channel (ft)
9 Manning’s roughness of channel (n)
10 Channel flow velocity (ft/sec)
Vfps = (1.49 / Item 9) * (Item 7/Item 8)^0.67
* (Item 3)^0.5
11 Travel time to outlet (min)
Tt = Item 6 / (Item 10 * 60)
12 Total time of concentration (min)
Tc = Item 5 + Item 11
13 Pre-developed time of concentration (min):
14 Post-developed time of concentration (min):
15 Additional time of concentration needed to meet HCOC requirement (min):

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-18
Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff
Compute peak runoff for pre- and post-developed conditions Variables
Pre-developed DA to Project
Outlet (Use additional forms if
more than 3 DMA)
Post-developed DA to Project
Outlet (Use additional forms if
more than 3 DMA)

DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA A DMA B DMA C
1 Rainfall Intensity for storm duration equal to time of concentration Ipeak = 10^(LOG Form 4.2-1 Item 4 - 0.6 LOG Form 4.2-4 Item 5 /60) 2 Drainage Area of each DMA (ft2)
For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 3 Ratio of pervious area to total area
For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 4 Pervious area infiltration rate (in/hr)
Use pervious area CN and antecedent moisture condition with Appendix C-3 of the TGD for WQMP
5 Maximum loss rate (in/hr)
Fm = Item 3 * Item 4
Use area-weighted Fm from DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 6 Peak Flow from DMA (cfs)
Qp =Item 2 * 0.9 * (Item 1 - Item 5)
7 Time of concentration adjustment factor for other DMA to site discharge point
Form 4.2-4 Item 12 DMA / Other DMA upstream of site discharge point (If ratio is greater than 1.0, then use maximum value of 1.0) DMA A n/a n/a
DMA B n/a n/a
DMA C n/a n/a
8 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A:

Qp = Item 6DMAA + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAA - Item
5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAA/2] +
[Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC -
Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAA/3]
9 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B:

Qp = Item 6DMAB + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAB - Item
5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAB/1] +
[Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC -
Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAB/3]
10 Pre-developed Qp at Tc
for DMA C:

Qp = Item 6DMAC + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAC - Item
5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAC/1] +
[Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB
- Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAC/2]
10 Peak runoff from pre-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 8, 9, and 10 (including additional forms as needed) 11 Post-developed Qp at Tc
for DMA A:

Same as Item 8 for post-developed values
12 Post-developed Qp at Tc
for DMA B:

Same as Item 9 for post-developed values
13 Post-developed Qp at Tc
for DMA C:

Same as Item 10 for post-developed
values
14 Peak runoff from post-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 11, 12, and 13 (including additional forms as needed)
15 Peak runoff reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement (cfs): Qp-HCOC = (Item 14 * 0.95) – Item 10 TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-19

4.3 Project Conformance Analysis
Complete the following forms for each project site DA to document that the proposed LID BMPs conform to the project DCV developed to meet performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit (WQMP Template Section 4.2). For the LID DCV, the forms are ordered according to hierarchy of BMP selection as required by the MS4 Permit (see Section 5.3.1 in the TGD for WQMP). The forms compute the following for on-site LID BMP:
§ Site Design and Hydrologic Source Controls (Form 4.3-2) § Retention and Infiltration (Form 4.3-3)
§ Harvested and Use (Form 4.3-4) or
§ Biotreatment (Form 4.3-5).

At the end of each form, additional fields facilitate the determination of the extent of mitigation provided by the specific BMP category, allowing for use of the next category of BMP in the hierarchy, if necessary.

The first step in the analysis, using Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP, is to complete Forms 4.3-1 and

4.3-3) to determine if retention and infiltration BMPs are infeasible for the project. For each feasibility criterion in Form 4.3-1, if the answer is “Yes,” provide all study findings that includes relevant calculations, maps, data sources, etc. used to make the determination of infeasibility.

Next, complete Forms 4.3-2 and 4.3-4 to determine the feasibility of applicable HSC and harvest and use BMPs, and, if their implementation is feasible, the extent of mitigation of the DCV.

If no site constraints exist that would limit the type of BMP to be implemented in a DA, evaluate the use of combinations of LID BMPs, including all applicable HSC BMPs to maximize on-site retention of the DCV. If no combination of BMP can mitigate the entire DCV, implement the single BMP type, or combination of BMP types, that maximizes on-site retention of the DCV within the minimum effective area.

If the combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs are unable to mitigate the entire DCV, then biotreatment BMPs may be implemented by the project proponent. If biotreatment BMPs are used, then they must be sized to provide sufficient capacity for effective treatment of the remainder of the volume-based performance criteria that cannot be achieved with LID BMPs (TGD for WQMP Section 5.4.4.2). Under no circumstances shall any portion of the DCV be released from the site without effective mitigation and/or treatment.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-20
Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility (DA 1)
Feasibility Criterion – Complete evaluation for each DA on the Project Site 1 Would infiltration BMP pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Yes No Refer to Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
2 Would installation of infiltration BMP significantly increase the risk of geotechnical hazards? Yes No (Yes, if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert):
· The location is less than 50 feet away from slopes steeper than 15 percent · The location is less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback. · A study certified by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study determines that stormwater infiltration would result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards.

If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
3 Would infiltration of runoff on a Project site violate downstream water rights? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on hydrologic soil group (HSG) D soils or does the site geotechnical investigation indicate presence of soil characteristics, which support categorization as D soils? Yes No
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
5 Is the design infiltration rate, after accounting for safety factor of 2.0, below proposed facility less than 0.3 in/hr (accounting for soil amendments)? Yes No
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) Refer to the Soil Percolation Capacity per the USGA Web Soil Survey. Actual percolation of soil at the proposed infiltration basin will be provided with final WQMP Plan. 6 Would on-site infiltration or reduction of runoff over pre-developed conditions be partially or fully inconsistent with watershed management strategies as defined in the WAP, or impair beneficial uses? Yes No See Section 3.5 of the TGD for WQMP and WAP
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
7 Any answer from Item 1 through Item 3 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration of any volume is not feasible onsite. Proceed to Form 4.3-4, Harvest and Use BMP. If no, then proceed to Item 9 below. 8 Any answer from Item 4 through Item 6 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration is permissible but is not required to be considered. Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP.

If no, then proceed to Item 9, below.
9 All answers to Item 1 through Item 6 are “No”: N/A
Infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, LID infiltration BMP must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the MEP.

Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-21

4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP
Section XI.E. of the Permit emphasizes the use of LID preventative measures; and the use of LID HSC BMPs reduces the portion of the DCV that must be addressed in downstream BMPs. Therefore, all applicable HSC shall be provided except where they are mutually exclusive with each other, or with other BMPs. Mutual exclusivity may result from overlapping BMP footprints such that either would be potentially feasible by itself, but both could not be implemented. Please note that while there are no numeric standards regarding the use of HSC, if a project cannot feasibly meet BMP sizing requirements or cannot fully address HCOCs, feasibility of all applicable HSC must be part of demonstrating that the BMP system has been designed to retain the maximum feasible portion of the DCV. Complete Form 4.3- 2 to identify and calculate estimated retention volume from implementing site design HSC BMP. Refer to Section 5.4.1 in the TGD for more detailed guidance.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-22
Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) 1 Implementation of Impervious Area Dispersion BMP (i.e. routing runoff from impervious to pervious areas), excluding impervious areas planned for routing to on-lot infiltration BMP: Yes No If yes, complete Items 2-5; If no,
proceed to Item 6
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
2 Total impervious area draining to pervious area (ft2) 3 Ratio of pervious area receiving runoff to impervious area 4 Retention volume achieved from impervious area
dispersion (ft3) V = Item2 * Item 3 * (0.5/12), assuming retention of 0.5 inches of runoff
5 Sum of retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 4 for all BMPs 6 Implementation of Localized On-lot Infiltration BMPs (e.g. on-lot rain gardens): Yes No If yes, complete Items 7-
13 for aggregate of all on-lot infiltration BMP in each DA; If no, proceed to Item 14
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
7 Ponding surface area (ft2)
8 Ponding depth (ft)
9 Surface area of amended soil/gravel (ft2)
10 Average depth of amended soil/gravel (ft)
11 Average porosity of amended soil/gravel
12 Retention volume achieved from on-lot infiltration (ft3 )
Vretention = (Item 7 *Item 8) + (Item 9 * Item 10 * Item 11) 13 Runoff volume retention from on-lot infiltration (ft3 ): Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-23
Form 4.3-2 cont. Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) 14 Implementation of evapotranspiration BMP (green,
brown, or blue roofs): Yes No
If yes, complete Items 15-20. If no, proceed to Item 21 DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
15 Rooftop area planned for ET BMP (ft2
)
16 Average wet season ET demand (in/day)
Use local values, typical ~ 0.1
17 Daily ET demand (ft3
/day)
Item 15 * (Item 16 / 12)
18 Drawdown time (hrs)
Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1
19 Retention Volume (ft3
)
Vretention = Item 17 * (Item 18 / 24)
20 Runoff volume retention from evapotranspiration BMPs (ft3 ): 0 ft3 Vretention =Sum of Item 19 for all BMPs
21 Implementation of Street Trees: Yes No
If yes, complete Items 20-2. If no, proceed to Item 24
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
22 Number of Street Trees
23 Average canopy cover over impervious area (ft2
)
24 Runoff volume retention from street trees (ft3
)
Vretention = Item 22 * Item 23 * (0.05/12) assume runoff retention of

0.05 inches
25 Runoff volume retention from street tree BMPs (ft3
): 0 ft3 Vretention = Sum of Item 24 for all BMPs
26 Implementation of residential rain barrels/cisterns: Yes No If yes, complete Items 27-28; If no, proceed to
Item 29
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
27 Number of rain barrels/cisterns
28 Runoff volume retention from rain barrels/cisterns (ft3 )
Vretention = Item 27 * 3
29 Runoff volume retention from residential rain barrels/Cisterns (ft3): 0 ft3 Vretention =Sum of Item 28 for all BMPs
30 Total Retention Volume from Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs: 0 ft3 Sum of Items 5, 13, 20, 25 and 29
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-24

4.3.2 Infiltration BMPs
Use Form 4.3-3 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed retention and infiltration BMPs.

Volume retention estimates are sensitive to the percolation rate used, which determines the amount of runoff that can be infiltrated within the specified drawdown time. The infiltration safety factor reduces field measured percolation to account for potential inaccuracy associated with field measurements, declining BMP performance over time, and compaction during construction. Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP provides guidance on estimating an appropriate safety factor to use in Form 4.3-3.

If site constraints limit the use of BMPs to a single type and implementation of retention and infiltration BMPs mitigate no more than 40% of the DCV, then they are considered infeasible and the Project Proponent may evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs lower in the LID hierarchy of use (Section 5.5.1 of the TGD for WQMP)
If implementation of infiltrations BMPs is feasible as determined using Form 4.3-1, then LID infiltration BMPs shall be implemented to the MEP (section 4.1 of the TGD for WQMP).

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-25
Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP - including underground BMPs (DA 1) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): 11,029 ft3 Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 BMP Type Use columns to the right to compute runoff volume retention from proposed infiltration BMP (select BMP from Table 5-4 in TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs
DA 1 & DA 2 DMA
BMP Type Basin 1
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
2 Infiltration rate of underlying soils (in/hr) See Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP for minimum requirements for assessment methods

0.385
3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 2.25 4 Design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 0.17 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 48 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details

8.0 ft
7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 2.0 ft 8 Infiltrating surface area, SABMP (ft2) the lesser of the area needed for infiltration of full DCV or minimum space requirements from Table 5.7 of the TGD for WQMP
28,226 sq-ft
9 Amended soil depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 in the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 0 ft
10 Amended soil porosity 0
11 Gravel depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details

3.5 ft
12 Gravel porosity 0.40
13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 3 hrs 14 Above Ground Retention Volume (ft3
) Vretention = Item 8 * [Item7 +
(Item 9 * Item 10) + (Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 98,368 ft3
15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3
) Volume determined using
manufacturer’s specifications and calculations
0 ft3
16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: 98,368 ft3 (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan) 17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 102 % Retention% = Item 16 / Form 4.2-1 Item 7 18 Is full LID DCV retained on-site with combination of hydrologic source control and LID retention and infiltration BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10; If no, then reduce Item 3, Factor of Safety to 2.0 and increase Item 8, Infiltrating Surface Area, such that the portion of the site area used for retention and infiltration BMPs equals or exceeds the minimum effective area thresholds (Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP) for the applicable category of development and repeat all above calculations.

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
VII-35 May 19, 2011
Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate and Worksheet Factor Category Factor Description
Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
A Suitability
Assessment
Soil assessment methods 0.25
Predominant soil texture 0.25
Site soil variability 0.25
Depth to groundwater / impervious
layer 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p
B Design
Tributary area size 0.25
Level of pretreatment/ expected
sediment loads 0.25
Redundancy 0.25
Compaction during construction 0.25
Design Safety Factor, SB = p
Combined Safety Factor, STOT= SA x SB
Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM
(corrected for test-specific bias)
Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = STOT × KM
Supporting Data
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:

Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0.
3 1
1 1

1.50 0.75

0.25 0.25

0.25 3
1 1
1 0.75

0.25 0.25

0.25 1.50

2.25 0.385

0.17 Used USDA Web Soil Survey for infiltration rate. The range was 0.20 in/hr to 0.57 in/hr and an average of 0.385 in/hr. For Final WQMP a in field infiltration test will be performed.
1) Calculate the "Watershed Imperviousness Ratio", I which is equal to the percent of impervious area in the BMP Drainage Area divided by 100
Imperviousness(i)= 0.4
Total Acreage(A) = 32.00 1,393,920 SF
2) Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient Cbmp for the drainage area Cbmp = 0.858i3-0.78i2+0.774i+0.04
Cbmp = 0.28
3) Determine which Regression Coefficient to use by region the project is located in Valley 1.481
Mountain 1.909
Desert 1.237
Regression coefficient for this project is: 1.481
4) Determine the area averaged "6 hour Mean Storm Rainfall" , P6 2 yr 1 Hr Rainfall Depth per NOAA Atlas 14= 0.87 inches P6 = 2 yr 1 hr Rainfall x Regression coefficient
P6 = 1.2885 inches
5) Determine Regression Constant (a) for 48 hour drawdown a for 24 hour = 1.582 a for 48 hour = 1.963
a = 1.963
6) Calculate the Maximized Detention Volume, P0
P0 = C x a x P6
Po(inches) = 0.7075
7) Calculate the Target Capture Volume, V0, in acre feet V0 = (P0 * A)/12
V0 = 1.89 acre-feet
V0 = 82,179 CF
Combined Target Volume (DA1 & DA2): 96,304 CF

2.21 acre-feet
Target Captured Volume
Watershed DA 1
1) Calculate the "Watershed Imperviousness Ratio", I which is equal to the percent of impervious area in the BMP Drainage Area divided by 100
Imperviousness(i)= 0.4
Total Acreage(A) = 5.50 239,580 SF
2) Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient Cbmp for the drainage area Cbmp = 0.858i3-0.78i2+0.774i+0.04
Cbmp = 0.28
3) Determine which Regression Coefficient to use by region the project is located in Valley 1.481
Mountain 1.909
Desert 1.237
Regression coefficient for this project is: 1.481
4) Determine the area averaged "6 hour Mean Storm Rainfall" , P6 2 yr 1 Hr Rainfall Depth per NOAA Atlas 14= 0.87 inches P6 = 2 yr 1 hr Rainfall x Regression coefficient
P6 = 1.2885 inches
5) Determine Regression Constant (a) for 48 hour drawdown a for 24 hour = 1.582 a for 48 hour = 1.963
a = 1.963
6) Calculate the Maximized Detention Volume, P0
P0 = C x a x P6
Po(inches) = 0.7075
7) Calculate the Target Capture Volume, V0, in acre feet V0 = (P0 * A)/12
V0 = 0.32 acre-feet
V0 = 14,125 CF
Target Captured Volume
Watershed DA 2
Provided Infiltration BasinCapacity Calculation:

Surface Area 28226 SF (half way between floor
Rock Depth 3.5 FT and water surface)
Surface Depth 2 FT
Infiltration 0.0425 FT
Infiltration (3 hr) 1199.605
Volume Provided 98368 CF
Volume Needed 96,304 CF
Difference 2,064 CF
Treated volume is 102% of the volume needed.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-26

4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP
Harvest and use BMP may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing infiltration BMPs. Use Form 4.3-4 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed harvest and use BMPs.

Volume retention estimates for harvest and use BMPs are sensitive to the on-site demand for captured stormwater. Since irrigation water demand is low in the wet season, when most rainfall events occur in San Bernardino County, the volume of water that can be used within a specified drawdown period is relatively low. The bottom portion of Form 4.3-4 facilitates the necessary computations to show infeasibility if a minimum incremental benefit of 40 percent of the LID DCV would not be achievable with MEP implementation of on-site harvest and use of stormwater (Section 5.5.4 of the TGD for WQMP).

Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMPs
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC or infiltration BMP (ft3):

Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16 BMP Type(s) Compute runoff volume retention from proposed harvest and use BMP (Select BMPs from Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
2 Describe cistern or runoff detention facility
3 Storage volume for proposed detention type (ft3) Volume of cistern
4 Landscaped area planned for use of harvested stormwater (ft2)
5 Average wet season daily irrigation demand (in/day)
Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 in/day
6 Daily water demand (ft3/day) Item 4 * (Item 5 / 12)
7 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1
8 Retention Volume (ft3)
Vretention = Minimum of (Item 3) or (Item 6 * (Item 7 / 24)) 9 Total Retention Volume (ft3) from Harvest and Use BMP Sum of Item 8 for all harvest and use BMP included in plan 10 Is the full DCV retained with a combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10. If no, then re-evaluate combinations of all LID BMP and optimize their implementation such that the maximum portion of the DCV is retained on-site (using a single BMP type or combination of BMP types). If the full DCV cannot be mitigated after this optimization process, proceed to Section 4.3.4.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-27

4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP
Biotreatment BMPs may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs. A key consideration when using biotreatment BMP is the effectiveness of the proposed BMP in addressing the pollutants of concern for the project (see Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP).

Use Form 4.3-5 to summarize the potential for volume based and/or flow based biotreatment options to biotreat the remaining unmet LID DCV w. Biotreatment computations are included as follows:
· Use Form 4.3-6 to compute biotreatment in small volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioretention w/underdrains); · Use Form 4.3-7 to compute biotreatment in large volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. constructed wetlands); · Use Form 4.3-8 to compute sizing criteria for flow-based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioswales) Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC,
infiltration, or harvest and use BMP for potential
biotreatment (ft3): 0 Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16- Form 4.3-4 Item 9
List pollutants of concern Copy from Form 2.3-1.
2 Biotreatment BMP Selected
(Select biotreatment BMP(s)
necessary to ensure all pollutants of
concern are addressed through Unit
Operations and Processes, described
in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP)
Volume-based biotreatment
Use Forms 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 to compute treated volume
Flow-based biotreatment
Use Form 4.3-8 to compute treated volume
Bioretention with underdrain
Planter box with underdrain
Constructed wetlands
Wet extended detention
Dry extended detention
Vegetated swale
Vegetated filter strip
Proprietary biotreatment
3 Volume biotreated in volume based
biotreatment BMP (ft3): Form 4.3-
6 Item 15 + Form 4.3-7 Item 13
4 Compute remaining LID DCV with
implementation of volume based biotreatment
BMP (ft3): Item 1 – Item 3
5 Remaining fraction of LID DCV for
sizing flow based biotreatment BMP:
% Item 4 / Item 1
6 Flow-based biotreatment BMP capacity provided (cfs): Use Figure 5-2 of the TGD for WQMP to determine flow capacity required to provide biotreatment of remaining percentage of unmet LID DCV (Item 5), for the project’s precipitation zone (Form 3-1 Item 1) 7 Metrics for MEP determination:
·
Provided a WQMP with the portion of site area used for suite of LID BMP equal to minimum thresholds in Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP for the proposed category of development: If maximized on-site retention BMPs is feasible for partial capture, then LID BMP implementation must be optimized to retain and infiltrate the maximum portion of the DCV possible within the prescribed minimum effective area. The remaining portion of the DCV shall then be mitigated using biotreatment BMP.

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-28
Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment–
Bioretention and Planter Boxes with Underdrains
Biotreatment BMP Type
(Bioretention w/underdrain, planter box w/underdrain, other comparable BMP)
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP
2 Amended soil infiltration rate Typical ~ 5.0
3 Amended soil infiltration safety factor Typical ~ 2.0 4 Amended soil design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3
5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12 * Item 4 * Item 5) or Item 6
8 Amended soil surface area (ft2)
9 Amended soil depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
10 Amended soil porosity, n
11 Gravel depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
12 Gravel porosity, n
13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 14 Biotreated Volume (ft3
) Vbiotreated = Item 8 * [(Item 7/2) + (Item 9
* Item 10) +(Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 15 Total biotreated volume from bioretention and/or planter box with underdrains BMP:

Sum of Item 14 for all volume-based BMPs included in this form TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-29
Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment–
Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention
Biotreatment BMP Type
Constructed wetlands, extended wet detention, extended dry detention, or other comparable proprietary BMP. If BMP includes multiple modules (e.g. forebay and main basin), provide separate estimates for storage and pollutants treated in each module.

DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
Forebay Basin Forebay Basin
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP forebay and basin
List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP
2 Bottom width (ft)
3 Bottom length (ft)
4 Bottom area (ft2) Abottom = Item 2 * Item 3
5 Side slope (ft/ft)
6 Depth of storage (ft)
7 Water surface area (ft2)
Asurface =(Item 2 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) * (Item 3 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) 8 Storage volume (ft3) For BMP with a forebay, ensure fraction of total storage is within ranges specified in BMP specific fact sheets, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details V =Item 6 / 3 * [Item 4 + Item 7 + (Item 4 * Item 7)^0.5] 9 Drawdown Time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 2.1
10 Outflow rate (cfs) QBMP = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) / (Item 9 * 3600) 11 Duration of design storm event (hrs)
12 Biotreated Volume (ft3
)
Vbiotreated = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) +( Item 10 * Item 11 * 3600) 13 Total biotreated volume from constructed wetlands, extended dry detention, or extended wet detention :
(Sum of Item 12 for all BMP included in plan)
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-30
Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment
Biotreatment BMP Type
Vegetated swale, vegetated filter strip, or other comparable proprietary BMP
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP
List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in TGD Table 5-5 2 Flow depth for water quality treatment (ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
3 Bed slope (ft/ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
4 Manning's roughness coefficient
5 Bottom width (ft)
bw = (Form 4.3-5 Item 6 * Item 4) / (1.49 * Item 2^1.67 * Item 3^0.5) 6 Side Slope (ft/ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
7 Cross sectional area (ft2)
A = (Item 5 * Item 2) + (Item 6 * Item 2^2)
8 Water quality flow velocity (ft/sec)
V = Form 4.3-5 Item 6 / Item 7
9 Hydraulic residence time (min)
Pollutant specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
10 Length of flow based BMP (ft)
L = Item 8 * Item 9 * 60
11 Water surface area at water quality flow depth (ft2
)
SAtop = (Item 5 + (2 * Item 2 * Item 6)) * Item 10
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-31

4.3.5 Conformance Summary
Complete Form 4.3-9 to demonstrate how on-site LID DCV is met with proposed site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, harvest and use, and/or biotreatment BMP. The bottom line of the form is used to describe the basis for infeasibility determination for on-site LID BMP to achieve full LID DCV, and provides methods for computing remaining volume to be addressed in an alternative compliance plan. If the project has more than one outlet, then complete additional versions of this form for each outlet.

Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative
Compliance Volume Estimate (DA 1)
1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA-1 & DA-2 (ft3): 96,304 ft3Copy Item 7 in Form 4.2-1 2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0 ft3Copy Item 30 in Form 4.3-2 3 On-site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 98,368/ ft3 Copy Item 16 in Form 4.3-3 4 On-site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0 ft3 Copy Item 9 in Form 4.3-4 5 On-site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0 ft3 Copy Item 3 in Form 4.3-5 6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0 ft3 Copy Item 6 in Form 4.3-5 7 LID BMP performance criteria are achieved if answer to any of the following is “Yes”:
· Full retention of LID DCV with site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP: Yes No If yes, sum of Items 2, 3, and 4 is greater than Item 1 · Combination of on-site retention BMPs for a portion of the LID DCV and volume-based biotreatment BMP that address all pollutants of concern for the remaining LID DCV: Yes No If yes, a) sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is greater than Item 1, and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized; or b) Item 6 is greater than Form

4.3--5 Item 6 and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized
§ On-site retention and infiltration is determined to be infeasible and biotreatment BMP provide biotreatment for all pollutants of concern for full LID DCV: Yes No
If yes, Form 4.3-1 Items 7 and 8 were both checked yes
8 If the LID DCV is not achieved by any of these means, then the project may be allowed to develop an alternative compliance plan. Check box that describes the scenario which caused the need for alternative compliance:
· Combination of HSC, retention and infiltration, harvest and use, and biotreatment BMPs provide less than full LID DCV capture:

Checked yes for Form 4.3-5 Item 7, Item 6 is zero, and sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is less than Item 1. If so, apply water quality credits and calculate volume for alternative compliance, Valt = (Item 1 – Item 2 – Item 3 – Item 4 – Item 5) * (100 - Form 2.4-1 Item 2)% · An approved Watershed Action Plan (WAP) demonstrates that water quality and hydrologic impacts of urbanization are more effective when managed in at an off-site facility:

Attach appropriate WAP section, including technical documentation, showing effectiveness comparisons for the project site and regional watershed
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-32

4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP
Use Form 4.3-10 to compute the remaining runoff volume retention, after LID BMP are implemented, needed to address HCOC, and the increase in time of concentration and decrease in peak runoff necessary to meet targets for protection of waterbodies with a potential HCOC. Describe hydromodification control BMP that address HCOC, which may include off-site BMP and/or in-stream controls. Section 5.6 of the TGD for WQMP provides additional details on selection and evaluation of hydromodification control BMP.

Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMPs
1 Volume reduction needed for HCOC
performance criteria (ft3):
(Form 4.2-2 Item 4 * 0.95) – Form 4.2-2 Item 1
2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, and harvest and use LID BMP (ft3): Sum of Form 4.3-9 Items 2, 3, and 4 Evaluate option to increase implementation of on-site retention in Forms 4.3-2, 4.3-3, and 4.3-4 in excess of LID DCV toward achieving HCOC volume reduction 3 Remaining volume for HCOC
volume capture (ft3): Item 1 –
Item 2
4 Volume capture provided by incorporating additional on-site or off-site retention BMPs (ft3): Existing downstream BMP may be used to demonstrate additional volume capture (if so, attach to this WQMP a hydrologic analysis showing how the additional volume would be retained during a 2-yr storm event for the regional watershed)
5 If Item 4 is less than Item 3, incorporate in-stream controls on downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification Attach in-stream control BMP selection and evaluation to this WQMP 6 Is Form 4.2-2 Item 11 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below:
· Demonstrate increase in time of concentration achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMP, and additional on-site or off-site retention BMP
BMP upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate increased time of concentration through hydrograph attenuation (if so, show that the hydraulic residence time provided in BMP for a 2-year storm event is equal or greater than the addition time of concentration requirement in Form 4.2-4 Item 15) · Increase time of concentration by preserving pre-developed flow path and/or increase travel time by reducing slope and increasing cross-sectional area and roughness for proposed on-site conveyance facilities · Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California 7 Form 4.2-2 Item 12 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No
If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below:
· Demonstrate reduction in peak runoff achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMPs, and additional on-site or off-site retention BMPs
BMPs upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate additional peak runoff reduction through hydrograph attenuation (if so, attach to this WQMP, a hydrograph analysis showing how the peak runoff would be reduced during a 2-yr storm event)
· Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-33

4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable)
Describe an alternative compliance plan (if applicable) for projects not fully able to infiltrate, harvest and use, or biotreat the DCV via on-site LID practices. A project proponent must develop an alternative compliance plan to address the remainder of the LID DCV. Depending on project type some projects may qualify for water quality credits that can be applied to reduce the DCV that must be treated prior to development of an alternative compliance plan (see Form 2.4-1, Water Quality Credits). Form 4.3-9 Item 8 includes instructions on how to apply water quality credits when computing the DCV that must be met through alternative compliance. Alternative compliance plans may include one or more of the following elements:
· On-site structural treatment control BMP - All treatment control BMP should be located as close to possible to the pollutant sources and should not be located within receiving waters; · Off-site structural treatment control BMP - Pollutant removal should occur prior to discharge of runoff to receiving waters;
· Urban runoff fund or In-lieu program, if available
Depending upon the proposed alternative compliance plan, approval by the executive officer may or may not be required (see Section 6 of the TGD for WQMP).

TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-1
Section 5 Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility
for Post Construction BMP
All BMP included as part of the project WQMP are required to be maintained through regular scheduled inspection and maintenance (refer to Section 8, Post Construction BMP Requirements, in the TGD for WQMP). Fully complete Form 5-1 summarizing all BMP included in the WQMP. Attach additional forms as needed. The WQMP shall also include a detailed Operation and Maintenance Plan for all BMP and may require a Maintenance Agreement (consult the jurisdiction’s LIP). If a Maintenance Agreement is required, it must also be attached to the WQMP.

Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance
(use additional forms as necessary)
BMP Reponsible Party(s) Inspection/ Maintenance
Activities Required
Minimum Frequency
of Activities
Infiltration
Rock basins
Education of
Property
Owners,
Tenants and
Occupants on
Stormwater
BMPs
Little League, LLC
Little League, LLC
Remove accumulated trash and debris in the basin at the start and end of the wet season. Inspect for standing
water at the end of the wet season.

Trim vegetation at the beginning and end of the wet
season to prevent establishment of woody vegetation and for aesthetic and vector reasons.

Remove accumulated sediment and regrade when the
accumulated sediment volume exceeds 10% of the basin.

If erosion is occurring within the basin, re-vegetate
immediately and stabilize with an erosion control mulch or mat until vegetation cover is established
Practical education materials will be provided to property owners covering various water quality issues that will need to be addressed on their specific site. These materials will include general good house keeping practices that
contribute to the protection of storm water quality and BMP’s that eliminate or reduce pollution during property improvements.
2 times a year at the
beginning and end of
the rainy season
(October to March)
Ongoing
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-2
Landscape
maintenance
BMP
maintenance
Litter debris
control
program
Employee
training
Catch basin
inspection
program
Provide
storm drain
system
stencilling
and signage
Use efficient
irrigation
systems &
landscape
design, water
conservation,
smart
controllers,
and source
control
Little League, LLC
Little League, LLC
Little League, LLC
Little League, LLC
.

Little League, LLC
Little League, LLC
Little League, LLC
Landscape planning is implemented to reduce
groundwater and storm water contamination. This will be accomplished through an infiltration basin, and landscape areas.

See BMP fact sheets and Table 5-1 details hereon
Litter debris control program may be developed by City of San Bernardino
Employee training may be developed by City of San
Bernardino
Catch basins and the filter devices will be inspected/clean a minimum of once every three months during the dry
season and a minimum of once every two months during
the rainy season.

Signs will be placed above storm drain inlets to warn the public of prohibitions against waste disposal
Rain sensors will be incorporated into the onsite sprinkler system so that no unnecessary watering of landscaped
areas occurs after storm events.

Monthly
Ongoing with every
visit
Ongoing with every
visit
As stated
Place at grate
installation and
inspect once a year
Once a year or
according to
Manufacturer
Manuals
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-3
Finish grade
of landscaped
areas at a
minimum of
1-2 inches
below top of
curb,
sidewalk, or
pavement
Street
Sweeping
Little League, LLC
Little League, LLC
.

New landscaped areas will be constructed at a minimum
of 1 inch below existing paved areas
Street weeping and Vaccuming
Once a year
Bi Monthly
TRACT# 20150
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
6-4
Section 6 WQMP Attachments

6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan
Include a site plan and drainage plan sheet set containing the following minimum information:

6.2 Electronic Data Submittal
Minimum requirements include submittal of PDF exhibits in addition to hard copies. Format must not require specialized software to open. If the local jurisdiction requires specialized electronic document formats (as described in their local Local Implementation Plan), this section will describe the contents (e.g., layering, nomenclature, geo-referencing, etc.) of these documents so that they may be interpreted efficiently and accurately.

6.3 Post Construction
Attach all O&M Plans and Maintenance Agreements for BMP to the WQMP.

6.4 Other Supporting Documentation
§ BMP Educational Materials
§ Activity Restriction – C, C&R’s & Lease Agreements
§ Project location
§ Site boundary
§ Land uses and land covers, as applicable
§ Suitability/feasibility constraints
§ Structural Source Control BMP locations
§ Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP locations
§ LID BMP details
§ Drainage delineations and flow information
§ Drainage connections

Page 1 of 9 ends

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

County of San Bernardino
Department of Public Works
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

County of San Bernardino
Department of Public Works
825 E. Third Street, Room 117
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

COVENANT AND AGREEMENT REGARDING WATER QUALITY

MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES TRANSFER, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE

THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION

Page 2 of 9 ends

Covenant and Agreement Regarding Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater Best Management Practices
Transfer, Access and Maintenance
OWNER NAME: Little League, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Tract No. 20150, SanBernardino,
CA
APN: 0348-111-05,24,25 & 26 and 0348-121-18,20,21 & 25
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in
,California, this day of
, by and between
, hereinafter
referred to as Owner, and the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “the County”; WHEREAS, the Owner owns real property (“Property”) in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, more specifically described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B”, each of which exhibits is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, at the time of initial approval of development project known as within the Property described herein,
the County required the project to employ Best Management Practices, hereinafter referred to as “BMPs,” to minimize pollutants in urban runoff; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has chosen to install and/or implement BMPs as described in the Water Quality Management Plan, dated ______________________, on file with the County and incorporated herein by this reference, hereinafter referred to as “WQMP”, to minimize pollutants in urban runoff and to minimize other adverse impacts of urban runoff; and WHEREAS, said WQMP has been certified by the Owner and reviewed and approved by the County; and
WHEREAS, the Owner is aware that periodic and continuous maintenance, including, but not necessarily limited to, filter material replacement and sediment removal, is required to assure peak performance of all BMPs in the WQMP and that, furthermore, such maintenance activity will require compliance with all Local, State, or Federal laws and regulations, including those pertaining to confined space and waste disposal methods, in effect at the time such maintenance occurs.

Page 3 of 9 ends

NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually stipulated and agreed as follows:

1. Owner shall comply with the WQMP

2. All maintenance or replacement of BMPs proposed as part of the WQMP are the sole responsibility of the Owner in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

3. Owner hereby provides the County’s designee complete access, of any duration, to the BMPs and their immediate vicinity at any time, upon reasonable notice, or in the event of emergency, as determined by the County Director of Public Works, no advance notice, for the purpose of inspection, sampling, testing of the BMPs, and in case of emergency, to undertake all necessary repairs or other preventative measures at owner’s expense as provided in paragraph 5 below. The County shall make every effort at all times to minimize or avoid interference with Owner’s use of the Property. Denial of access to any premises or facility that contains WQMP features is a breach of this Agreement and may also be a violation of the County’s Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations, which on the effective date of this Agreement are found in County Code Sections 35.0101 et seq. If there is reasonable cause to believe that an illicit discharge or breach of this Agreement is occurring on the premises then the authorized enforcement agency may seek issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction in addition to other enforcement actions. Owner recognizes that the County may perform routine and regular inspections, as well as emergency inspections, of the BMPs. Owner or Owner’s successors or assigns shall pay County for all costs incurred by County in the inspection, sampling, testing of the BMPs within thirty (30) calendar days of County invoice.

4. Owner shall use its best efforts diligently to maintain all BMPs in a manner assuring peak performance at all times. All reasonable precautions shall be exercised by Owner and Owner’s representative or contractor in the removal and extraction of any material(s) from the BMPs and the ultimate disposal of the material(s) in a manner consistent with all relevant laws and regulations in effect at the time. As may be requested from time to time by the County, the Owner shall provide the County with documentation identifying the material(s) removed, the quantity, and disposal destination), testing construction or reconstruction.

5. In the event Owner, or its successors or assigns, fails to accomplish the necessary maintenance contemplated by this Agreement, within five (5) business days of being given written notice by the County , the County is hereby authorized to cause any maintenance necessary to be done and charge the entire cost and expense against the Property and/or to the Owner or Owner’s successors or assigns, including administrative costs, attorneys fees and interest thereon at the maximum rate authorized by the County Code from the date of the notice of expense until paid in full. Owner or Owner’s successors or assigns shall pay County within thirty (30) calendar days of County invoice.

6. The County may require the owner to post security in form and for a time period satisfactory to the County to guarantee the performance of the obligations stated herein.

Should the Owner fail to perform the obligations under the Agreement, the County may, in the case of a cash bond, act for the Owner using the proceeds from it, or in the case of a surety bond, require the surety(ies) to perform the obligations of this Agreement.

Page 4 of 9 ends

7. The County agrees, from time to time, within ten (10) business days after request of Owner, to execute and deliver to Owner, or Owner's designee, an estoppel certificate requested by Owner, stating that this Agreement is in full force and effect, and that Owner is not in default hereunder with regard to any maintenance or payment obligations (or specifying in detail the nature of Owner's default). Owner shall pay all costs and expenses incurred by the County in its investigation of whether to issue an estoppel certificate within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of a County invoice and prior to the County’s issuance of such certificate. Where the County cannot issue an estoppel certificate, Owner shall pay the County within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a County invoice.

8. Owner shall not change any BMPs identified in the WQMP without an amendment to this Agreement approved by authorized representatives of both the County and the Owner.

9. County and Owner shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, court orders and government agency orders now or hereinafter in effect in carrying out the terms of this Agreement. If a provision of this Agreement is terminated or held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall remain in full effect.

10. In addition to any remedy available to County under this Agreement, if Owner violates any term of this Agreement and does not cure the violation within the time already provided in this Agreement, or, if not provided, within thirty (30) calendar days, or within such time authorized by the County if said cure reasonably requires more than the subject time, the County may bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance by the Owner with the terms of this Agreement. In such action, the County may recover any damages to which the County may be entitled for the violation, enjoin the violation by temporary or permanent injunction without the necessity of proving actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies, or obtain other equitable relief, including, but not limited to, the restoration of the Property and/or the BMPs identified in the WQMP to the condition in which it/they existed prior to any such violation or injury.

11. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, at the expense of the Owner and shall constitute notice to all successors and assigns of the title to said Property of the obligation herein set forth, and also a lien in such amount as will fully reimburse the County, including interest as herein above set forth, subject to foreclosure in event of default in payment.

12. In event of legal action occasioned by any default or action of the Owner, or its successors or assigns, then the Owner and its successors or assigns agree(s) to hold the County harmless and pay all costs incurred by the County in enforcing the terms of this Agreement, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and that the same shall become a part of the lien against said Property.

13. It is the intent of the parties hereto that burdens and benefits herein undertaken shall constitute covenants that run with said Property and constitute a lien there against.

14. The obligations herein undertaken shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. The term “Owner” shall include not only the present Owner, but also its heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns.

Owner shall notify any successor to title of all or part of the Property about the existence of

Page 5 of 9 ends

this Agreement. Owner shall provide such notice prior to such successor obtaining an interest in all or part of the Property. Owner shall provide a copy of such notice to the County at the same time such notice is provided to the successor.

15. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

16. Any notice to a party required or called for in this Agreement shall be served in person, or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, to the address set forth below.

Notice(s) shall be deemed effective upon receipt, or seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, whichever is earlier. A party may change a notice address only by providing written notice thereof to the other party.

17. Owner agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably approved by the County) and hold harmless the County and its authorized officers, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all claims, actions, losses, damages, and/or liability arising out of this Agreement from any cause whatsoever, including the acts, errors or omissions of any person and for any costs or expenses incurred by the County on account of any claim except where such indemnification is prohibited by law. This indemnification provision shall apply regardless of the existence or degree of fault of indemnitees. The Owner’s indemnification obligation applies to the County’s “active” as well as “passive” negligence but does not apply to the County’s “sole negligence” or “willful misconduct” within the meaning of Civil Code Section 2782, or to any claims, actions, losses, damages, and/or liabilities, to the extent caused by the acts or omissions of any third party contractors undertaking any work (other than field inspections) or other maintenance on the Property on behalf of the County under this Agreement..
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Page 6 of 9 ends

IF TO COUNTY : IF TO OWNER:

Director of Public Works
825 E. Third Street, Room 117
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures as of the date first written above.

OWNER:

Signature: ________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________
Date: __________________________
OWNER:

Signature: ________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________
Date: ___________________________
FOR: Maintenance Agreement, dated
_________________________, for the
project known as
__________________________________
__________________________________
(APN)_____________________________,
As described in the WQMP dated
_________________________________.

NOTARIES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
A notary acknowledgement is required for recordation.

ACCEPTED BY:

KEVIN BLAKESLEE, P.E., Director of Public Works
Date: ___________________________________
Attachment: Notary Acknowledgement

Page 7 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Notary Acknowledgement)

Page 8 of 9 ends

EXHIBIT A
(Legal Description)

SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Order No. 140-1908121-32

Page 15 ends

Exhibit “A”
Parcel A:

A portion of Government Lot 3, Section 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to Official Plat of said Land, approved by the Surveyor General on June 24, 1898, and being particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 35; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of Government Lot 3, Section 35, to a point which is the mid-point of the North line of said Lot 3; thence Southerly in a straight line to the mid-point of the Southerly line of said Government Lot 3; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 3 to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North along the Easterly line of said Government Lot 3 to the Point of Beginning.

Parcel B:

A portion of Government Lot 4, Section 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to Official Plat of said land, approved by the Surveyor General on June 24, 1898, and being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of Government Lot 4 of said Section 35 to a point which is the mid-point of the North line of said Lot 4; thence Southerly in a straight line to the mid-point of the Southerly line of said Government Lot 4 to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North along the Easterly line of said Government Lot 4 to the Point of Beginning.

Parcel C:

All of Government Lots 1 and 2, Section 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the Official Plat of said land approved by the Surveyor General on June 24, 1898.

Parcel D:

The North 14 acres of that portion of the Southwest ¼ of Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the Official P1st thereof, described as follows:

Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Southwesterly 1/4, said corner being also the Southeast corner of Lot 1 of said Section; thence West along the South line of said Lot 1, 835 feet to an intersection of said South line with that certain line commonly known as the Perrin Line, as shown on Government Plat thereof approved June 24, 1898; thence North 64° West along said Perrin Line 1685 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along said Perrin Line, North 64° West 400 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of the land conveyed by Rance M. Mecham, to Lena Lerner by Deed recorded December 20, 1920 in Book 704, of Deeds;

Page 57 ends

the Southwest ¼ of said Section 36, or its Westerly extension: thence East along the said Northerly line of the Southwest ¼ of said Section 36, and its extension, 660.5 feet; thence South 1282 feet; thence North 64° West 160 feet; thence South 23° 30’ West 490 feet; thence South 10° East 220 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The South line of said North 14 acres being parallel with the North line thereof.

Except therefrom that portion lying within the Parcel described as Parcel No. 1 in the Deed to the City of San Bernardino by Deed recorded April 3, 1974 in Book 8401, Page 1043, Official Records.

Parcel E:

That portion of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the Official Plat thereof, described as follows:

Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Southwest one-quarter, said corner being also the Southeast corner of Lot 1 of said Section; Thence West along the South line of said Lot 1,835 feet to an intersection of said South line with that certain line commonly known as the Perrin Line, as shown on Government Plat thereof approved June 24, 1898; Thence North 64° West along said Perrin Line 1685 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Order No. 140-1908121-32

Page 16 ends

Thence continuing along said Perrin Line, North 64° West 400 feet, more or less to the Southeast corner of the land conveyed by Rance M. Mecham, to Lena Lerner by Deed recorded December 20, 1920 in Book 704 of Deeds, Page 57; Thence North along the East line of the land so conveyed, 1702.8 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the North line of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 36, or its Westerly extension, thence East along the said Northerly line of the Southwest onequarter of said Section 36 and its extension, 660.5 feet; Thence South 1282 feet;
Thence North 64° West 160 feet;
Thence South 23° 30’ West 490 feet;
Thence South 10° East 220 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

Except therefrom the North 14 acres, the South line of said North 14 acres being parallel with the North line thereof.

Also except therefrom that portion lying within the Parcel described as Parcel No. 1 in the Deed to the City of San Bernardino by Deed recorded April 3, 1974 in Book 8401 Page 1043 Official Records.

Parcel F:

Being a portion of that Parcel of Land as described in the Grant Deed to First American Title Insurance Company, a California Corporation by Official Record No. 87-179437, as recorded May 28, 1987, in the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder; more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Parcel;
Thence North 64° West along the North line of Rancho Muscupiabe, according to the United States Government Map thereof, approved June 24, 1898, said line also commonly referred to as the “Perrin Line”, a distance of 800 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of that property Deeded to Dwight L. Bryant and Lillil Fay Bryant per Book 260, Page 172 of Official Records of said County on August 1, 1927;
Thence continuing the following three courses along the Easterly line of the above mentioned Bryant Property;

1. North 10° West, a distance of 220 feet;

2. North 23° 30’ East, a distance of 490 feet.

3. South 64° East, a distance of 160 feet.

Thence continuing South 64° East an additional 330.8 feet, more or less to a point which is 79.2 feet West and 825.0 feet North of the Point of Beginning;
Thence East a distance of 79.2 feet to the Easterly line of said First American Title Insurance Company Parcel; Thence South along the Easterly line of said Parcel, a distance of 825.0 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Parcel G:

That portion of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the U. S. Government Township Plat thereof, described as follows:

Commencing at the intersection of the West line of said Section 36 with the North line of the Rancho Muscupiabe as per Plat thereof recorded in Book 7 of Maps, Page 23, records of the County Recorder of said County; thence North 01° 24’ 24” West along said West line of Section 36, a distance of 1,063.47 feet; thence South 61° 35’ 04” East, a distance of 220.40 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 61° 35’ 04’ East, a distance of 222.00 feet; thence North 28° 24’ 56” East, a distance of 264.00 feet; thence North 61° 35’ 04” West, a distance of 222.00 feet; thence South 28° 24’ 56” West, a distance of 264.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

Parcel H:

All of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the Official Plat thereof.

Order No. 140-1908121-32

Page 17 ends

Excepting therefrom a portion of Government Lot 3, Section 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the Official Plat of the United States Survey and being particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the East one-quarter corner of said Government Lot 3; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of Government Lot 3 of said Section 35 to a point which is the mid-point of the Northerly line of said Lot 3; thence Southerly in a straight line to the midpoint of the Southerly line of said Lot 3; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 3 to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North along the Easterly line of said Government Lot 3 to the point of beginning.

Also excepting therefrom a portion of Government Lot 4 of Section 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to the Official Plat of United States Survey being particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of Government Lot 4 of said Section 35, to a point which is the mid-point of the North line of said Lot 4; thence Southerly in a straight line to a mid-point of the Southerly line of said Government Lot 4; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 4 to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North along the Easterly line of said Government Lot 4 to the point of beginning.

Page 9 of 9 ends

EXHIBIT B
(Map/illustration)

VICINITY MAP
SITE

ON-SITE DETENTION / INFILTRATION BASIN- SECTION A-A'
20150
Infiltration Test Report

NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
Educational Material

BMP Fact Sheets

24"
(600 mm) MIN*

7.0'
(2.1 m)
MAX
100" (2540 mm) 12" (300 mm) TYP
12" (300 mm) MIN
12" (300 mm) MIN
9"
(230 mm) MIN
60"
(1525 mm)

DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN
*MINIMUM COVER TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 30" (750 mm).

SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING

THE REQUIRED BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS

PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED

BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER)
MC-4500

END CAP

PERIMETER STONE

EXCAVATION WALL
(CAN BE SLOPED

OR VERTICAL)
CHAMBERS SHALL BE BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". ADS GEOSYTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN

GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED,

ANGULAR EMBEDMENT STONE
CHAMBERS SHALL MEET ASTM F2418 "STANDARD

SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPELENE (PP) CORRUGATED
WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".

EMBEDMENT STONE SHALL BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED AND ANGULAR
STONE WITH AN AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION BETWEEN #3 AND #4
GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35%
FINES, COMPACT IN 12" (300 mm) MAX LIFTS TO 95% PROCTOR DENSITY. SEE THE TABLE OF ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS.

MC-4500 CHAMBER
Designed to meet the most stringent industry performance standards for superior structural integrity while providing designers with a cost-effective method to save valuable land and protect water resources. The StormTech system is designed primarily to be used under parking lots, thus maximizing land usage for private (commercial) and public applications. StormTech chambers can also be used in conjunction with Green Infrastructure, thus enhancing the performance and extending the service life of these practices.

STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBER
(not to scale)
Nominal Chamber Specifications
Size (L x W x H)
52” x 100” x 60”
1,321 mm x 2,540 mm x 1,524 mm
Chamber Storage
106.5 ft3 (3.01 m3)
Min. Installed Storage*
162.6 ft3 (4.60 m3)
Weight
120 lbs (54.4 kg)
Shipping
7 chambers/pallet
11 pallets/truck
*Assumes a minimum of 12” (300 mm) of
stone above, 9” (230 mm) of stone below
chambers, 9” (230 mm) of stone between
chambers/end caps and 40% stone porosity.

STORMTECH MC-4500 END CAP
(not to scale)
Nominal End Cap Specifications
Size (L x W x H)

35.1” x 90.2” x 59.4”
891 mm x 2,291 mm x 1,509 mm
End Cap Storage

35.7 ft3 (1.01 m3)
Min. Installed Storage*
108.7 ft3 (3.08 m3)
Weight
120 lbs (54.4 kg)
Shipping
7 end caps/pallet
11 pallets/truck
*Assumes a minimum of 12” (300 mm) of stone
above, 9” (230 mm) of stone below, 6” (150 mm)
of stone perimeter, 9” (230 mm) of stone between
chambers/end caps and 40% stone porosity.

THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS TM Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
4640 Trueman Blvd., Hilliard, OH 43026
1-800-821-6710 www.ads-pipe.com
ADS “Terms and Conditions of Sale” are available on the ADS website, www.ads-pipe.com The ADS logo and the Green Stripe are registered trademarks of Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.

StormTech® is a registered trademark of StormTech, Inc. © 2017 Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. #S26B1110 09/17 CS For more information on the StormTech MC-4500 Chamber and other ADS products, please contact our Customer Service Representatives at 1-800-821-6710 TOOL
DESIGN
MC-4500 CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS
STORAGE VOLUME PER CHAMBER FT3 (M3)
Note: Assumes 9” (230 mm) of separation between chamber rows, 12” (300 mm) of perimeter in front of the end caps, and 24” (600 mm) of cover. The volume of excavation will varyas depth of cover increases.

Note: Assumes 9” (230 mm) row spacing, 40% stone porosity, 12” (300 mm) stone above and includes the bare chamber/end cap volume. End cap volume assumes 12” (300 mm) stone perimeter.

Working on a project?
Visit us at www.stormtech.com
and utilize the StormTech Design Tool
ENGLISH TONS (yds3) Stone Foundation Depth
9” 12” 15” 18”
MC-4500 Chamber 7.4 (5.2) 7.8 (5.5) 8.3 (5.9) 8.8 (6.2) MC-4500 End Cap 9.6 (6.8) 10.0 (7.1) 10.4 (7.4) 10.9 (7.7) METRIC KILOGRAMS (m3) 230 mm 300 mm 375 mm 450 mm
MC-4500 Chamber 6,681 (4.0) 7,117 (4.2) 7,552 (4.5) 7,987 (4.7) MC-4500 End Cap 8,691 (5.2) 9,075 (5.4) 9,460 (5.6) 9,845 (5.9) Note: Assumes 12” (300 mm) of stone above and 9” (230 mm) row spacing and 12” (300 mm) of perimeter stone in front of end caps.

AMOUNT OF STONE PER CHAMBER
Stone Foundation Depth
9” (230 mm) 12” (300 mm) 15” (375mm) 18” (450 mm)
MC-4500 Chamber 10.5 (8.0) 10.8 (8.3) 11.2 (8.5) 11.5 (8.8) MC-4500 End Cap 9.3 (7.1) 9.6 (7.3) 9.9 (7.6) 10.2 (7.8) VOLUME EXCAVATION PER CHAMBER YD3 (M3)
Bare
Chamber
Storage
ft3 (m3)
Chamber and Stone
Foundation Depth in. (mm)
9” (230
mm) 12” (300 mm) 15” (375 mm) 18” (450 mm)
MC-4500 Chamber 106.5 (3.02) 162.6 (4.60) 166.3 (4.71) 169.6 (4.81) 173.6 (4.91) MC-4500 End Cap 35.7 (1.0) 108.7 (3.08) 111.9 (3.17) 115.2 (3.26) 118.4 (3.35)

Site Plan
(WQMP Exhibit)

VICINITY MAP
SITE

ON-SITE DETENTION / INFILTRATION BASIN- SECTION A-A'
20150

Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
Q3 Consulting
Appendix M: As-Builts

18'-4" 9'-1 1/2" 5'-2 1/2" 18'-5" 33'-7 1/2"
76'-3" 14'-0" 5'-7 3/4"
32'-5 3/4" 9'-9 3/4"

67.4° 156.62° 3'-0"
9'-0"

Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
11-66 Q3 Consulting
Appendix N: Environmental Constraints Analysis
215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com Remi Candaele
Project Manager
Q3 Consulting
27042 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 110
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Via e-mail to: [email protected]
Subject: Environmental Constraints Analysis for the Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan Project, San Bernardino, California
Dear Mr. Candaele:

ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) is pleased to submit this Environmental Constraints Analysis for the Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located within the City of San Bernardino (City, Lead Agency), approximately 2.6-miles east-southeast of the Interstate 15 (I-15) and I-215 interchange (Figure 1). Meyers Creek stretches from Cable Creek to the headwaters at the top of Meyers Canyon. Upstream of the crossing at Meyers Road, the channel is largely unimproved. Between Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue, Meyers Creek is a graded trapezoidal earthen channel that is undersized. The neighborhood surrounding the stretch of Meyers Creek from Meyers Road to Cable Creek is subject to flooding during large storm events. This Environmental Constraints Analysis has been prepared to compare, identify, and assess anticipated environmental constraints of the Proposed Project for two site alternatives (Figure 2). Figures are included in Attachment A. For the purposes of this analysis the following naming conventions are used: Project Alternative I (Meyers Creek Channelization) and Project Alternative II (Storm Drain System).

Project Alternative I: Meyers Creek Channelization
The proposed earthen channel improvements start approximately 414-feet downstream of Belmont Avenue following the existing path of Meyers Creek. Upstream of the existing culvert at Meyers Road, the channel design expands gradually to maximize capture of flows from smaller tributaries in Meyers Canyon. The upstream end of the project stops approximately 500-feet from the existing culvert at Meyers Road. The minimum slope is 0.5-percent south of Belmont Avenue, and the maximum channel slope is

7.31-percent north of Meyers Road. The channel section between Belmont and Meyers is sloped at 4.11- percent. The width of the proposed channel varies significantly from 12-feet to 150-feet with a constant side slope of 2H:1V. The channel depth ranges from 4.5-feet to 12.6-feet, and the banks are 15-feet or 18- feet wide depending on the width of the channel. The existing crossings at Belmont Avenue and Meyers Road would be replaced with arch culverts with spans of 32-feet and rises of approximately 12-feet. Both the left and right banks of the proposed channel would extend past the proposed channel improvements to meet with the existing ground.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 2 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
(Channel would pass through the following privately owned Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), and rights-of-ways (ROWs): 0261-061-01, Culvert Underneath W Meyers Rd ROW, 0261-061-09, 0261-061-07, 0348-111-19, 0261-061-28, Culvert Underneath Belmont Ave ROW, 0261-131-02, and 0261-131-03) Project Alternative II: Storm Drain System
Project Alternative II would be constructed under the ROW of Meyers Road, N. Little League Drive, Belmont Avenue, and a portion of City owned APN: 0261-132-01 to Cable Creek. Meyers Creek stretches from Cable Creek to the headwaters at the top of Meyers Canyon. Upstream of the crossing at Meyers Road, the channel is largely unimproved. Between Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue, Meyers Creek is a graded trapezoidal earthen channel that is undersized. The neighborhood surrounding the stretch of Meyers Creek from Meyers Road to Cable Creek is subject to flooding during large storm events. The proposed storm drain captures overflows from the culverts at Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue in rectangular channels adjacent to the north side of Meyers Road between the Meyers Creek crossing and Little League Drive. Channels would be rectangular with drop inlets connected to the main storm drain.

Additional channels would be included adjacent to the north side of Belmont Avenue between the Meyers Creek crossing and Little League Drive. Curb inlet catch basins with filter inserts would be included throughout Project Alternative II at main intersections and locations where existing catch basins are undersized. Additionally existing catch basins currently connected to the storm drain at the intersection of Meyers Road and Little League Drive would be altered to connect to the proposed storm drain. Similar alterations would be made to the catch basin on the south side of Meyers Road, just east of the crossing.

The channels and catch basins contribute to a storm drain running from the Meyers Road crossing, within the roadway, to Little League Drive where it turns south. The storm drain picks up flow from the catch basins along Belmont Avenue before letting out to Cable Creek east of the Little League Drive crossing.

The length of storm drain along Little League Drive also remains within the roadway until it turns towards its eventual outlet to Cable Creek.

This Environmental Constraints Analysis for the Proposed Project was conducted by reviewing subject sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study (IS) checklist to identify potential environmental constraints during the planning process and is not intended to be used as a full CEQA analysis. It is understood that a future CEQA document will be prepared by the Lead Agency once a site plan has been determined and project details are available.

Environmental Limitations and Constraints
The Environmental Constraints Analysis has identified a need for further study of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology, Greenhouse Gas, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources for the Proposed Project. It is recommended that subsequent CEQA documentation further analyze these areas for potential impacts. A summary of the recommendations in this letter report is provided below.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 3 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Review of Environmental Resources
For the purposes of this analysis, environmental issues to be addressed in any subsequent CEQA documentation for development of the Proposed Project are summarized below, followed by the listing of any potential environmental limitations or constraints to development for the subject site alternatives.

Resource
Alternative I
Recommendation
Alternative I
Timing
Alternative II
Recommendation
Alternative II
Timing
General CEQA
Recommendation
Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Before Project
approval by City
Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Before Project
approval by City
Air Quality
Streamlined Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment
During CEQA
process
Streamlined Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment
During CEQA
process
Biological
Resources
Biological Resource
Assessment
During CEQA
process
Biological Resource
Assessment
During CEQA
process
Special-status plant species
habitat assessment
During the
appropriate
season, prior to
construction.

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
(SBKR) Assessment
During the
appropriate
season, prior to
construction.

Pre-construction Nesting Bird
Survey
During the
appropriate
season, prior to
construction.

Formal consultation between
USACE and USFWS under
Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act.

During CEQA
process
Presence/Absence survey for
bat species within Project
Alternative I Site
During the
appropriate
season, prior to
construction.

Section 404 permit, and
certification or waiver in
compliance with Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act.

During CEQA
process
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 4 of 32 ends

CDFW Section 1600 Lake and
Streambed Alteration
Agreement.

During CEQA
process
Appropriate habitat
assessments and focus surveys
for sensitive species:

Habitat assessment and
focused mammal trapping for
SBKR, if needed (March –
August)
Habitat Assessment and
focused surveys for Crotch
bumble bee
Focused avian survey for
coastal California gnatcatcher
(March – June)
Focused survey for arroyo toad
(March – July)
Focused bat survey
Focused plant survey for
species such as Nevin’s
barberry, slender-horned
spineflower, and Santa Ana
River woollystar (May –
August).

Burrowing owl habitat
assessment, and focused
surveys, if needed (MarchAugust).

During the
appropriate
season, prior to
construction.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 5 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Resource
Alternative I
Recommendation
Alternative I
Timing
Alternative II
Recommendation
Alternative II
Timing
Issuance of Waste Discharge
Requirement by State or
Regional Water Quality Control
Board
During CEQA
process
CDFW Section 1600 Lake and
Streambed Alteration
Agreement
During CEQA
process
Cultural
Resources
Formal Cultural Resources
Report
During CEQA
process
Formal Cultural Resources
Report
During CEQA
process
“stop work” clause in
construction specifications, on
call archaeologist, worker
education training
During
construction
“stop work” clause in
construction specifications, on
call archaeologist, worker
education training
During
construction
Energy
Streamlined Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment (Energy Modeling)
During CEQA
process
Streamlined Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment
(Energy Modeling)
During CEQA
process
Geology
Site-Specific Geotechnical
Evaluation
During CEQA
process
Site-Specific Geotechnical
Evaluation
During CEQA
process
Paleontological Records Search During CEQA
process
Paleontological Records Search During CEQA
process
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Streamlined Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment
During CEQA
process
Streamlined Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment
During CEQA
process
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 6 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Resource
Alternative I
Recommendation
Alternative I
Timing
Alternative II
Recommendation
Alternative II
Timing
Land Use and
Planning
Change of land use/zoning and
General Plan Amendment for
the City’s partial acquisition of
private property.

During CEQA
process
No land use constraints for
Project Alternative II
During CEQA
process
Noise
Focused noise
analysis/modeling
During CEQA
process
Focused noise
analysis/modeling
During CEQA
process
Transportation Prepare Traffic Control Plan Prior to any lane closures
Prepare Traffic Control Plan Prior to any lane
closures
Tribal Cultural
Resources
AB 52 Native American
Notification
During CEQA
process
AB 52 Native American
Notification
During CEQA
process
Aesthetics. Both Project Alternative I and Project Alternative II are located more than 30-miles west of the closest Officially Designates State Scenic Highway (State Route 38). Visual resources within the City that benefit from sensitive treatment of land include Kendall Hills, San Bernardino Mountains, the hillsides adjacent to Arrowhead Springs, Lytel Creek Wash, East Twin Creeks Wash, the Santa Ana River, Badger Canyon, Bailey Canyon, and Waterman Canyon (City 2005). Both Project Alternatives I and II would not disturb these significant ridgelines and visual resources that define the City’s distinctive vistas.

Furthermore, neither Project Alternatives would include new on-site lighting, and would not include materials that would generate a new source of glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Project Alternative I
Project Alternative I would channelize the largely unimproved Meyers Creek from approximately 414-feet downstream of Belmont Avenue following the existing path of Meyers Creek to 500-feet upstream of the existing culvert at Meyers Road. The width of the proposed channel varies significantly from 12-feet to 150-feet, with a depth that ranges from 4.5-feet to 12.6-feet, and banks with a width of either 15-feet or 18-feet depending on the width of the channel. The existing crossings at Belmont Avenue and Meyers Road would be replaced with arch culverts with spans of 32-feet and rises of approximately 12-feet. Both the left and right banks of the proposed channel would extend past the proposed channel improvements to meet with the existing ground. The channelization of Meyers Creek would alter the existing visual character of the largely unimproved course of Meyers Creek.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 7 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Project Alternative II
Project Alternative II proposes the construction of a storm drainage system that would underlie existing ROW to direct stormwater flows to Cable Creek, just south of the Little League Baseball facility. Alternative II would not substantially alter the visual character of the site and its surroundings, as it would be constructed within existing ROWs.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Neither of the Project Alternatives include land zoned for forest land or agriculture (City 2005, Figure LU-2; DOC 2024a). The neighborhood which surrounds both Project Alternatives is predominantly developed with single family housing and the Western States-Reginal District 43 Little League Baseball Complex. Project Alternative I would be constructed on land with a zoning designation of Residential Estate (RE) and General Plan land use designation of Single Family Residential (SFR). Project Alternative I would also construct two culverts within the West Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue right-of-ways (ROWs). Project Alternative II would be constructed mostly within the existing Little League Drive, Meyers Road, and Belmont Avenue ROWs, as well as a small portion of APN 0261-132-01, which is zoned as Public Commercial Recreation.

Both Project Alternative sites and surrounding properties are not currently used for agriculture or timberland production (City 2005; DOC 2024a). Neither site alternative location would be considered environmentally superior with respect to agricultural and forestry resources as both site alternatives would not conflict with agricultural land uses or result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Air Quality. Both Project Alternatives I and II are located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, SCAQMD is required to reduce criteria pollutant emissions for which the air basin is in nonattainment of standards. The Proposed Project conforms with the SCAQMD air quality planning efforts as it would not conflict with the growth forecasts contained in SCAQMD’s air quality attainment.

Specifically, neither Project Alternative would generate new housing units, or result in unplanned population growth. Additionally, the flood control measures included in both Project Alternatives I and II would not generate operational emissions once completed. Typically, a project of this scale would not generate sufficient emissions to result in a significant impact to air quality. However, while the emissions generated during Project operations are expected to be less than significant for either proposed alternative, a streamlined Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment is recommended in order to provide an adequate and defensible analysis.

Biological Resources. A desktop review using the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2024) and the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) (CNPSEI; CNPS 2024) was conducted to determine the special-status plant and wildlife species that have been documented near the Project Site. ECORP searched CNDDB and CNPSEI records within the Project Site boundaries as depicted on USGS 7.5-minute San Bernardino North topographic quadrangle. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online service for Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 8 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the proposed Project Alternatives I and II are located within any species’ designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2024).

Habitat surrounding both Project Alternatives are predominantly urban/developed with single family housing, the Western States-Regional District 43 Little League Baseball Complex, open/vacant land, and native vegetation communities such as California buckwheat scrub and scale broom scrub.

The San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Overlay was established by the Land Use Plan and Land Use Zoning Districts (§§ 82.01.020) and the Overlays (§§ 82.01.0230) of the County of San Bernardino. The purpose of the Biotic Resources Overlay is to implement General Plan policies regarding the “protection and conservation of beneficial rare and endangered plants and animal resources and their habitats” (County 2023). Projects within the County of San Bernardino are required to address the biological resources that appear within the Biotic Resources Overlay and overlap with their project site. Further, project proponents must identify mitigation measures that will reduce or eliminate impacts to the identified resources.

Project Alternative I (Meyers Creek Channelization) is an earthen channel that occurs along Meyers Creek with disturbed/developed land cover and moderate to dense patches of disturbed vegetation including California buckwheat scrub and scale broom scrub, that could provide moderate-quality habitat for special status species. Project Alternative I does not appear to be subject to major anthropogenic disturbances.

Project Alternative II (Storm Drain System) will be constructed under the ROW of Meyers Road, North Little League Drive, Belmont Avenue, and a portion of City owned APNs: 0261-132-01 and 0261-061-01 to Cable Creek. Areas along the road are developed. Other areas within the Project Alternative II site include ruderal/disturbed nonnative forbs and grasses and ornamental vegetation. Project Alternative II is continuously subjected to disturbances associated with human activities, development, and landscape maintenance activities, except for the southern portion that occurs in or adjacent to Cable Creek.

A biological reconnaissance survey was not conducted as part of this due diligence constraints analysis.

Instead, the analysis presented below is based on a review of Google aerial imagery, street view, available literature, and desktop resources. The due diligence constraints analysis is limited to the information gathered from public sources based on the date that photographs were taken, or species information was recorded. The literature-based constraints analysis cannot account for habitat occupation by wildlife or plants that are not visible in the photographs or documents in the observations. Therefore, it is recommended that a site visit be conducted to evaluate both Project Alternatives for the presence or potential presence of biological resources on the Project Site and surrounding habitat. A biological survey will identify areas of suitable habitat for sensitive plant and wildlife species, which may require focused surveys.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 9 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Biological resources may be either directly or indirectly affected by Project Alternatives. Furthermore, direct and indirect impacts may be either permanent or temporary in nature. These impact categories are defined below.

Direct impacts include any loss, alteration, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from Project-related activities. Examples include vegetation clearing, encroachment into drainages, diversion of natural surface water flows, and the loss of individual species and/or their habitats. Direct impacts are long-term.

Indirect impacts may occur to special-status wildlife species during Project construction in the form of increased human activity, noise, ground vibrations, dust, erosion created by the removal of vegetation, and the introduction of invasive plants and/or unnatural predators. These indirect impacts may be both short-term and long-term in their extent.

General recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to sensitive biological resources for each Project Alternative are provided below.

Project Alternative I
Project Alternative I consists of improvements to the existing earthen channel along Meyers Creek. This alternative would construct two culverts within the West Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue ROWs.

The vegetation and land cover types within and surrounding Project Alternative I appear to include patches of native California buckwheat and scale broom scrub vegetation with some level of disturbance due to the presence of nonnative vegetation, trash, and pedestrians. Ornamental vegetation and disturbed/developed land cover also occur within the Project Alternative I footprint. Meyers Creek is a drainage feature that is considered an aquatic resource and therefore, a formal aquatic resources delineation was conducted to identify the limits of potentially jurisdictional waters.

Based on the literature review and Google Earth imagery, the soils, vegetation, and land cover present in or adjacent to Alternative I may provide habitat for special-status wildlife species including burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, Crotch bumble bee, southern rubber boa, San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR), Los Angeles pocket mouse, arroyo toads, and/or special-status bats. Special-status plant species such as Nevin’s barberry, slender-horned spine flower, and Santa Ana River woollystar may be present in or adjacent to Project Alternative I.

The mature trees, shrubs, and ornamental vegetation within or adjacent to Alternative I can provide habitat for nesting birds and raptors protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. In addition, the culverts and mature trees present within Project Alternative I can provide habitat for roosting bats roosting. Maternity bat roosts are considered protected as native wildlife nursery sites under CEQA and California Fish and Game Code Section 4150.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 10 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Based on the current Project Alternative I footprint, direct and indirect impacts to special-status plant and/or wildlife species could occur as a result of the Proposed Alternative. The limitations of the desktopbased literature review indicate that a biological habitat assessment should be conducted to determine if suitable habitat for sensitive plant and/or wildlife species occurs within the Project Alternative footprint and surrounding areas. USFWS designated critical habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) is located within the southern portion of the Project Alternative footprint which requires additional consideration to verify the presence of this protected species.

The desktop literature review provided valuable information to assess the potential wildlife and plant related issues within the Project footprint. However, a desktop literature review contains inherent limitations in terms of documenting wildlife and plant species presence in the Project footprint and the potential impacts that may occur within and in the vicinity of the Project Site.

The following recommendations are provided as suggestions for next steps in the Project:
• A biological resources assessment is recommended to identify any biological resources that could be affected by the proposed Project, pursuant to the terms of CEQA, and for the purpose of identifying any biological constraints that would affect the Project alternative. The Project will be subject to county, state, and federal regulations regarding compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; USFWS 1918), Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations, and California Fish and Game Code. • A qualified botanist familiar with the special-status plant species in the region should conduct a special-status plant species habitat assessment, during the appropriate blooming periods for target species, to determine whether special-status plant species are present within the footprint of Project Alternative I. If special-status plant species are present and impacts to the species are unavoidable and significant under CEQA, then additional protection measures and mitigation measures may need to be implemented, such as transplanting and additional biological monitoring requirements. The qualified botanist should also identify if there are any plant species protected by the San Bernardino County Development Code within the Project Alternative footprint. • Due to the potential for birds and raptors nesting, Project construction could result in impacts to nesting birds. To avoid/minimize direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, a pre-construction nesting bird survey and other measures such as, biological monitoring, visual shielding, noise barriers, etc., on an as-needed basis, should be incorporated into the Project assuming that work will be performed during the breeding season, generally identified as February 15 – September 15. • There is a moderate potential for bat species to occur within Project Alternative I. A qualified bat biologist should confirm the presence/absence of bat species within the Project Alternative I. A focused bat survey should be conducted to assess potential bat roosting habitats and/or active bat roosts on the project site that may be affected by project activities. Based on the survey findings, the bat biologist will develop and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. • A SBKR assessment should be conducted to evaluate habitat conditions and areas potentially suitable for SBKR, and to determine if trapping for proposed Project Alternative I is warranted. If suitable Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 11 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
habitat or SBKR sign is identified during the habitat assessment, then trapping would need to be conducted.
• If Project Alternative I provides suitable habitat for sensitive plant and/or wildlife species and/or sensitive vegetation communities, appropriate habitat assessments and focus surveys for sensitive species shall be conducted during the appropriate season. Some of the surveys may include but are not limited to:
o Habitat assessment and focused mammal trapping for SBKR, if needed (March – August) o Habitat Assessment and focused surveys for Crotch bumble bee o Focused avian survey for coastal California gnatcatcher (March – June) o Focused survey for arroyo toad (March – July)
o Focused bat survey
o Focused plant survey for species such as Nevin’s barberry, slender-horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woollystar (May – August).
o Burrowing owl habitat assessment, and focused surveys, if needed (March-August). • Impacts to the Meyers Creek, if determined to be jurisdictional to state or federal regulatory agencies, would require the Project to obtain necessary permits prior to Project activities.

Project Alternative II
Project Alternative II would be constructed mostly within the existing Little League Drive, Meyers Road, and Belmont Avenue ROWs, as well as a small portion of APNs 0261-132-01 and 0261-061-01, which is zoned as Public Commercial Recreation.

The vegetation surrounding Project Alternative II is predominantly ruderal/nonnative and ornamental and includes some scattered native vegetation. Areas within the ROW and Project Alterative II are mostly disturbed/developed. Additionally, Meyers Creek and Cable Creek occur to the north and south (respectively) of the Project Alternative II footprint. These are aquatic resources; therefore, a formal aquatic resources delineation was conducted to identify the limits to potentially jurisdictional waters.

Areas surrounding Project Alternative II provide habitat for nesting birds and raptors, in the mature trees, native shrubs, and ornamental vegetation and potential habitat for SBKR. Based on the disturbed/developed conditions within Project Alternative II site, no direct impacts to special-status wildlife or plant species are expected as a result of the Proposed Project. However, indirect impacts may occur to nesting birds and raptors, roosting bats in the area, special-status plant species, and specialstatus wildlife species during Project construction in the form of increased human activity, noise, ground vibrations, and dust. Additionally, USFWS designated critical habitat for SBKR occurs along the western portion of the ROW of the Project Alternative II footprint adjacent to Little league Drive and south of Belmont Avenue West.

The following recommendations are provided as suggestions for next steps in the Project:

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 12 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
• A biological resources assessment is recommended to identify any biological resources that could be affected by the proposed Project, pursuant to the terms of CEQA and for the purpose of identifying any biological constraints that would affect the Project alternative. The Project will be subject to county, state, and federal regulations regarding compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), CESA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; USFWS 1918)-nesting birds, Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations, California Fish and Game Code, and protection for sensitive bat species. • A SBKR assessment should be conducted to evaluate habitat conditions and areas potentially suitable for SBKR, primarily on the western portion of the Project Alternative II footprint and Cable Creek, to determine if trapping for the proposed Project Alternative II is warranted. If suitable habitat or SBKR sign is identified during the habitat assessment, then trapping would need to be conducted. Impacts to USFWS designated SBKR Critical Habitat are potentially significant under CEQA. • Impacts to USFWS designated SBKR Critical Habitat within jurisdictional waters may be require formal consultation between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and with CDFW under the CESA to determine whether an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), Section 2081(b) is required for this Project. Consequently, the USACE will consult with the USFWS regarding impacts and mitigation measures for SBKR and its habitat. However, if impacts to SBKR individuals and Critical Habitat can be avoided to below the level of significance with the appropriate mitigation, then an ITP would not be necessary. • Impacts to the Cable Creek, if determined to be jurisdictional to state or federal regulatory agencies, would require the project to obtain necessary permits prior to project activities.

Aquatic Resource Delineation
Both Site alternatives were analyzed for potential jurisdictional aquatic resources within the Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) (ECORP 2024). The results of the ARD are summarized below in this section.

ECORP recorded two named riverine features within Project Alternatives I and II. Meyers Creek runs the length of Project Alternative I, and Cable Creek crosses the southernmost tip of Project Alternative II. The following sections provide details on both features. ECORP mapped a total of 0.237 acre of ephemeral drainage within Project Alternative I and a total of 0.077 acre of intermittent drainage within Project Alternative II. In addition, approximately 0.835 acre of streambed and approximately 0.624 acre of associated riparian habitat occurs within Project Alterative I. Approximately 0.121 acre of streambed occurs within Project Alternative II. No wetlands were observed within either Project Site Alternative. None of the aquatic features present within Alternative I or II support wetland characteristics.

Site Alternative I.

Meyers Creek is a non-navigable and non-relatively permanent water. In general, flows from Meyers Creek appear to originate in Meyers Canyon and the hillsides located to the north of Project Alternative I. The flows travel south through Project Alternative I and then appear to join Cable Creek to the west of Project Alternative II. Although Meyers Creek flows to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW; Pacific Ocean), Meyers Creek is a non-navigable tributary, is not relatively permanent, and does not appear to support any surface-water-related interstate commerce. Therefore, Meyers Creek does not appear to meet the current Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 13 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
definition of Waters of the U.S. and is not likely to be considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA. However, Meyers Creek would likely be considered Waters of the State. In addition, the area mapped as streambed at Meyers Creek and its associated riparian habitat would likely be regulated under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.

The placement of dredge or fill material into Waters of the State that are not Waters of the U.S. would require issuance of a Waste Discharge Requirement by the State or Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Impacts to CDFW-regulated resources would require a Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement by the CDFW.

Site Alternative II.

Cable Creek is a relatively permanent water that is a tributary to a TNW (Pacific Ocean). Flows from Cable Creek appear to originate in Cable Canyon, Ames Canyon, and Hopper Canyon, all of which are located to the northwest of Project Alternative II. These flows travel south and then appear to join Cable Creek. The flows in Cable Creek appear to travel approximately 38-miles downstream to Prado Dam via Cajon Wash, Lytle Creek, Warm Creek, and the Santa Ana River. Prado Dam regulates flows in the Santa Ana River and releases flows downstream, as needed, with flows eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean. It is reasonable to assume that Cable Creek would be considered Waters of the U.S. because it is a relatively permanent tributary to a TNW. In addition, the area mapped as streambed at Cable Creek would likely be regulated under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.

The placement of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. would require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and certification or waiver in compliance with Section 401 of the CWA. The placement of dredge or fill material into Waters of the State that are not Waters of the U.S. would require issuance of a Waste Discharge Requirement by the State or Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Impacts to CDFW-regulated resources would require a Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement by the CDFW.

Cultural Resources. A cultural resources records search and literature review was conducted for the Project Area. A cultural resources records search was conducted on August 20, 2024, at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous cultural resources investigations and the presence of previously-recorded archeological sites or historic-period (i.e., over 50 years in age) resources within a one-mile (1,600-meter) radius of the Project Area. In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in San Bernardino County, the following historic references were also reviewed: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for San Bernardino County (OHP 2024a); the National Register Information System (National Park Service [NPS] 2024); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks (OHP 2024b) and California Historical Resources (OHP 2024c). The review used reasonably accessible records search and database information. However, this due diligence review Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 14 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
did not include field surveys for cultural resources, agency or tribal consultation, or evaluations of significance for any previously recorded resources.

The results of the records search indicate that 45 previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within 1-mile of the Project Alternatives between 1978 and 2013, covering 85- percent of the total records search radius (Table 1). Of the 45 studies, two were conducted within both Project Alternative Areas I and II, and one was conducted only within Project Alternative II.

The remaining 43 were outside of the boundaries of both Project Alternative Areas but within the 1-mile radius. One study (SB-05546) is shown as possibly encompassing the Project Areas; however, this report is not on file at the SCCIC, nor is it in their system.

These studies revealed the presence of pre-contact sites, including lithic scatters and habitation sites, and historic-period sites, including rock walls and sites associated with historic ranching activities. Details of all 45 investigations are presented below in Table 1.

Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies in and within one mile of Project Alternatives I and II Report
Number
SBAuthor(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of the
Project Areas?
0713
Chavez, David Final: Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills) to Rialto
Crude Oil Pipeline
1978
No
1285
Lerch, Michael K. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Cajon Creek Project (Wilson Property and Surrounding
Properties), San Bernardino County, California
1982
No
1734
Shackley, M. Steven,
Rebecca Mccorkle
Apple, Jan Wooley,
And Robert E.

Reynolds
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Survey:

US Sprint Fiber Optic Cable Project, Rialto,
California to Las Vegas, Nevada
1987
No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 15 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies in and within one mile of Project Alternatives I and II Report
Number
SBAuthor(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of the
Project Areas?
1821
Peak & Associates, Inc. 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
Yes, Both
Project
Alternatives
1885
De Munck, Victor C. Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resource Assessment of a 9.7 Acre Parcel of Land
Designated as Tentative Tract No. 14261 Located
in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino
County, California
1989
No
1958
Lerch, Michael K. Cultural Resources Assessment of Five Public Works Infrastructure Improvements, Verdemont
Area Assessment District #987, City of San
Bernardino, California
1989
No
2031
De Munck, Victor C. Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resource Assessment of a 11 Acre Parcel of Land
Designated as Tentative Tract No. 13630 Located
in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino
County, California
1989
No
2040
De Munck, Victor C. Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resource Assessment of a 16 Acre Tract
Designated as Tentative Tract No. 14604 Located
in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino
County, California
1989
No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 16 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies in and within one mile of Project Alternatives I and II Report
Number
SBAuthor(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of the
Project Areas?
2056
Macko, Michael E.,
Roger D. Mason, And
Richard H. Osborne
Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 10 Acre
Verdemont Site in San Bernardino County,
California
1989
No
2073
De Munck, Victor C. Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resource Assessment of a 12 Acre Tract
Designated as Tentative Tract No. 14655 Located
in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino
County, California
1990
No
2092
De Munck, Victor C. Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resource Assessment of a 8.1 Acre Tract
Designated as Tentative Tract No. 14444 Located
in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino
County, California
1990
No
2102
Lerch, Michael K. Addendum to: Cultural Resources Assessment of Five Public Works Infrastructure Improvements,
Verdemont Area Assessment District #987, City
of San Bernardino, California
1990
No
2452
Lerch, Michael K. Cultural Resource Assessment of Tentative Tract No. 14881, Verdemont Area, City of San
Bernardino, California
1990
No
2526
Laska, Robin E. And
Mark T. Swanson
A Cultural Resource Survey of a 25.8 Acre Tract
of Land Designated as Tentative Tract No. 14473
in Cajon Pass, San Bernardino County, Ca
1991
No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 17 of 32 ends

Wade
Cultural Resource Survey of Martin Ranch, San
Bernardino County
1990
No
3117
Cook, John R. Cultural Resource Survey of the Cajon Creek Specific Plan Project, San Bernardino County,
California
1990
No
3308
Love, Bruce Archaeological Record Search Results, San
Bernardino Vegetation Management Project.
23pp
1996
No
3308 Schmidt, James Supplemental Cultural Resources Investigation:

The Martin Ranch (TT15576). 21pp
1998
No
3647 White, Robert and
Laurie White
An Archaeological Assessment of TT 13630, an

11.42 Acre Parcel Located Adjacent to Belmont
Ave in the Verdemont Area of the City of San
Bernardino. 17pp
1999 No
3711
Shepard, Richard Cultural Resource Record Search & Survey Report for Level 3 Fiber Optic Project: WSO 4
Devore Alternatives, San Bernardino County, CA.
10pp
2000
No
4081
Strickland, Jan Proposed AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Equipment Installation, 3205 Kendall Dr, San
Bernardino, CA. 20
2002
No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 18 of 32 ends

72.31 Devore-Verdemont Area, San Bernardino
County, CA. 13pp
2005
No
4720
Fulton, Terri and
Deborah McLean
Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Verdemont Heights Towne Center Project, San
Bernardino County, California.
2006
Yes, Project
Alternative II
4721
Dice, Michael, Peter
Messick, and Jay
Keasling
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Ranch
Country View Estates Project near Cable Creek
and Interstate 215, County of San Bernardino,
California.
2005
No
4722
Lerch, Michael K.,
William E. Hayden,
Kurt R. Heidelberg,
and Anne Q. Stoll
A Class I Cultural Resources Assessment for the
FEMA/City of San Bernardino Vegetation
Management Project (HMGP #1005-20), San
Bernardino County, California.
2001
No
5272 Lambert, Meranda CA-8533-A/Bailey Canyon. 2004 No
5273
Hogan, Michael Archaeological Survey: Palm Connector,
Verdemont Phase I Project, City of San
Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California.
2006
No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 19 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies in and within one mile of Project Alternatives I and II Report
Number
SBAuthor(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of the
Project Areas?
5545
Sander, Jay K. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory of 6 Acres: APN 260-032-04, San Bernardino, San
Bernardino County, California.
2006
No
5546
Austerman, Virginia Cultural Resources Assessment Tentative Tract 16794 City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino
County, California
2006
Unknown
5897 Jurich, Denise M. Archaeological Survey Report for the Palm Avenue Distribution Center.
2007
No
6057
Encarnacion, Deirdre Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Palm No. 3 Reservoir Project, City of
San Bernardino, San Bernardino County,
California.
2008
No
6648
Wlodarski, Robert J. Cultural Resources Record Search and Archaeological Survey Results for the Proposed
Royal Street Communications, California, LLC,
Site LA3588A (Bailey Canyon TowerCo CA2794)
Located at 6707 Little League Drive, San
Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California
92407.
2009
No
6650 -- -- No
6770 -- -- No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 20 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies in and within one mile of Project Alternatives I and II Report
Number
SBAuthor(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of the
Project Areas?
6971
Goodwin, Riordan Historic Property Survey Report for the I-15/I-215 Interchange Improvements Project, Community
of Devore, San Bernardino County, California.
2011
No
6987 No
7623
Becker, Wendy L.

Tinsley and Laura
Hoffman
Cultural Resources CRHR/NRHP Review of the
105 Mile Portion of the Arrowhead-CalectricDevil Canyon-Shandin 115kV Sub-Transmission Line Project, Cajon Creek, San Bernardino
County, California.
2014
No
7624
White, Robert S. and
Laura S. White
A Cultural Resource Assessment of a 5.07 Acre
Parcel Located North of the Intersection of
Belmont and Mirna Avenues, City of San
Bernardino, San Bernardino County.
2006
No
7625
Mason, Roger Cultural Resources Survey Report for Muscoy Groin #2 Storm Drain Project, San Bernardino
County, California.
2012
No
7636
Hamilton, M. Colleen Finding of Effect for the Palm Avenue/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Grade Separation
Project.
2011
No
7637
Hamilton, M. Colleen Historic Property Survey Report- Palm Avenue/BNSF Railroad Grade Separation Project,
San Bernardino County, California.
2011
No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 21 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies in and within one mile of Project Alternatives I and II Report
Number
SBAuthor(s) Report Title Year
Includes
Portion of the
Project Areas?
7690
Hogan, Michael Historical/Archaeological Resources Field Inspection of a Well Site near Arrastre Creek near
the Long Beach Area YMCA’s Camp Oakes
Facility near the City of Big Bear Lake, San
Bernardino County, California.
2013
No
07959
Hatheway, Roger G. Determination of Eligibility for 50 Buildings in the City of San Bernadino
1998 Yes, Both
Project
Alternatives
8223
Hamilton, M. Colleen
and Joan George
Archaeological Survey Report Palm Avenue
Grade Separation Project San Bernardino County,
California TCIFL-6053(087) Caltrans District 8
2011
No
The results of the records search indicate that both Project Alternative Areas have been previously surveyed for cultural resources. The records search also determined that 19 previously recorded resources are located within one mile of the Project Areas (Table 2). Of these 19 resources, 18 are historic-period resources and one is of an undetermined age. One resource, the historic-period Cable Creek Levy, is within Project Alternative II. No previously recorded resources are within Project Alternative I.

Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in or within one mile of Project Areas I and II Site
Number
CA-SBRPrimary
Number
P-36-
Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
Which
Project
Area or
buffer?
2910H
2910
L. Burr Belden, 1963
Historic National Old Trails Highway,
Route 66
No
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 22 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in or within one mile of Project Areas I and II Site
Number
CA-SBRPrimary
Number
P-36-
Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
Which
Project
Area or
buffer?
6793H 6793 M. K. Lerch 1990 Historic Cajon Rail Alignment ATSF RR No 7031H
7031
Frank Ritz 1990
Historic House Foundations and rock
wall
No
7054H 7054 Schmidt et al. 1990 Historic Partially covered concrete canal No 10221H
10221
Richard Shepard 2000
Historic Building foundations and rock
wall
No
1031H
10315 N. Neunshwander
1988
Historic Boulder Dam to San Bernardino
Transmission Line
No
N/A 14177 V. Demunck 1989 Historic Irrigation Reservoir No N/A 14463 Michael Dice 2008 Historic Foundations and rock walls No N/A
14464
Michael Dice 2008 Unknown Rectangular rock alignment
near historic debris
No
13136H 14897 Sherri Andrews 2009 Historic Can and bottle dump site No 13137H
14898
Sherri Andrews 2009 Historic Cable Creek Levy
Yes,
Project
Alternative
II
13168H 14968 Harper 2009 Historic WWII Target Range No
N/A 21515 2010 Cogstone Historic Meyer Family Cemetery No Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 23 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in or within one mile of Project Areas I and II Site
Number
CA-SBRPrimary
Number
P-36-
Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
Which
Project
Area or
buffer?
N/A
27100 Barbara Loren-Webb
2012
Historic Isolate: glass fragments No
31937H
31937
Shannon Smith 2018 Historic
Foundation with associated
farm debris
No
N/A 31938 Shannon Smith 2018 Historic Isolate: glass fragment No N/A 31939 Shannon Smith 2018 Historic Isolate: glass insulator fragment No N/A 31940 Shannon Smith 2018 Historic Isolate: railroad spike No N/A 60940 Richard Shepard, 2000 Historic Isolate: glass fragment No The OHP’s BERD for San Bernardino County (dated September 23, 2022) included more than seven resources within one mile of the Project Alternative I and II; these resources include structures and water basins. All of the resources are considered ineligible for the National Register by consensus through Section 106 process but have not been evaluated for the California Register or local listing.

The National Register Information System (NPS 2024) failed to reveal any eligible or listed properties within the Project Area. The nearest National Register property is a United States Postal Office, located eight miles southeast, of the Project Alternative I and II in downtown San Bernardino.

ECORP reviewed resources listed as California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996) by the OHP (2024b, 2024c) on April 29, 2025. The nearest listed landmark is #573, the Sycamore Grove site, located 1.5 miles northwest of the Project Area, within Glen Helen Regional Park.

Should the Proposed Project move forward, CEQA requires the lead agency to address any unanticipated cultural resources discoveries during Proposed Project construction and ECORP recommends a formal cultural resources report with mitigation measures for unanticipated finds for adoption and implementation by the Lead Agency that would reduce potential adverse impacts to a less than significant level.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 24 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Energy. Temporary energy use in connection with Project construction for either site would include consumption of diesel fuel and gasoline by construction equipment and transport of earth moving equipment, construction materials, supplies, and construction personnel to and from either site alternative. Project operation at either site alternative would consume energy at a similar rate, as both alternatives would only require occasional maintenance. While energy use during Project operations is expected to be less than significant, a streamlined Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment is recommended in order to provide an adequate and defensible analysis.

Geology and Soils. Neither site alternative would be located within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The nearest Alquist-Priolo fault traces and hazard zones are located approximately 0.50-mile north of both site alternatives (DOC 2024b). Neither of the two alternative Project Sites have been evaluated by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) for liquefaction or landslide susceptibility hazards. As both alternatives would control stormwater flows during large storm events, and neither would include the construction or occupation of habitable structures, the risk to people or structures from strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, seismic-related ground failure, landslide, and expansive soils would be similar at both site alternatives.

Both site alternatives would include cut, fill, and grading activities on previously disturbed sites and undisturbed soils. Grading activities occurring on undisturbed soils have the potential to uncover previously undiscovered paleontological resources. A paleontological records search is recommended to disclose the presence of potential paleontological resources.

No unusual constraints related to geologic or seismic impacts are associated with either site alternative.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The construction phase of the Proposed Project, for either site location, would result in the generation of GHG emissions from the use of heavy construction equipment and construction related vehicle trips. Because of the nature of the Proposed Project, operational sources of GHG emissions are anticipated to be predominately associated with vehicular traffic for occasional project maintenance. While the emissions generated during Project operations are expected to be less than significant for either proposed alternative, a streamlined Air Quality and GHG Emissions Assessment is recommended in order to provide an adequate and defensible analysis.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database, and State Water Resource Control Board Geotracker database, there are no hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reasons to investigate further located in either site alternative or their vicinity (DTSC 2024; SWRCB 2024). However, some hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, would be used by heavy equipment during construction and the occasional maintenance once the Project is operational. As such, no unusual constraints related to emergency response or evacuation plans are anticipated for either site alternative and both project alternatives are not anticipated to cause significant hazards as a result of Project construction or from the release of hazardous material to the public, or the environment.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 25 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
Hydrology and Water Quality. Both site alternatives would require more than one acre of ground disturbing activities. Therefore, both Project alternatives would be subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Order NO. R8-2010-0036) including a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) listing BMPs to prevent construction pollutants and products from violating any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements. Additionally, it is not anticipated that groundwater supplies would be substantially depleted as a result of the either Project Alternative.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #06071C7930J, the majority of Project Alternative I is located within “Zone A: No Base Flood Elevations determined.” Project Alternative I is located within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2016). The Majority of Project Alternative II is located within “Zone X: Area of Minimal Flood Hazard”, with the southern portion near cable creek within “Zone AE: Areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1-percent annual change flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights,” and “Zone X: Area with reduced flood rick due to levee.” Project Alternative II is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2016). As both Project Alternatives would improve the conveyance of stormwater flows, and would reduce flood hazard risk, it is not anticipated that Flood Hazard Areas as depicted on FEMA FIRM #06071C7930J would constitute an environmental constraint. A positive impact would occur with implementation of either Project Alternative.

Therefore, no significant impacts to hydrology or water quality are anticipated for either site alternative.

Land Use and Planning. Neither Project Alternative would divide an established community. Both Project Alternatives would construct stormwater control infrastructure within an area characterized by residential development and would not divide an established community, displace residents, nor conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. Project Alternative I would require a partial take of private property and a General Plan amendment to change all residential parcels land use to Publicly Owned Flood Control (PFC).

Project Alternative I
Alternative I would require change of land use/zoning and General Plan Amendment for the City’s partial acquisition of portions of the following privately owned parcels: APN 0261-061-01, 0261-061-09, 0261- 061-07, 0348-111-19, 0261-061-28, 0261-131-02, and 0261-131-03. These parcels are zones as Residential Estates (RE), with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Single-Family Residence (SFR) (City 2005; City 2024a). Project Alternative I would also construct culverts within the West Meyers Avenue and Belmont Avenue ROWs.

Project Alternative II
No unusual land use and planning constraints have been identified for Project Alternative II. Alternative II would be constructed within City owned ROW and would not require the acquisition of private property.

All Project components would be constructed within the ROW of N. Little League Drive, Belmont Avenue, Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 26 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
and W. Meyers Road except for a small segment of storm drain that would feed into Cable Creek from underneath the southwestern corner of the City owned Little League Baseball Complex (City 2005; City 2024a).

Mineral Resources. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an adverse effect to known mineral resources for either alternative site location due to the existing residential land uses which surround both Project Alternatives. Nearly all of Project Alternative II would be constructed within existing ROWs, with a small portion underlying the southwest corner of the Little League Baseball Complex, where the storm drain would divert all flows into Cable Creek. The majority of Project Alternative I would be constructed on privately owned land designated as MRZ-2 areas of identified mineral resources of significance, and MRZ-4 areas of undetermined mineral resource significance. The MRZ-2 area contains construction aggregate that meets certain State criteria for value and marketability based solely on geologic factors. However, the area surrounding both project alternatives has been developed previously with uses and intensities that are incompatible with mineral production and large-scale mining operations.

Noise. Noise would be generated during the construction phase of the Proposed Project. Chapter

8.54.060 of the City’s Municipal Code states that construction, repair, and excavation work performed pursuant to a valid written agreement with the City, or any of its political subdivisions, which provide for noise mitigation measures are exempt from the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.54.

Chapter 8.54.070 of the City’s Municipal Code states that temporary construction, repair, or demolition noise is only permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Construction activities limited to these permitted hours, with adherence to any recommendation provided in a project-specific noise analysis would result in less than significant noise impacts. Once operational, neither of the proposed stormwater infrastructure alternatives would introduce a new or increased source of noise to the area. A focused noise analysis is recommended to disclose and mitigate the minimal Project effect on the existing noise environment of the surrounding residential communities.

Population and Housing. Both Project Alternatives would improve the area’s stormwater infrastructure.

Neither Project Alternative would include the extension of existing roadways; as such, neither alternative would directly or indirectly induce population growth in the region. Neither alternative would include additional housing or create permanent jobs in the project vicinity that would induce population growth.

Therefore, no unusual constraints associated with population and housing have been identified for either Project Alternative.

Public Services. During project operation, neither alternative is anticipated to create a significant fire or public safety hazard. Additionally, the construction of Project Alternatives I and II would not result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities or affect response time or other performance objectives once operational. However, as both alternatives would require temporary road closures during the construction phase, it is recommended that the City or its contractor prepare a Traffic Control Plan Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 27 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
prior to any lane closures to ensure proper access to residences and businesses by emergency vehicles during construction and to maintain traffic flow.

Recreation. Both Project Alternatives would construct stormwater infrastructure within an area characterized by residential land uses and therefore would not induce substantial unplanned population growth because neither Project Alternative would include the construction of new housing, creation of new jobs, or the extension of roadways that may result in unplanned population growth. Furthermore, neither alternative would include modification of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. As such, no unusual constraints associated with recreation have been identified for either Project Alternative.

Transportation and Traffic. Both alternatives would generate short-term construction related vehicle trips and temporary road closures to allow for construction. Alternative I would require closures on W.

Meyers Road and Belmont Avenue to allow for the construction of new replacement culverts. Alternative II would require intermittent road closures on N. Little League Drive (approximately 0.4-mile segment), W.

Meyers Road (approximately 0.15-mile segment), and Belmont Avenue (approximately 0.10-mile segment) to allow for the construction of a stormwater drainage system within each ROW. For either alternative, it is recommended that the City or its contractor prepare a Traffic Control Plan prior to any lane closures to ensure proper access to residences and businesses by emergency vehicles during construction and to maintain traffic flow.

Due to the nature of both alternatives, operational traffic and emergency access are anticipated to be similar to present conditions. As both Project Alternatives would construct stormwater infrastructure, vehicle trips associated with the operational project are limited to infrequent maintenance trips. These infrequent maintenance trips would not substantially increase the number of vehicle trips in the region.

Additionally, neither project alternative would alter the alignment of an existing roadway in an incompatible or potentially hazardous manner, and neither alternative would conflict with an adopted policy, plan, or program regarding public transit, bicycle facilities, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

The nearest airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, located approximately ten miles to the southeast of both Project Alternatives. Therefore, no unusual constraints associated with transportation and traffic have been identified for either Project Alternative.

Tribal Cultural Resources. Please refer to the Cultural Resources section above. Regardless of the site selected for development, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American notification is required during the CEQA process.

Utilities and Service Systems. Neither Project Alternative I nor II are of a scope that would result in the construction of new utility services infrastructure. The Proposed Project could use a negligible amount of water during the construction phase to reduce dust. Both Project Alternatives would construct stormwater Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 28 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
control infrastructure within an area characterized by residential development and would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, solid waste or telecommunications facilities. Although Project Alternative I is anticipated to generate more construction and demolition waste when compared with Project Alternative II, both Project Alternatives would require compliance with AB 939, which requires every California City and County to divert 50-percent of its waste from landfills. Further, it is not anticipated that either Project Alternative would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Therefore, no significant site-specific constraints related to utilities and service systems are anticipated for either site location.

Wildfire. Both site alternatives are designated as located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Additionally, both sites would be located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and are designated by the City’s General Plan as within the Moderate Fire Hazard Area (FRAP 2024; City 2005, Figure S-9).

Based on this Environmental Constraints Analysis, the recommended CEQA document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with supporting technical studies and described in this report. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (909) 307-0046 or email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Attachments
Attachment A: Figures
References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways Map. Available online at:

Jesus “Freddie” Olmos
Southern California Regional CEQA/NEPA Group
Manager, Principal Environmental Planner
Christopher Uminski
Assistant Environmental Planner
Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 29 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa. Accessed November 21, 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. RareFind California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). California. Sacramento, CA, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed August 2024.

City of San Bernardino (City). 2005. City of San Bernardino General Plan. Available online at:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_17442462/File/Government/Department/Communit y%20&%20Economic%20Development/Planning/Complete%20General%20Plan%20Compressed. pdf. Accessed November 21, 2024.
_____. 2024a Online General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map. https://sbcity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=dcca6aa4816b4021bd9364888 ba669fd. Accessed November 21, 2024.
_____. 2024b Chapter 8.54 of City’s Municipal Code, Noise Control. Available online at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/sanbernardinoca/latest/sanbernardino_ca/0-0-0-7579.

Accessed November 21, 2024.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Rare Plant Program, Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Available online at: https://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed August 2024.

San Bernardino County (County). 2023. San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Map. Available online at:
cnty_all_biotic_resources_map_final.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2024. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQZapp).

Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/.

Accessed November 21, 2024.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. DTSC EnviroStor Database. Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=San+Bernardnio. Accessed November 21, 2024.

ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP). 2024. Aquatic Resource Delineation for the Meyers Creek Drainage System Project. Prepared November 2024.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. Flood Insurance Rate Map, (FIRM #06071C7930J).

Available online at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/downloadProduct?productTypeID=FINAL_PRODUCT&productSubTy peID=FIRM_PANEL&productID=06071C7930J Accessed November 21, 2024.

Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan
Environmental Constraints Analysis
May 9, 2025

Page 30 of 32 ends

City of San Bernardino: Meyers Creek Conceptual Improvement Plan 2024-164
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer (FHSZ). Available online at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

Accessed November 21, 2024.

National Park Service (NPS). 2024. National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery 2025. https://npgallery.nps.gov/nrhp. Accessed April 29, 2025.

Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2024a. Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), dated September 23, 2022 for San Bernardino County. _____. 2024b. Office of Historic Preservation California Historical Landmarks Website. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21427. Accessed April 29, 2025. _____. 2024c. Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=30. Accessed April 29, 2025.

State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. SWRCB GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=City+of+San+Bernard ino. Accessed November 21, 2024.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Critical Habitat. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b 8dbfb77. Accessed August 2024.
_____. 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treatyact-1918. Accessed August 2024. 215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com Attachment A: Figures
Project Location
Los Angeles
San Francisco
California
Nevada Utah
Arizona
Oregon Idaho
Map Date: 8/13/2024
Sources: ESRI
Location: N:\2024\2024-164 Meyers Creek Constraints Analysis\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Location and Vicinity.aprx - MCCA_Vicinity_20240813 (trotellini - 8/13/2024) I
0 5 10
Mile s
2024-164 Meyers Creek Constraints Analysis
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Map Date: 8/13/2024
Sources: ESRI, San Bernardino County (2023)
Location: N:\2024\2024-164 Meyers Creek Constraints Analysis\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Location and Vicinity.aprx - MCCA_Location_20240813 (trotellini - 8/13/2024) I
0 350
US Feet
2024-164 Meyers Creek Constraints Analysis
Figure 2. Project Location
Map Contents
Project Alternative I
Project Alternative II
Meyers Creek Drainage Study
Preliminary Design Report
11-67 Q3 Consulting
Appendix O: Sedimentation and Scour

!"#
$%&'()!*
)'+,'--,) .
/,*

! '01234567 89 8 8:9 8: 89 +37;<5 (35;7=3> ?@

A
B:
?C

?C

D

?C

'6=>E ?@

A
B ?
F

C G

H
C I
H
C ?
G
@

J?
G
@
?J?
G
@
DCB?
G
@
?
HC

?

KC

?J
?

KC

?

KC

HH
LHH
?JHH
HH
/M3<<;> (67NM6>6OP ?@

A
BQ

R KSB
L?J

R ?J?J

R ?J

R RK

TQU@R K

:QU@R K

V:U@R K

R

F

C R G

H
C R
H
C R W

G
W

?JW

I

LI

FI

X=>>E>6N; (67NM6>6OP ?@

A
BY Z
A

C ?J?
L?
CJ
?

KC

L?
KC

F?
KC

K

B

?JK

B

LK

B

[[

\
?J@
[?@

@
JY?@

A
B8
July 1952
Courtesy of USGS
November 1967
Courtesy of USGS
May 1970
Courtesy of USGS
August 1975
Courtesy of USGS
December 1980
Courtesy of USGS
October 1986
Courtesy of USGS
April 1994
Courtesy of USGS
March 2008
Courtesy of USGS

Mayor and City CouncilOctober 21, 2026

Mayor and City Council
October 21, 2026