07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 411
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
City and District agree to develop, use, operate and maintain the City and District Properties, as subject to this Agreement (hereinafter, "Leased Premises") as follows:
A. District Obligations. District shall maintain the recreational facilities at the locations and in the manner shown and described in Attachment A, identified herein as the District Property.
Those recreational facilities shall be maintained on a regular basis by District with District providing all gardening and maintenance services deemed as necessary by the District. Unless otherwise provided herein, District shall be responsible for any costs related to its maintenance of such premises.
B. City Obligations. City shall maintain facilities at the locations and in the manner shown and described in Attachment B, identified herein as the City Property. Those facilities shall be maintained on a regular basis by City, with City providing all gardening and maintenance services deemed as necessary by the City. Unless otherwise provided herein, City shall be responsible for any costs related to its maintenance of such premises.
C. Joint Obligations. As, and to the extent, defined or described in Attachments A and B, certain facilities owned by City or District, as the Owning Agency, shall be principally maintained by the other using agency, whether it be the District or City, but shall be subject to the open use of the other agency. In these instances and where indicated on Attachments A and/or B, the agency making use of the facility shall be responsible for clean-up and security of these facilities as a result of their use.
1. Yucaipa High School Baseball Field. As provided in Attachment B, relative to the Yucaipa High School Baseball Field, the District will continue to maintain the utility costs associated with the site, and the City will continue to provide for maintenance support for the site.
2. Bryant Glen Fields 4, 5, and 8. As provided in Attachment B, relative to the Bryant Glen Fields, the City will continue to maintain the utility costs and provide maintenance support for the site. In exchange for priority use and allocation of fields during non -school hours.
D. Scheduling. For scheduling of sports activities, all users will schedule the use of facilities through the entity that owns that facility as indicated in Attachment B.
1. City Property. Except as provided in Section D (2), of this Agreement, for scheduling purposes, all users of Leased Premises will use City's standard Facility Use Application Form as set forth in Attachment C1, attached hereto.
2. District Property. For purposes of scheduling use of District Fields, all users of the Leased Premises will use District's standard Facility Use Application Form as set forth in Attachment C2, attached hereto. These forms will be approved by District and then given to City for coordination of use. In no event shall the City be permitted, absent express written consent from the District, to schedule a use on District Property during school hours (or the 30 minutes immediately preceding or following such hours), which vary from site to site. The District shall, upon request, provide the City with an updated calendar reflecting the applicable school hours during the current and, once approved, upcoming school years.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 412
E. Additional Security Requirements; Cost Responsibility. It is recognized that activities on the Leased Premises attract members of the public other than the participants and coaches. Additional security may be required to protect other areas of the facility on which the activity is taking place. The user will bear the cost of this additional service.
F. Maintenance Exceptions. Each agency's obligations under this Agreement to maintain their respective properties shall be subject to reasonable maintenance and use restrictions, including, but not limited to, watering restrictions that may be imposed or implemented by the State of California, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, or any other agency charged with authority to regulate the agency's respective water use (collectively, "Water Authorities"). Each agency shall reasonably cooperate with the applicable Water Authorities to identify and, as feasible, implement water saving techniques to further benefit the public's ability to enjoy the Leased Premises, though nothing within this Agreement shall obligate either the District or City to incur financial obligations in such regard.
G. Annual Meeting. Designated representatives of City and District shall meet yearly, as needed, to review the effectiveness of this Agreement and to determine ways to improve the overall operation and use of Leased Premises during the following year.
H. Acts of God; Destruction and/or Damage to Facilities. In the event of "acts of God," such as an earthquake, causing major damage or destruction to a Leased Premises, nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the Owning Agency to rehabilitate, repair, or reconstruct the Leased Premises to its original condition. In the event of such natural disaster or other act of God causing such damage, the District and City shall meet and consider what actions, if any, should be taken. The District and City, at their respective sole discretion, may cooperate in seeking or obtaining any federal, state, or local aid available to effectuate needed repairs or reconstruction.
I. School Resources Officers. City and District shall fund two (2) School Resource Officer (SRO) according to the following provisions:
One SRO will be funded jointly by City and District, with each party responsible for fifty percent (50%) of the cost of one SRO. The second SRO will be funded jointly by the City and District, with the City responsible for twenty percent (20%) of the cost of one SRO, and the District responsible for eighty percent (80%) of the cost of one SRO. The cost will be in accordance to the San Bernardino County Sheriffs schedule A.
2. In return for City's payment of a portion of the cost of the SRO, District will make District's gymnasiums reasonably available at no cost to Yucaipa Youth Basketball, as permitted and approved by City.
J. Term of Agreement The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of approximately ten (10) years, commencing on the date of execution by both parties, whichever is later to occur, and ending on June 30, 2036. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause, on furnishing to the other party at least ninety (90) days written notice of intent to so terminate.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 413
K. Insurance Requirements. The District and City, each when and to the extent serving as Lessee, shall each procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with their operations and use of the Leased Premises. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the Lessee.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(a) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("Occurrence" Form CG 0001);
(b) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability insurance (for Lessees with employees); and
(c) Property insurance against all risks of loss to any tenant improvements or betterments.
2. Minimum Limits of Insurance. If the agency obtaining coverage maintains higher limits than the minimums shown below, this Agreement requires and the covered entity shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the agency.
Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance shall be available to the agency. The minimum coverage requirements for the policies provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be:
(a) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal and advertising injury, and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit;
(b) Workers' Compensation: As required by the State of California, with statutory limits;
(c) Employers Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease; and
(d) Property Insurance: Full replacement cost with no co-insurance penalty provision.
3. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by Owning Agency. At the option of the Owning Agency, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Owning Agency, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Lessee shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Owning Agency guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
4. Additional Insured Status. The Owning Agency, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the Commercial General Liability policy with respect to liability arising out of the work or operations
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 414
performed by or on behalf of the lessee, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the lessee's insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10.
5. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability policy shall contain the following provisions:
(a) The Owning Agency, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insured with respect to liability arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to the Lessee;
(b) The Lessee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Owning Agency, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Owning Agency, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Lessee's insurance and shall not contribute with it; and
(c) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days written notice (or 10 days notice in the event of nonpayment of premium) by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Owning Agency. Separate and apart from such obligations, Lessee shall be required to provide the Owning Agency thirty (30) days written notice of any cancellation or reduction in coverage.
6. Acceptability oflnsurers. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M.
Best rating of no less than A: VII.
7. Verification of Coverage. Each Lessee shall furnish the Owning Agency with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause.
All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the Owning Agency before commencement of use. Each Owning Agency reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.
8. Policy of Self -Insurance. The Lessee may comply with the insurance obligations set forth in this Section utilizing a policy of self-insurance.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 415
L. Indemnification
1. Indemnification by City. To the fullest extent perntted by law, City shall indemnify, defend (with legal counsel approved by District, which District approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), and hold harmless District, District's governing board, and District's elected and appointed officials, employees, officers, and agents (collectively "District Indemnitees"), from and against any losses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs or expenses (including but not limited to attorney's fees), of any nature for loss or damage to property or injury or death to persons, arising in any manner directly or indirectly, by reason of any negligent or wrongful acts, errors or omissions of City, City's City Council, and/or City's elected or appointed officials, employees, officers, and/or agents relating to the performance of this Agreement, whether made during or after the term of this Agreement, except that City shall have no duty to defend, indemnify or hold harmless District's Indemnitees, or any of them, for any of the following:
(a) Any losses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs, expenses to the extent caused by or arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of District's Indemnitees, or any of them; or (b) Any losses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs or expenses caused by or arising out of or related to failure or refusal of District Indemnitees, or any of them, to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or any other provision of State or federal law in its performance of this Agreement, and/or the operation of any of its programs, services or activities, including but expressly not limited to, any losses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs, or expenses relating to discrimination, failure to accommodate, or other violation of the ADA.; or.
(c) Any punitive or exemplary damages imposed against the District Indemnitees or any of them.
2. Indemnification by District. To the fullest extent permitted by law, District shall indemnify, defend (with legal counsel approved by City, which City approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), and hold harmless City, City's City Council, and each of City's elected officials, appointed officials, employees, officers, and agents (collectively "City Indemnitees"), from and against any loses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs or expenses (including but not limited to attorney's fees), of any nature for loss or damage to property or injury or death to persons, arising in any manner directly or indirectly, by reason of any negligent or wrongful acts, errors or omissions of the District, the District's governing board, and/or the District's elected officials, appointed officials, employees, officers, and/or agents, relating to the performance of this Agreement, whether made during or after the term of this Agreement, except that the District shall have no duty to defend, indemnify or hold harmless City Indemnitees, or any of them, for any of the following:
(a) Any losses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs or expenses to the extent caused by or arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City Indemnitees, or any of them; or
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 416
(b) Any losses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs or expenses caused by or arising out of or related to the failure or refusal of City's Indemnitees, or any of them, to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or any other provision of State or federal law in its performance of this Agreement, the operation of any of its programs, services or activities, including but expressly not limited to, losses, liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs or expenses relating to discrimination, failure to accommodate, or other violation of the ADA.; or
(c) Any punitive or exemplary damages imposed against the City Indemnitees or any of them.
M. Use of Athletic and Specialized Equipment. Use of the other party's athletic equipment is recognized as constituting fair wear and tear on such equipment. All equipment has a recognized life. This equipment will be identified and a proportional amount charged for the replacement of such equipment, based on the City User Fees and District User Fees as set forth at the time of replacement.
N. Ground Rules for Gymnasium Use for both District and City Facilities:
1. Application must be made and approved through District for District Facilities and through the City for City Facilities before the use of the gymnasium is authorized.
2. A responsible adult must be present at all times while a group utilizes the gym and must control both the participants in the athletic activities as well as the observers.
3. The gym doors are to be secured at all times to prevent access of unauthorized persons.
Monitors must be assigned to doors to allow only authorized person's entrance to the gym.
4. All gym rules shall be followed and enforced.
5. Only authorized and qualified persons may use equipment in the gym.
6. The District's Custodian ("Custodian") is a District representative in the absence of an administrator or teacher. The City shall designate a "City Facility Attendant" for each site when the site is being utilized by the City pursuant to this Agreement. The District's representative and the City Facility Attendant have full authority to exclude persons from the gym who do not conform to these rules.
7. A City and/or District employee will conduct an inspection before and after each use with each user to determine if any damage has been incurred.
O. Ground Rules for use of City of Yucaipa Community Park, Center and City Wide Sports Fields by the District:
1. District may utilize the Park, Center Facility and/or Sports Fields for school physical fitness education classes during normal school hours (Monday —Friday), and for special school events during facility operating hours, Monday -Friday.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 417
2. District will pay City for use of Sport Field Lighting used by District for school purposes. Fees shall be subject to the City User Fee Schedule.
3. A responsible adult must be present at all times while a group utilizes the park facilities and must control the participants in the physical education class activities. A minimum of one adult must be provided for every fifty (50) students to be supervised.
4. The City will be responsible to maintain the City park facilities year round, pay maintenance operation, and utility costs for City owned property.
5. City shall notify District 15 days in advance of maintenance and/or repair that will affect use of any and all facilities.
P. Ground Rules for use of City Municipal Pool by District:
1. Application must be made through City, utilizing the Facility Use Application Form, and must be approved before the use of the pool is authorized.
2. A certificated lifeguard employee from District or City must be present to supervise activities while the pool is being utilized in the school program. If City staff supervises the pool activity, then the rate of a City lifeguard shall apply.
Gates into the pool and the door leading to the dressing areas must be kept locked unless a lifeguard is present. District personnel will be required to keep the gates closed during the time classes are being conducted in the pool, thereby assuring only authorized persons in the pool area. Additionally, the gates shall be kept locked between classes.
4. It will be the responsibility of District personnel, conducting activities in the swimming pool, to properly remove the pool cover and to replace it at the end of the daily use. Removal, for purposes of this provision, shall mean complete removal from the pool. Users shall not be permitted in the pool when any portion of the pool is covered by the pool cover.
Upon request by the City, to the extent utilized by the District, the District shall assume responsibility for all costs associated with exclusive use of the City Pool located at or near 12385 7th St, Yucaipa, CA 92399 ("7th Street Municipal Pool"). This includes, but is not limited to: utilities, chemicals, and/or lifeguards. In such case, the District shall not be charged for the facility rental.. The District shall only be responsible for such costs during those times it makes use of the 7t' Street Municipal Pool.
6. All students shall be required to follow proper procedures prior to entering the water.
Students suffering from cough, cold, sores or who are wearing bandages shall be prohibited from entering the water. All students must wear proper swim attire entering the pool.
7. District personnel shall check for possible unsafe conditions at the pool on a daily basis, anytime the pool is utilized by the District. Any unsafe conditions shall be promptly reported to the lifeguard on duty and the Community Services Department (909) 790-7460.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 418
8. A City employee will conduct an inspection before and after each use with each use to determine if any damage has been incurred.
9. City shall notify District 15 days in advance of maintenance and/or repair that will affect use of any and all facilities.
Q. Ground Rules for use of District Facilities, Gymnasiums and District Fields by City:
1. District will be responsible to maintain District facilities year round, pay maintenance operation and utility costs for District -owned property.
2. During non -school hours, City will coordinate and schedule community uses of District Sports Fields, lights and Gymnasiums; maintain, operate, collect fees and pay for field lights. Use shall be requested by a District Facility Use Application Form (Attachment C2).
3. District will notify City 15 days in advance of maintenance and/or repair that will affect use of any and all facilities.
4. Non-school/non-District activities are secondary to both City and District scheduling during the school year.
R. Incorporation of Recitals and Attachments; Precedence. All Recitals set forth in this Agreement and the Attachments referenced herein and attached hereto are hereby incorporated as operative and effective provisions of this Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement be found to be inconsistent with or in direct conflict with any term or condition of any Recital or Attachment, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.
S. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its attachment constitute the entire agreement between the District and City pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and the final, complete and exclusive expression of the terms and conditions thereof. All prior agreements, representations, negotiations and understanding of the parties hereto, oral or written, express or implied, are hereby superseded and merged herein.
T. Notices. Any notice, request, demand, consent, approval or other communication required or permitted hereunder or by law shall be validly given or made only if in writing and delivered in person to an officer or duly authorized representative of the other party, or deposited in the United States mail, duly certified or registered (return receipt requested), postage prepaid, or delivered through another commercially reasonable method, including facsimile transmission and addressed to the party for whom intended, as follows:
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 419
If to City: City of Yucaipa
Attn: City Manager
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Fax: (909) 790-9203
If to District: Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District Attn: Asst. Superintendent, Business Services
12797 Third Street
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Fax: (909) 790-9262
Any party may from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address which shall be substituted for that specified above. If any notice or other document is sent by mail as aforesaid, the same shall be deemed fully delivered and received forty-eight (48) hours after mailing as provided above. If any notice or document is sent by facsimile transmission, the same shall be deemed fully delivered and received upon the transmission to the sender of a facsimile confirmation sheet.
U. Governing Law. This Agreement and the attachments hereto have been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California.
V. Invalidity of Provision. If any provision of this Agreement as applied to any party or to any circumstance shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable for any reason, the same shall in no way affect (to the maximum extent permissible by law) any other provision of this Agreement, the application of any such provision under circumstances different from those adjudicated by the court, or the validity or enforceability of this Agreement as a whole.
W. Amendments/Waiver. No addition to or modification of any provision contained in this Agreement shall be effective unless fully set forth in writing by the District and the City. No waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be a continuing waiver thereof.
X. Construction. This Agreement is the product of negotiation, drafting and preparation by and among the District and the City and each of their respective attorneys. The District and the City each expressly acknowledge and agree that this Agreement shall not be deemed prepared or drafted by the District, the City, or any of its/their attorneys, and will be construed accordingly. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement.
Page l0
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 420
Y. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 421
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and District have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
City of Yucaipa
Dr. Sean M. Moore
City Manager
ATTEST:
Yucaipa- Calimesa Joint Unified School
District
Date Cali Binks
Superintendent
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC Date
Director of General Services/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date
Steven Graham Pacifico Date Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone Date City Attorney Legal Counsel to the District
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 422
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF YUCAIPA
AND
YUCAIPA-CALIMESA JOINT
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
JOINT USE AGREEMENT
DISTRICT FACILITY LOCATIONS
The following locations shall be subject to this Agreement.
Facilities Owned by District
A. Calimesa Elementary School
B. Dunlap Elementary School
C. Ridgeview Elementary School
D. Valley Elementary School
E. Chapman Elementary School
F. Wildwood Elementary
G. Parkview Middle School
H. Mesa View Middle School
I. Oak View Education Center/Fields (OVEC)
J. Yucaipa High School
K. Green Valley High School/Adult Education/Fields
L. District Education Center
M. Inland Leader's Charter School/California Street
Campus
N. Competitive Edge Charter Academy (CECA)
O. Bryant Glen Sports Park (Field #4, 5, & 8)
13525 Second Street, Yucaipa
32870 Avenue "E", Yucaipa
11021 Sunnyside Drive, Yucaipa
12333 8th Street, Yucaipa
33692 Cramer Road, Yucaipa
35972 Susan Street, Yucaipa
34875 Tahoe Drive, Yucaipa
800 Mustang Way, Calimesa
12358 6th Street, Yucaipa
33000 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa
35912 Avenue "H", Yucaipa
12797 Yd Street, Yucaipa
12375 California Street, Yucaipa
34450 Stonewood Drive, Yucaipa
11026 Sunnyside Drive, Yucaipa
Site Location
District Responsibility
City Responsibility
A - J
General arrangements as to the
All facility uses must utilize the
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Facility Use Application Form.
including costs associated with
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
J
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
OVEC
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form during non -school hours,
football field
including costs associated with
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
gymnasium
husky fields
J
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
OVEC
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form during non -school hours.
6 to Street
including costs associated with
Maintain, operate, collect fees and
ballfield
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
pay for field lights.
Utilize for school physical education
rage i-1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 423
Site Location
District Responsibility
City Responsibility
classes and coordinate school -
sponsored activities (after school hours)
with the City.
District will pay City for use of field
lights used for school purposes.
Notify City 30 days in advance of
maintenance and/or repair that will
affect use of facility.
K
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
YHS gym
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form during non -school hours.
weight room
including costs associated with
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
football fields
soccer fields
tennis courts
track
baseball field
softball field
*(See City
owned locations
in Attachment
B.
L
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
Green Valley
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form during non -school hours.
High School
including costs associated with
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
M
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
District Ed.
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form for all uses.
Center
including costs associated with
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
N
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
Inland Leaders
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form during non -school hours.
Charter
including costs associated with
School/California
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
Street Campus
O
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
Competitive
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form during non -school hours.
Edge Charter
including costs associated with
Academy
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
CECA
p
General arrangements as to the
Utilize by Facility Use Application
Bryant Glen
maintenance of the facility and grounds
Form during non -school hours.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
424
Site Location
District Responsibility
City Responsibility
Sports Park
(Field #4,5, & 8)
including costs associated with
maintenance, operation, and utilities.
Note: City non -school activities are secondary to school activities during school year.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 425
CITY OF YUCAIPA
AND
YUCAIPA-CALIMESA
JOINT UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
JOINT USE
AGREEMENT
CITY FACILITY LOCATIONS
The following locations shall be subject to this Agreement.
Facilities Owned by City
A. Bryant Glen Sports Park (Field #6 & 7)
B. 131h Street Sports Complex
C. Yucaipa Equestrian Arena
D. Avenue "I" Park
E. Flag Hill Veterans Memorial Park
F. 71h Street Municipal Pool
G. Scherer Community Center
H. 7th Street Teen Center/Park/Fields
I. Wildwood Park
J. Yucaipa Community Park (Field # 1,2, & 3)
K. Yucaipa Community Center
L. El Dorado Ranch Park
M. Yucaipa High School Baseball Field
ATTACHMENT B
11026 Sunnyside Drive, Yucaipa
13th Street & Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa
13273 California Street, Yucaipa
34130 Ave. "I" (51h Street), Yucaipa
Fremont and Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa
12385 Seventh Street, Yucaipa
12202 First Street, Yucaipa
12385 Seventh Street, Yucaipa
12611 Wildwood Canyon Road, Yucaipa
34900 Oak Glen Road, Yucaipa
34900 Oak Glen Road, Yucaipa
37216 Oak Glen Road, Yucaipa
33000 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa
Site Location District Responsibility City Responsibility A Utilize by Facility Use Application General arrangements as to the Bryant Glen Form during school hours. maintenance of the facility and Sports Park grounds including costs associated
Field # 6 & 7 Will cooperate with City in keeping area
( ) clear of trash and debris. with maintenance, operation, and utilities.
Supervision outlined in "General"
aspects of contract.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 426
Site Location
District Responsibility
City Responsibility
B
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
13th Street Sports
Form during school hours.
maintenance of the facility and
Complex
Will cooperate with City in keeping area
grounds including costs associated
clear of trash and debris.
with maintenance, operation, and
utilities.
Supervision outlined in "General"
aspects of contract.
District request of any special
enhancements will be at the expense of
the District.
District shall be permitted use of South
West Field by Yucaipa High School for
the explicit purpose of conducting
softball league games and tournament
competitions during the appropriate
seasons of play. Reference contractual
agreement with City on 13th Street
Development & Operations Agreement
dated January 24, 2012.
C
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
Equestrian Arena
Form.
maintenance of the facility and
grounds including costs associated
with maintenance, operation, and
utilities.
D
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
Avenue "I" Park
Form.
maintenance of the facility and
grounds including costs associated
with maintenance, operation, and
utilities.
E
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
Flag Hill
Form.
maintenance of pool including costs
Veterans
associated with maintenance,
Memorial Park
operation, and utilities.
F
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
7th Street
Form and only available to YCJUSD;
maintenance of the facility and
Municipal Pool
if CHC pool is at capacity.
grounds including costs associated
with maintenance, operation, and
Will cooperate with City in keeping
utilities.
area clear of trash and debris.
Supervision outlined in "General"
aspects of contract.
G
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
Scherer
Form.
maintenance of the facility and
Communi
rounds including costs associated
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 427
Site Location
District Responsibility
City Responsibility
Center
with maintenance, operation, and
utilities.
H
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
7th Street Teen
Form during school hours.
maintenance of the facility and
Center/Park/Fields
Will cooperate with City in keeping
grounds including costs associated
area clear of trash and debris.
with maintenance, operation, and
Supervision outlined in "General"
utilities,
aspects of contract.
I
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
Wildwood Park
Form.
maintenance of the facility and
grounds including costs associated
with maintenance, operation, and
utilities.
J
Utilize sports fields and trails by
General arrangements as to the
Yucaipa
Facility Use Application Form during
maintenance of the facility and
Community Park
school hours.
grounds including costs associated
(Field # 1,2, & 3)
Will cooperate with City in keeping
with maintenance, operation, and
area clear of trash and debris.
utilities
Supervision outlined in "General"
aspects of contract.
K
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
Yucaipa
Form.
maintenance of the facility and
Community
grounds including costs associated
Center
with maintenance, operation, and
utilities.
L
Utilize by Facility Use Application
General arrangements as to the
El Dorado Ranch
Form.
maintenance of the facility and
Park
grounds including costs associated
with maintenance, operation, and
utilities.
M
General arrangements as to the
City will maintain facility and
Yucaipa High
maintenance of the facility and grounds
grounds; including costs associated
School Baseball
including costs associated with
with landscape maintenance.
Field
maintenance, operation, and utilities
(water and electricity).
Note: District activities are secondary to City activities during the school year.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 428
Item No. 20
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Counci J
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager ,�/
PREPARED BY: Megan Wolfe, Director of Community Services VW SUBJECT: Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church Lease Agreement RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve and authorize the Facility Lease Agreement with Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church at the Scherer Community Center; or,
2. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 8, 2026, the City Council considered this item. Following additional administrative review, the City Manager directed staff to return the item to the City Council for reconsideration.
The Scherer Community Center, also known as the City's senior center, serves as an important community asset that supports recreational programming, senior services, community gatherings, and rental opportunities. In an effort to maximize utilization of the facility during non -operational hours and generate additional revenue to offset facility operational costs, City staff have proposed a lease agreement with Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church.
Under the proposed agreement, Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church would utilize portions of the Scherer Community Center during days and times that fall outside of the facility's operational hours. The agreement would also provide the organization with access to one designated office space, which may be accessed independently and does not interfere with regular senior services operations, as well as limited storage areas within the facility.
The proposed arrangement provides several operational and community benefits, including:
• Increased utilization of the facility during otherwise unused hours; • Additional revenue to support facility operations and maintenance; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 429
Consistent occupancy and activity within the facility, which helps discourage unauthorized use and loitering;
Continued support for community organizations seeking gathering space within the City.
Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church has a longstanding history of community involvement within the City and has regularly participated in volunteer and community support efforts at City events and festivals. The lease agreement recommendation is based on the operational and community benefits associated with the proposed lease arrangement, the compatibility of the proposed use with existing facility operations, and the organization's ability to responsibly utilize the facility in accordance with City expectations.
The lease agreement establishes the permitted use areas, days and hours of use, insurance and indemnification requirements, storage limitations, maintenance responsibilities, and all applicable operational conditions for the facility.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Under the terms of the three-year lease, Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church will pay the City $36,000 annually for use of the Center.
Attachment(s):
1. Lease Agreement
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 430
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 431
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
EXEMPT FROM FEES PER G.C. 6103 1
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDERS USE ONLY
FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT
12202 First Street, Yucaipa, CA 92399
This lease agreement ("Lease") is made and entered into this 8th day of June 2026 (the "Lease") by and between the City of Yucaipa, a municipal corporation ("City") and Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church, Inc., a California non-profit ("Tenant). The parties to this Lease may be referred to herein as "Party" or collectively as the "Parties." I. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
City grants to Tenant and Tenant accepts from City a lease to use the Scherer Community Center, located at 12202 First Street Yucaipa, California 92399, which includes (2) two buildings (hereinafter referred to as "the Leased Premises") on the terms and conditions set forth herein. Leased Premises shall include all shared spaces, including but not limited to the stage, banquet rooms, community room, and activity room during agreed upon days and times set forth in section IV.
II. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Lease is the complete agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
III. TERM OF LEASE; EXTENSION; TERMINATION
The term of this Lease commences on July 1, 2026, and ends on June 30, 2027. This Lease may be terminated by either Party, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party. City shall provide such notice only after specific action by the City Council to terminate this Lease.
Option to Extend. Provided that Tenant shall not be in default or breach of any term of this Lease, by Tenant may extend the term of this Lease by two (2) calendar years by written notice to the City given at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the original (or extended) term hereof, on the same terms and conditions of this 07/27�265_5fit5y`�ouncil Agenda 432
Lease, provided that in no event shall the initial term plus any extensions exceed a term of 55 years.
IV. LEASING OF PREMISES; RENT
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the payment by Tenant to City rent of $3,00.00 per month, by the 5th day of each calendar month, without prior notice or demand, and without offset or deduction, City hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant hereby leases from City, the Scherer Community Center, located at 12202 First Street, Yucaipa, California 92399.
The monthly rent includes the following permitted uses:
• Use of one (1) designated office space, Monday through Sunday • Facility access after 4:00 p.m., Monday through Wednesday and Friday • Use of the facility on Saturdays and Sundays
• Use on mutually agreed holidays, subject to City approval • Use of three (3) storage areas.
o Storage room in the Community Room
o Storage room in the Basement
o Storage room in the catwalk separating the main facility and the Nutrition Center
All use of the Premises shall be scheduled in advance and coordinated with City staff. Lessee shall comply with all applicable rental policies, procedures, and facility expectations established by the City.
Any use of the Premises beyond the days, times, or spaces identified above shall be considered additional use and must be requested in advance and approved by the City. Any approved additional use shall be subject to the City's standard fees and charges then in effect.
All shared spaces, including but not limited to the stage, banquet rooms, community room, and activity room, shall be cleaned and maintained by Lessee following use. Any furniture or equipment moved during use shall be returned to its original configuration.
V. UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE
1. Tenant Responsibilities:
a. Tenant shall be responsible for providing and paying for trash removal and disposal services for the leased premises. This includes arranging for regular trash pickup and ensuring that all waste generated by Tenant's use of the premises is properly disposed of in compliance with local regulations.
b. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall conduct routine maintenance at its cost.
The Parties agree that the term "routine maintenance" shall include the day-to-day 07/27%���26��Ify�ouncil Agenda 433
or periodic maintenance activities, such as janitorial services, removal of trash, which are intended to maintain the premises in a manner such that it will not deteriorate from its condition before leased, normal wear and tear excluded.
2. City Responsibilities:
a. City is responsible for utilities and cost of utilities defined as water, gas, electricity, and sewer usage.
b. City agrees to perform and pay for landscaping and any major or structural maintenance of the building excluding damage caused by Tenant, in addition to the cost of irrigation water for the front yard.
c. City reserves the use of the Premises for City -approved classes and activities. The schedule for classes will be coordinated with Tenant.
VI. USE OF LEASED PREMISES
The leased premises will be used by Tenant to operate the Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church, Inc.
2. Tenant may use the parking lot near the North and West corners of the Property to park.
3. Modifications to the leased premises may be made by Tenant, subject to prior written approval by City and at no cost to City.
4. Tenant agrees that it will, upon termination of this Lease, return the lease premises in the same condition as at the commencement of the term of the lease, reasonable wear and tear excluded.
VII. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Tenant shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the Lease, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with Tenant's operation and use of said premises:
Commercial General Liability: $5,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage ($500,000 sub -limit for property damage). If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO CGL occurrence form GC 0001. Workers' Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability Insurance. Automotive Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit (CSL) for bodily injury and property damage. This shall include owned, hired, and non -owned automobiles. Coverage shall be as broad as ISO CGL occurrence form CG 0001. Auto liability is required only if 07/27q��26�ifyfouncil Agenda 434
autos are used in performance of this contract. All policies, except for Workers' Compensation (requires Certificate of Insurance only), shall name City of Yucaipa, its employees, officers, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds. The insurance provided to the City as an additional insured must apply on a primary and non- contributory basis with respect to any insurance or self-insurance program maintained by the City. Certificates of insurance shall be provided to City prior to or concurrent with the Tenant's execution of this Lease. The coverage shall provide that such insurance afforded to the additional insureds shall be primary, but only as respects to this Lease, and insurance maintained by City, its employees, officers, agents, and volunteers shall be non-contributing. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to City.
Waiver of Subrogation
Tenant hereby grants City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Tenant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Tenant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not Tenant has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from its insurer. However, the Workers' Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of Tenant for all work performed by the Tenant, its employees, agents, invitees, members, and subcontractors.
VIII. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Tenant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with legal counsel reasonably selected by City) and hold harmless City and any and all of its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, independent contractors, representatives and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, actions and proceedings (whether at law or equity, administrative or judicial), demands, orders, judgments, losses, injuries (including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee, invitee or member of Tenant, liabilities of every kind (including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, and litigation expenses, and fees of expert or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and cost of investigation), damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the Lease by Tenant its officers, agents, employees, representatives, members, invitees, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone that they control. Tenant's duty to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Indemnified Parties, shall not include any Claims arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties.
Tenant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from every in the performance of this Agreement 07/27%2bL6��ifyFouncil Agenda 435
naming the Indemnified Parties as additional indemnitees. In the event Tenant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Tenant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Tenant and shall survive the termination of this Agreement and this section.
IX. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES
Should the Premises be damaged or destroyed by any cause not the fault of Tenant (including its members or invitees), City may, at City's sole option, repair the same.
X. MORTGAGES AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES
Tenant shall not mortgage, hypothecate or otherwise encumber or cause any liens to be placed upon the Premises or the freehold estate of City.
XI. ASSIGNABILITY
Tenant shall not sub -lease the Premises or assign any part of this Lease, and any attempt to do so shall terminate this Lease without further action on City's part.
XII. DEFAULT
Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, at any time one party is in default or breach of any provision of this Lease, the other party may give written notice to remedy such default or breach. If the default or breach is remedied within fifteen (15) days following such notice, then this Lease shall continue in full force and effect. If, (1) such default or breach is not remedied within said fifteen (15) day period, or (2) the nature of the default or breach is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within fifteen (15) days and the defaulting party fails to commence to cure within the fifteen (15) day period and thereafter diligently prosecute the cure to completion, then the non -defaulting party may, at its option, terminate this Lease and, if terminated by City, take possession of the Premises without further notice and shall also be entitled to such damages or other remedies at law or in equity are available to either Party because of such default or breach. Termination of this Lease pursuant to this section shall not be considered a waiver of damages or other remedies at law or in equity available to either Party because of such default or breach. Each term and condition of this Lease shall also be deemed to be a covenant. A waiver by either Party of any default or breach by the other Party of any provision of this Lease shall not constitute or be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other default or breach. No waiver shall be binding, unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver; waivers on behalf of City shall only be given by resolution of the City Council. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by either Party shall give the other party any contractual right by custom, estoppel, or otherwise. The subsequent acceptance of rent pursuant to this 07/2_/ Tz_Pa?y'Founcil Agenda 436
Lease shall not constitute a waiver of any preceding default by Tenant other than default in the payment of the particular rental payment so accepted, regardless of City's knowledge of the preceding breach at the time of accepting the rent; nor shall acceptance of rent or any other payment after expiration or termination constitute a reinstatement, extension, or renewal of the Lease or revocation of any notice or other act by City.
XIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Attorneys' Fees. In the event that any action is brought by either Party against the other Parry for the enforcement or declaration of any right or remedy in or under this Lease or for the breach or enforcement of any covenant or condition of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs from the other party.
2. Waiver.
a. No waiver of any breach of any of the terms, covenants, agreements, restrictions, or conditions of this Lease shall be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, agreements, restrictions, and conditions hereof. b. City's consent to or approval of any act shall not be deemed to render unnecessary the obtaining of City's consent to or approval of any subsequent act by Tenant. The acceptance of rent hereunder by City shall not constitute a waiver of any preceding breach by Tenant of any provision hereof, other than the failure of Tenant to pay the rent so accepted, regardless of City's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of its acceptance of such rent.
3. Entry by City; Inspection. City reserves the right for City and City's agents and representatives to enter upon the Premises at any reasonable time and after reasonable notice to Tenant for the purpose of inspecting the Premises, to examine the condition thereof, including the Premises' environmental condition; showing the same to prospective purchasers, tenants or lenders; making such alterations, repairs, improvements or additions to the Premises, as City deems reasonable or necessary; or attending to City's business and City's interest hereunder, as City may deem necessary or desirable.
4. Relationship of the Parties. The relationship of the Parties hereto is that of landlord and tenant, and it is expressly understood and agreed that City does not in any way, nor for any purpose, become a partner of Tenant or a joint venture with Tenant in the conduct of Tenant's operations, or otherwise.
5. Incorporation of Prior Agreements; Modifications. This Lease contains all agreements of the Parties with respect to any matter. No prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective. This Lease may be modified only in writing and signed by the Parties at the time of such modification. 07/27%�6J2 Qit�y�ouncil Agenda
437
6. Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Lease. Each term and each provision of this Lease, performable by Tenant, shall be construed to be both a covenant and a condition.
7. Construction of Lease. This Lease's language shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning and not restricted for or against either City or Tenant. The captions of the sections and subsections of this Lease are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of construction.
8. Choice of Law; Venue. This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, with venue for any legal actions, which may be brought by either party against the other party in the San Bernardino Superior Court, San Bernardino Justice Center.
XIV. NOTICES
Any notice to be given or other document to be delivered by either Party to the other hereunder may be delivered in person to either party, or may be deposited in the United States mail, in the State of California, duly registered or certified, with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the party for whom intended as follows:
TO CITY: City Manager
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.
Yucaipa, CA 92399
TO TENANT: Leahnna Olmedo-Peralta, Administrative Pastoral Assistant Yucaipa Christ the Redeemer Church, Inc.
PO Box 391
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Either Party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other Party, designate a different address, which shall be substituted for the one above specified. If any notice or other document is sent by registered or certified, the same shall be deemed served or delivered on the third (3rd) business day after the mailing thereof.
XV. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Lease shall be adjudged to be invalid, void or illegal, it shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provision(s) hereof, the Parties hereby agree that they would have entered into the remaining portion of this Lease notwithstanding the omission of the portion or portions adjudged invalid, void or illegal.
07/27%963-�� jfb'uncil Agenda 438
XVI. COUNTERPARTS
This Lease may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, shall be deemed to the same instrument.
XVII. REVENUE & TAXATION CODE SECTION 170.6 POSSESSORY INTEREST TAX
Tenant recognizes and understands that this Lease may create a possessory interest subject to property taxes and that, if a possessory interest is created, Tenant shall, in accordance with this Section hereof, be responsible for payment of property taxes levied against such possessory interest.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease on the date and year first above written.
CITY OF YUCAIPA
Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager
Date
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC,
Director of General Services/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney
YUCAIPA CHRIST THE
REDEEMER CHURCH, INC.
Leahnna Olmedo-Peralta,
Administrative Pastoral Assistant
Date
07/27g9�l�Lb��ify`�ouncil Agenda 439
Item No. 21
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Hrant Manuelian, Director of Finance
WV -
Ryan Blackerby, Deputy Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Annual Budget and Capital Improvement Program RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-20, approving the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program for the City of Yucaipa; and
2. If budget is approved as proposed including the closure of the YPAC, staff recommends that council provide direction to staff to issue a RFP for the operations of the YPAC by an outside entity; or
3. If budget is approved as proposed except for the closure of the YPAC, staff recommends that council take funding from the Streets fund and/or the Contingency account to fund the YPAC.
YPAC costs are estimated to be $1,376,745 in operations less projected revenues of $650,000 for a net of $726,745; or
4. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The FY 26-27 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program represents the annual spending plan for each of the City's accounting funds and includes both operating and capital spending estimates.
There have been two budget workshops for the FY 26-27 budget. The first was on April 6, 2026 which was held at the Yucaipa Performing Arts Center, and a second workshop was held on June 8, 2026. During these workshops staff received direction and recommendations from council. The budget was then presented for adoption at the June 22, 2026 Council meeting, however the budget was not adopted and Council provided additional direction and comments. Since the last council 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 440
meeting staff met with all five council members and all department directors and made additional changes as summarized below. These have been incorporated into the FY 26-27 budget being presented for adoption.
Summary of changes:
• General Fund has a balanced budget that is being presented for adoption. • Measure S revenues have been allocated 100% to support Public Safety Police Services. • Proposed closure of the YPAC.
• Total of seven positions frozen across all departments and two positions laid off due to the closure of the YPAC.
• Moved an additional $500,000 from the General Fund to the Streets Capital Fund for total available funding of $4,544,899.
• The Fire fund is projected to have an ending fund balance of over $4.2 million and when excluding one-time items the balance is projected to be over $6.7 million. • Costs were cut across several departments as summarized in the expenditure section below.
The most significant being the seven positions that have been frozen and the closure of the YPAC. These cuts all contributed to the addition of the Paramedic Squad.
The amounts in the FY 26-27 Budget are presented on the budgetary basis of accounting which focuses on flows into and out of each accounting fund. The budgetary basis differs from the modified -accrual basis which the City uses to compile governmental fund financial statements.
While the FY 26-27 Budget includes financial information for all accounting funds, staff would like to highlight the primary operating funds which are the General Fund and the Public Safety Fund.
General Fund
Below is a summary of the revenues and expenditures being proposed for the City's Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget.
Revenues
For fiscal year 26-27, we have budgeted total General Fund revenues of $54,019,107, which includes the General Fund, Police, Fire, and Paramedic services. This is an increase of $1,745,674 compared to the FY 25-26 revised budget. See chart below for listing of revenues by department.
See budget book for breakdown by revenue category.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 441
Non -Departmental Revenue
Gen Svc Revenue
Finance Revenue
Community Services Revenue
Community Development Revenue
Public Works Revenue
Specific Plan
Paramedic Revenue
Police Services Revenue
Fire Services Revenue
Fire Services Revenue
General Fund Revenue Fd 223
General Fund Revenue Fd 250
G F and PS
Expenditures
2025-2026
2026-2027
Change from PY
Revised Budget
Council Draft
Budget
41,128, 505.00
42, 674,110.50
1, 545, 605.50
43,620.00
38,380.00
(5,240.00)
1,450.00
1,000.00
(450.00)
1,689,825.00
1,209,500.00
(480,325.00)
2,130,325.00
1,948,725.00
(181,600.00)
387, 637.40
899, 505.00
511, 867.60
-
550.00
550.00
1, 090, 000.00
1, 090, 000.00
-
290,874.00
536,777.00
245,903.00
5,350,000.00
5,463,000.00
113,000.00
130,000.00
131,595.00
1,595.00
17,197.00
14,197.00
(3,000.00)
14,000.00
11,768.00
(2,232.00)
52, 273, 433.40
54, 019,107.50
1, 745, 674.10
Expenditures for FY 26-27 are proposed to be $57,783,731 which includes the General Fund, Police, Fire, and Paramedic services. This is an increase of $3,059,667 compared to the revised budget for FY 25-26. The table below shows expenditures by department. See the budget book for detailed breakdown by expenditure category.
FY 2025-2026
FY 2026-2027
Revised
Proposed
Change From
Budget
Budget
Prior Year
Non -Departmental
1,283,491.00
649,294.00
(634,197.00)
City Manager
2,165,553.00
1,531,487.00
(634,066.00)
HR/RM
2,321,510.70
2,576,294.00
254,783.30
City Council
212,243.00
239,012.00
26,769.00
Gen Svcs/City Clerk
3,316,832.00
3,286,325.00
(30,507.00)
Finance
1,958,786.00
1,988,850.00
30,064.00
Community Services
4,602,998.00
3,918,958.00
(684,040.00)
Community Developemnt
3,140,396.00
2,831,256.94
(309,139.06)
Public Works
6,985,143.00
8,327,216.13
1,342,073.13
Paramedic Services
2,364,188.00
3,842,816.00
1,478,628.00
Police Services
16,575,281.00
18,241,642.00
1,666,361.00
Fire Protection
9,797,642.00
10,350,580.00
552,938.00
Total
54,724,063.70
57,783,731.07
3,059,667.37
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 442
Significant changes noted:
1. Non -Departmental — Decrease in expenditures is mainly due to an additional $500,000 reduction in the contingency budget to provide additional funding to the Streets Capital fund.
2. City Manager — The City Manager department had a reduction of $634,066. City Manager decrease is due to salary and benefit saving from two positions being frozen, Assistant City Manager and Sr. Management Analyst and a decrease in Professional Services of $350,000 which was for several items, including a state and federal lobbyist, consultant, Props AV, and a Podcast host.
3. HR/RM — Human Resources has an increase of $91,638, which is mainly due to the COLA adjustment for salaries and increased PERS costs for FY 26-27. Risk Management has an increase of $163,144 due to increased insurance premiums from LIRA.
4. Finance — Decrease is due to two positions being frozen and therefore not budgeted. The Office Assistant and Purchasing Officer positions are being frozen.
5. Community Services — Overall costs increased across all divisions within Community Services, however it is being proposed to shut down the YPAC, which would provide a savings of $1,414,164 less projected revenues of $650,000. This decrease is offset by increases in the Sports & Special Events division of $226,865 and Senior Services division of $346,295. To account for notice to be given to employees for layoffs and potential vacation leave payout we included two months of salary and vacation leave payout for the full amount due per the City policy. Also 25% of utility costs are included as it is expected that there will still be some costs as operations wind down. As an alternate to the complete shut down of the YPAC, staff can issue an RFP for outside entities to take over and run the operations of the YPAC.
6. Community Development — This department is made up of Planning, Building & Safety, and Economic Development. The Planning division has savings of $287,799 made up of savings from a position that has been frozen. Also, there was a decrease in professional services of $149,870. The Building & Safety division has a decrease of $230,460 mainly due to the new contract for Building & Safety services.
7. Public Works - Increase in Public Works of $1,342,073 is mainly due to reclassifying salary and benefits to the General Fund because to avoid going negative in the Gas Tax fund due to lack of adequate funding this accounts for $981,148 of the increase. Public Works Streets also has an increase in Professional Services, mainly for Signal Repairs estimated at $300,000. In addition, the Park & Facilities Maintenance division has an increase of $241,232 due mainly to increased utilities costs and unanticipated facility repairs.
8. Paramedic Services — Increase in the Paramedics department is due to the addition of Paramedic Squad along with two squad vehicles and related equipment. Total increase in budget of $1,478,628.
9. Police Services — Increase in Police services of $1,666,361 is mainly due to the overall increase in sheriff costs. The Schedule A contract with the San Bernardino Sheriff increased by $1,416,663 in total compared to the prior fiscal year which included a Cost - of -Living Adjustment of 7% that went into effect in November 2025. The increase in cost per Deputy Sheriff was 4.96%. The increase also includes an additional Deputy Sheriff 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 443
($263,674) and an additional Marked Unit ($27,559). Other major cost increases noted in the Schedule A contract were vehicle insurance, which increased $139,824 or 151%, personnel liability & bonding increased $295,019 or 3 1 % and Workers' Comp. experience modification increased from a credit of $46,364 to a cost $26,322 an increase of $72,686.
10. Fire Protection - Fire Protection has an increase of $552,938. The schedule A contract has an increase of 4.4% and the addition of one Fire Captain.
Measure S
In November 2024, voters passed Measure S, a general 1 % sales tax measure. Measure S funds are general tax monies and therefore are not restricted and can be used to support the general services of the government. For FY 26-27 we are proposing a budget of $9M based on data currently available and sales tax analysis by HdL (outside sales tax consultant). Currently all of the Measure S revenues are being used to support the police services of the City. For FY 25-26 of the nearly $5M received to date all of it has been used to support police services. Police services is the largest department in terms of expenditures and accounts for 32% of the General and Public Safety budget.
Public Safety Fund
The Public Safety Fund as presented includes Sheriff services, Fire services, and Paramedic services.
Costs relating to police services and code enforcement are also included in this special revenue fund. Police costs are primarily based on the Schedule A with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (SBCSD).
Notable additions to the budget that were included in the Public Safety Fund are: a Used Reserve Paramedic Squad Vehicle with its related equipment and staffing, one (1) additional deputy as part of the contract with SBCSD, overtime for Sheriff/SOP, and equipment maintenance cost for various policing equipment. Also, there is a rollover of $2.5 million from FY 25-26 for a ladder truck however, due to delays in manufacturing they were not available. The purchase is not expected to occur for at least 4-5 years.
See budget book for detailed breakdown of Public Safety revenues/expenditures breakdown.
Fund Balance
Below is the summary of estimated fund balances for the General Fund including Police Services.
The City has a healthy fund balance. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practices recommend that City governments maintain a reserve balance of two months expenditures. The City has a General Fund balance of just over 12 months of General Fund expenditures.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 444
City of Yucaipa
Budget Summary with Fund Balance Estimates
FY 2026-2027
Proposed
Proposed
Estimated
Revenue
Expenditure
Propsed
Proposed
Estimated
Beginning
Budget FY
Budget FY
Transfers In FY
Transfers Out FY
Ending FB
Change In Fund
Fund Balance
26/27
26/27
26/27
26/27
6/30/27
Balance
GF 41,693,750.00
46,797,735.50
25,348,693.07
399,505.00
1,123,532.00
62,408,765.43
20,725,015.43
Police 1,160,276.00
536,777.00
18,241,642.00
11,877.00
-
(16,532,712.00)
(17,692,988.00)
Total GF 42,844,026.00
47,334,512.50
43,590,335.07
411,382.00
1,123,532.00
45,876,053.43
3,032,027.43
PS Fund
Police - - - - - -
Fire 9,036,490.00 5,594,595.00 10,350,580.00 4,280,505.00 (4,755,985.00) Paramedic 620,294.00 1,090,000.00 3,842,816.00 (2,132,522.00) (2,752,816.00) Total PS 9,656,784.00 6,694,595.00 14,193,396.00 2,147,983.00 (7,508,801.00) Total GF and PS 54,019,107.50 57,783,731.07 411,382.00 1,123,532.00 48,024,036.43 (4,476,773.57) 1,657,479.00 IT ISF
2,500,000.00 Fire Truck
150,000.00 Squad Equip
200,000.00 Squad Vehicle
4,507,479.00 OneTimeandITISF
Total GF and PS Surplus/(deficit) 30,705.43
Capital Improvement Program
Information presented for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) follows the City Council's direction to continue prioritizing the completion of existing projects. Budget authorization for these projects is multi -year, meaning that the authorization to spend does not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, but instead the authorization continues until project completion. Accordingly, the planned spending within the CIP for FY 26-27 is primarily from previously authorized budgets (carryover budget). Staff successfully aimed to minimize new budget authorization in the CIP section of the FY 26-27 Budget, and identified carryover budget in various projects that can be defended until future resources are available (identified as negative request amounts in the CIP pages of the budget book).
FISCAL IMPACT:
An approval of this item will authorize the operating and capital expenditure plan for FY 26-27.
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2026-20, FY 26-27 Budget
The proposed digital budget book is available electronically at the following link: FY27 Budget 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 445
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 446
RESOLUTION NO.2026-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 OPERATING
BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted for the consideration of the City Council a proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2026-2027; and WHEREAS, the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program is available on the City's website and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program is hereby adopted for the City of Yucaipa General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds, Internal Service Funds and the multi -year budget related to the Capital Improvement Program as outlined in Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 447
Exhibit A
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 448
City of Yucaipa Budget Summary
All Governmental and Proprietary Funds
Estimated
Carryover
Net
Estimated Expenditure Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Estimated Estimated
Equity' Authorization Revenues Expenditures Transfers -In Transfers -Out Equity' Changein
6/30/26 6/30/26' 2026-2027 2026-2027 2026-2027 2026-2027 6/30/27 Fund Balance
Governmental Funds
General Fund $ 41,683,750 $ - $ 45,548,231 $ 20,875,441 $ 434,938 $ 25,077,910 $ 41,713,568 $ Special Revenue Funds
Air Quality Improvement
79,951
79,951
American Rescue Plan Act
-
-
-
-
CA Dept. of Transportation (CaITRANS)
454,498
640,101
640,101
454,498
-
Development Impact Fees (DIF)
1,054,851
561,614
-
322,030
1,294,435
239,594
Gas Tax
(422,575)
1,603,524
1,077,750
525,774
(422,575)
-
Housing Authority
-
-
-
-
Landscaping &LightingMaint. Districts
3,660,889
1,049,555
1,049,555
-
3,660,889
Measure I (Arterial)
(259,893)
4,140,071
-
4,140,071
(259,893)
Measure I (Local)
123,839
1,300,000
-
1,823,208
(399,369)
(523,208)
Miscellaneous Special Revenue
154,323
2,868,267
811,250
25,790
2,224,592
12,538
(141,785)
Public Educational & Gov't Access (PEG)
1,155,015
57,500
25,000
1,187,515
32,500
Public Safety Fund Group
-
Public Safety Fund (sub -fund)
1,160,276
7,209,498
35,409,147
28,199,649
-
1,160,276
Fire Services Fund (sub -fund)
8,036,490
-
127,743
-
5,743,826
2,164,921
(5,871,569)
Paramedic Zone (sub -fund)
70,294
-
-
-
-
70,294
Total Public Safety Fund Group
9,267,060
7,209,498
35,536,890
28,199,649
5,743,826
3,395,491
(5,871,569)
Road Maintenance & Rehab. Account (S131)
(14,869)
1,538,750
-
-
1,543,013
(19,132)
STARS
-
-
-
-
-
State Law Enforcement Grant
917,450
100,000
100,000
-
-
917,450
Total Special Revenue Funds
$ 16,170,538 $
$ 21,068,880
$ 38,600,445 $
28,225,439 $
16,962,615 $
9,901,797
(6,268,741)
Capital Projects Fundsx
Community Dev. Block Grant (CDBG) Capital
181,166
287,389
-
-
287,389
-
181,166
Development Impact Fee Capital Funds
(17,058,134)
7,521,033
1,543,989
2,337,847
5,970,210
379,064
(19,781,879)
(2,723,745)
General Capital Projects
707,834
1,304,707
465,859
130,485
967,658
-
706,159
(1,675)
Low Water Crossings
(146,720)
450,837
-
2,018
400,849
(198,726)
(52,006)
Miscellaneous Capital Projects Fund
7,694,603
-
84,751
-
159,543
7,450,309
(244,294)
Park Capital Replacement Fund
261,817
25,000
2,983
-
233,834
(27,983)
Sidewalks
48,475
421,032
-
-
421,032
-
48,475
-
Street Maintenance (Pavement Mgmt Prgm)
4,790,947
70,000
100,000
3,988,277
4,444,899
48,278
5,229,291
438,344
Total Capital Projects Funds
$ (3,520,012) $
10,079,998
$ 2,109,848
$ 6,546,361 $
12,492,037 $
586,885
$ (6,131,371)
(2,611,359)
Proprietary Funds
Internal Service Funds
Information Technology Fund 1,002,969 1,657,479 2,006,549 - 653,899 (349,070) Self -Insurance Fund 800,457 - 2,151,567 1,474,996 123,885 (676,571) Total Internal Service Funds $ 1,803,425 $ $ 1,657,479 $ 4,158,116 $ 1,474,996 $ $ 777,784 (1,025,641) NOTES:
1) Equities as presented are tentative estimates that are subject to change. 2) Capital Projects Funds contain multi -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget that carries -forward (does not lapse at the end of the fiscal year) and may not be spent until future years.
3) Estimated Carryover Expenditure Authorizations include current year requests to defund prior year spending authorization; see CIP pages in the budget book for details. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 449
crry OF
vl
i
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Steven G. Pacifico, City Attorney
Item No. 22
SUBJECT: Measure S Public Safety Funding Policy and Election Options RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Receive and discuss this report concerning alternatives for directing revenues from the voter -approved Measure S transactions and use tax to public safety purposes; and
2. Select one of the following policy alternatives:
a. Adopt the resolution included as Attachment 1 establishing an immediately effective City Council budget policy requiring all Measure S revenues to be budgeted and spent exclusively for public safety purposes; b. Adopt the resolution included as Attachment 2 calling a nonbinding advisory election for November 3, 2026, asking whether the City Council should adopt and maintain such a public safety funding policy;
c. Adopt, by at least four affirmative votes, the resolution and proposed ordinance included as Attachment 3 submitting to the voters at the November 3, 2026 election a binding measure converting future Measure S revenues into a special tax restricted to public safety purposes; or
3. Provide further direction to staff, including direction to maintain the existing Measure S framework or to revise the scope, accountability requirements, or funding limitations contained in the attached documents.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 450
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-38 placing the City of Yucaipa Public Safety and Essential Services Protection Measure, commonly known as Measure S, on the November 5, 2024 ballot. Measure S proposed Ordinance No. 453, which imposed a one -percent transactions and use tax within the City. At the time the measure was placed on the ballot, the City estimated that it would generate approximately $6 million annually. The tax has no automatic sunset and continues until ended by the voters.
While the measure established a general tax available for any lawful municipal purpose, the public discussion regarding the measure focused on maintaining police, fire, paramedic, 911 emergency response, roadway maintenance, and other essential services. Accordingly, Measure S revenues are deposited into the General Fund and remain legally available for any lawful municipal purpose.
Measure S was approved on November 5, 2024, by 60.04 percent of the votes cast, and the City Council certified the election results and deemed Ordinance No. 453 adopted on December 9, 2024.
Before the election, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024-41, expressing the Council's intent to use Measure S revenues to prevent reductions in public safety services and directing the City Manager to prepare an annual expenditure plan for review by the Citizens' Oversight Committee. That resolution expresses a policy intention but does not legally convert Measure S into a special tax or restrict the electorate's general -tax authorization.
The City Council requested options for strengthening the connection between Measure S revenues and public safety. Attachments 1 through 3 present three different actions: an immediately effective Council budget policy, a nonbinding advisory vote, and a voter -approved special -tax restriction. Each alternative uses a substantially similar, broad definition of public safety, but the legal effect, approval requirements, fiscal consequences, and degree of future flexibility differ materially.
Common Public Safety Framework
Each attachment defines public safety broadly enough to include both direct public safety operations and the supporting expenses reasonably necessary to deliver those operations. The principal categories are:
a. Law enforcement and police services, including contracted Sheriffs Department services, patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, dispatch, crime prevention, public safety technology, emergency response, and code enforcement directed to dangerous or hazardous conditions;
b. Fire protection and emergency medical services, including fire suppression, paramedic and rescue services, stations, apparatus, staffing, fire prevention, wildfire mitigation, hazardous -materials response, training, overtime, mutual aid, and equipment; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 451
c. Emergency management and disaster preparedness, including emergency operations, alert systems, evacuation planning, continuity of operations, disaster response and recovery, backup power, shelters, emergency procurement, and mutual -aid obligations; d. Roadway and transportation safety, including traffic enforcement, traffic signals and control devices, crosswalks, street lighting, traffic calming, evacuation routes, emergency access, and roadway work having a substantial safety or hazard -reduction purpose;
e. Public safety facilities, vehicles, equipment, communications, technology, capital projects, financing, and related planning, design, construction, maintenance, and debt - service costs; and
f. The direct or reasonably allocable share of legal, insurance, risk management, workers' compensation, finance, audit, human resources, information technology, fleet, facilities, utilities, procurement, public information, and other administrative or operational support costs.
The attached documents do not authorize unrestricted overhead charges merely because public safety is a significant City function. Indirect and administrative charges must be tied to eligible public safety purposes through a documented, consistently applied, and auditable allocation method. Under the special -tax alternative, roadway repair and similar infrastructure expenditures are further limited to projects having a primary and substantial roadway -safety, emergency -access, evacuation, or hazard -reduction purpose, with a written determination retained for qualifying pavement work.
All three alternatives also intentionally omit a maintenance -of -effort or "supplement, not supplant' requirement. Measure S may therefore pay for public safety costs that otherwise would have been paid from other General Fund revenues. Devoting all Measure S revenues to public safety would not necessarily produce an equivalent dollar -for -dollar increase in total public safety spending because the Council could use other legally available General Fund revenues for other municipal purposes. If the Council intends Measure S to increase public safety funding above a historical baseline, the attachments should be revised to establish a defined maintenance -of -effort requirement. Such a requirement would provide a stronger assurance of additional spending but would materially reduce budget flexibility and require a clearly defined baseline and exceptions.
Option 1- City Council Budget Policy (Attachment 1)
Attachment 1 would adopt an immediately effective budgetary policy requiring all Measure S revenues, attributable earnings, and prior -year carryover to be proposed, budgeted, appropriated, and spent only for the defined Public Safety Purposes. The resolution would direct the City Manager to include a separately identified Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan in each proposed annual budget; separately track budgeted and actual expenditures; provide the proposed plan to the Citizens' Oversight Committee; and present an annual public accountability report to the City Council.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 452
As an ordinary City Council resolution, this option may be adopted by a recorded majority vote of the full City Council under Government Code section 36936. It requires no election and could govern the current budget process immediately. Measure S would remain a general tax, and Ordinance No. 453 would not be amended.
The principal advantages of this option are speed, low implementation cost, detailed accountability, and continued flexibility. The City Council could adjust the definition or allocation policy in response to changing conditions without another election. The principal limitation is that the policy would not create a voter -enforceable restriction. A future City Council could amend or repeal the resolution at a noticed public meeting. The resolution is drafted to make any proposed amendment or repeal a separately identified agenda action, thereby promoting transparency, but it cannot irrevocably bind a future Council's legislative and budgetary discretion.
Option 2 - Advisory Measure (Attachment 2)
Attachment 2 would place a citywide advisory question on the November 3, 2026 ballot asking whether the City Council should adopt and maintain a policy requiring all Measure S revenues to be spent only for the broadly defined Public Safety Purposes, with annual public reporting.
Elections Code section 9603 requires the ballot to identify the proposal as "Advisory Vote Only" and provides that the result is an indication of general voter opinion that is not controlling on the City Council.
The advisory measure would not amend Ordinance No. 453, restrict the legal use of Measure S revenues, appropriate funds, or convert Measure S into a special tax. A majority "yes" vote would express voter support for the policy; a majority "no" vote would express opposition. In either case, the current and future City Councils would retain legal authority to determine Measure S appropriations through the annual budget process.
This option provides direct voter input and may give greater political legitimacy to a public safety funding policy while preserving legal and operational flexibility. Its limitations are election cost, implementation delay, and the possibility that voters may incorrectly understand an affirmative result as legally binding. The ballot heading, impartial analysis, and public information materials must therefore clearly explain the advisory nature of the vote. The Council may adopt the budget policy in Attachment 1 before or after the advisory election; the two actions are legally compatible.
Option 3 - Binding Special Tax Conversion (Attachment 3) Attachment 3 would submit a proposed ordinance to the voters that retains the existing one -percent Measure S rate and existing duration but converts Measure S revenues received after the special - tax operative date into legally restricted special -tax proceeds. The proceeds could be used only for the public safety programs, services, projects, facilities, equipment, capital costs, and reasonably allocable supporting expenses identified in the ordinance. If the measure fails, the existing general - tax version of Measure S would remain in effect without amendment. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 453
A special tax imposed for specific purposes requires approval by two-thirds of the voters voting on the measure under article XIII C, section 2(d) of the California Constitution. Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91 also requires the proposing ordinance to be approved by two-thirds of all members of the City Council, to conform to the Transactions and Use Tax Law, and to include an expenditure plan. For the five -member Yucaipa City Council, at least four affirmative Council votes would be required to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot. The measure would then require at least two-thirds voter approval.
The proposed ordinance includes the accountability provisions applicable to a special tax, including a separate restricted account, a detailed expenditure plan, an annual independent audit, an annual public report, budget disclosure, and Citizens' Oversight Committee review.
Government Code sections 50075.1 and 50075.3 require a special -tax measure to identify the specific purposes of the tax, restrict proceeds to those purposes, establish a separate account, and provide annual reporting.
This option provides the strongest and most durable commitment because the spending restriction would be voter approved and legally enforceable. Future Councils could not use the proceeds for non -public -safety purposes or materially broaden the permitted purposes without any voter approval required by applicable law. The corresponding disadvantages are the two-thirds voter threshold, reduced ability to respond to changing municipal priorities, increased accounting and compliance burdens, and greater litigation risk concerning whether particular expenses fall within the voter -approved expenditure plan.
The definition of Public Safety Purposes is intentionally broad, but the broader the category, the more important it is that each expenditure have a documented and substantial relationship to an authorized purpose. Legal services, insurance, general administration, roadway work, and other shared costs would require particularly careful allocation and documentation. The proposed ordinance includes safeguards for those costs, but a court would ultimately evaluate the text approved by the voters and the facts supporting each expenditure.
The special -tax transition is also more administratively complex than either of the other options.
The proposed measure is structured as a voter -approved amendment and continuation of the existing tax rather than as an additional tax. Before final ballot filing, staff should obtain review from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration regarding the proposed operative date, coding, retailer notice, and uninterrupted collection. If CDTFA recommends a different transition structure, the ordinance should be revised before the statutory election deadline, provided the rate, restricted purposes, duration, and voter -approval threshold are not materially changed without further Council action.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 454
Summary Comnarison
Option
Approval
Legal Effect
Primary Considerations
1. Budget policy
Majority of full Council;
Immediate Council policy;
Fastest and least costly; detailed annual
no election
Measure S remains a general
budgeting and reporting; not voter -
tax; future Council may
enforceable
amend or repeal
2. Advisory measure
Majority Council action
Expresses voter opinion only;
Direct voter input but nonbinding; election
to call election; voter
does not amend or restrict
cost and delay; requires clear explanation to
result determined by
Measure S
avoid confusion
more yes than no
3. Special tax
At least 4 Council votes
Binding legal restriction on
Strongest commitment; reduced flexibility;
conversion
and two-thirds voter
future proceeds; special -tax
higher approval threshold; CDTFA
approval
accounting and reporting
coordination and greater
compliance/litigation exposure
Status quo
No new action
Measure S remains a general
Maximum flexibility; existing intent and
tax subject to annual Council
oversight continue; no exclusive -use
appropriations and Resolution
requirement
No. 2024-41
Policy Choices Applicable to Any Selected Option
The Council may revise any attachment before adoption or ballot submission. The most significant policy choices are the public safety definition, whether Measure S may replace existing General Fund spending, whether administrative and support allocations should be capped, whether roadway projects should be limited more narrowly, and whether unspent funds should be accumulated for identified capital projects or applied to current operations.
The three options are not entirely mutually exclusive. The Council could adopt Attachment 1 immediately and also submit either Attachment 2 or Attachment 3 to the voters. An immediate policy would govern the budget while an election is pending. Staff does not recommend placing both the advisory measure and the binding special -tax measure on the same ballot because the measures address the same subject but have different legal effects, creating a substantial risk of voter confusion or inconsistent results.
Election Timing and Administration
The statewide General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Elections Code sections 9222 and 10403 require the City's election order and consolidation request to be completed and filed at least 88 days before the election. The statutory deadline is August 7, 2026, although the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters may establish earlier administrative deadlines. If the Council selects either election option, the City Clerk should immediately confirm the County's filing schedule, estimated costs, ballot formatting requirements, argument and rebuttal deadlines, and voter information guide procedures.
Following placement of a measure on the ballot, City resources may be used to provide a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts and the measure's potential effects, but may not be used to campaign for or against the measure. Any City informational program should be reviewed for 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 455
compliance with Government Code section 54964 and the principles stated in Stanson v. Mott and related cases.
Conclusion
Each option can advance the objective of connecting Measure S revenues to public safety, but the options serve different purposes. Attachment 1 provides an immediate, transparent, and flexible budget policy. Attachment 2 asks the electorate for guidance without changing Measure S's legal status. Attachment 3 creates a binding and durable restriction but requires four Council votes, two- thirds voter approval, and more extensive administration. The Council should select the option that best reflects the desired balance between legal commitment, voter participation, fiscal flexibility, accountability, and implementation cost.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None of the proposed alternatives would increase the existing one -percent Measure S tax rate.
Measure S generates approximately $9 million annually.
Attachment 1 would not create election costs, but would require staff time for separate accounting, cost allocation, budget disclosure, Citizens' Oversight Committee support, and annual reporting.
Those costs are expected to be primarily administrative and could be absorbed within existing resources unless the Council directs additional consulting work.
Attachments 2 and 3 would require the City to reimburse San Bernardino County for the City's share of the cost of placing and administering a measure on the November 3, 2026 consolidated ballot. The amount is not presently known and will depend on the County's final ballot configuration, number of jurisdictions and measures, printing and translation requirements, and other election costs. The special -tax alternative would also require CDTFA coordination, restricted -fund accounting, an annual independent audit, and ongoing compliance administration.
The most significant fiscal policy effect is the loss of General Fund flexibility. Under Attachment 3, all Measure S revenues would be assigned to eligible public safety expenditures. To the extent Measure S revenues are otherwise needed for non -public -safety programs, the City would need to reduce those programs or identify other revenues.
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution Establishing a Measure S Public Safety Budget Policy.
2. Resolution Calling a Nonbinding Measure S Public Safety Funding Advisory Measure.
3. Resolution Calling a Measure to Convert Measure S to a Public Safety Special Tax. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 456
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 457
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A BUDGETARY POLICY DEVOTING
MEASURE S REVENUES EXCLUSIVELY TO PUBLIC SAFETY
PURPOSES; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO IDENTIFY THE
PROPOSED AND ACTUAL USE OF MEASURE S REVENUES IN ALL
APPLICABLE BUDGET DOCUMENTS; AND REQUIRING AN ANNUAL
PUBLIC REPORT AND ACCOUNTING
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-38, submitting to the qualified electors of the City of Yucaipa the Yucaipa Public Safety and Essential Services Protection Measure, commonly known as "Measure S"; and WHEREAS, Measure S proposed the adoption of Ordinance No. 453, imposing a one - percent general transactions and use tax within the City of Yucaipa; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, the qualified electors of the City approved Measure S by a majority vote; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-60, declaring the results of the election and deeming Ordinance No. 453 adopted by the voters; and WHEREAS, the revenues generated by Measure S are general tax revenues that may legally be expended for any lawful municipal purpose, and Measure S therefore remains a general tax within the meaning of Article XIII C of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, although Measure S is legally a general tax, it was presented to the electorate as the Yucaipa Public Safety and Essential Services Protection Measure and was intended to provide locally controlled revenue to protect public safety and essential municipal services; and WHEREAS, prior to the election, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-41, declaring its intention to use Measure S revenues to prevent reductions in public safety services and directing the City Manager to prepare an annual expenditure plan for review by the Citizens' Oversight Committee; and
WHEREAS, police protection, fire protection, emergency medical response, emergency preparedness, roadway safety, wildfire prevention, disaster response, code enforcement addressing dangerous conditions, and the administrative and support services necessary to provide those services are essential components of a comprehensive municipal public safety system; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to strengthen and further implement the policy expressed in Resolution No. 2024-41 by directing that all Measure S revenues be budgeted and expended exclusively for public safety purposes; and
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 1 458
WHEREAS, public safety operations depend not only upon the direct cost of police officers, firefighters, paramedics, emergency responders, equipment, vehicles, and facilities, but also upon reasonably allocable legal, risk management, insurance, workers' compensation, information technology, finance, human resources, fleet, facility, procurement, communications, and other supporting expenses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that transparent and separate identification of Measure S revenues and expenditures in the City's budget and financial reports will promote public confidence and allow the City Council, the Citizens' Oversight Committee, and the public to determine whether the revenues have been used consistently with the policy established by this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council possesses authority to establish budget priorities, commit available General Fund resources to identified municipal purposes, direct the preparation of the City's proposed budget, and appropriate City funds through the annual budget and subsequent budget amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council.
Section 2. Measure S Public Safety Funding Policy.
A. As a matter of City Council budgetary policy, all Measure S Revenues shall be proposed, budgeted, appropriated, carried forward, encumbered, and expended exclusively for Public Safety Purposes, as those terms are defined in this Resolution.
B. The City Manager shall prepare and administer each proposed annual budget, midyear budget review, budget amendment, capital improvement program, long-range financial forecast, and other material City budget document in a manner consistent with this policy.
C. No proposed budget or budget amendment shall assign Measure S Revenues to an expenditure that does not qualify as a Public Safety Purpose under this Resolution.
D. Measure S Revenues that are not appropriated, encumbered, or expended during the fiscal year in which they are received shall be separately identified and carried forward for appropriation and expenditure on Public Safety Purposes in a subsequent fiscal year.
E. Nothing in this Resolution shall limit the City Council's authority to appropriate other General Fund revenues, grants, fees, assessments, special revenues, or other legally available resources for Public Safety Purposes.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg.
2 459
Section 3. Definitions.
For purposes of this Resolution, the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Measure S" means the one -percent general transactions and use tax approved by the voters of the City of Yucaipa on November 5, 2024, and enacted through Ordinance No. 453, including any successor provision of the Yucaipa Municipal Code.
B. "Measure S Revenues" means:
1. All transactions and use tax proceeds received by the City pursuant to Measure S;
2. Any interest, investment earnings, penalties, reimbursements, refunds, or other revenue directly attributable to Measure S proceeds, to the extent separately identifiable;
3. Any Measure S proceeds carried forward from a prior fiscal year; and
4. Any reimbursement received by the City for an expenditure originally paid from Measure S Revenues.
C. "Public Safety Purposes" shall be construed broadly and includes the following direct and reasonably allocable indirect costs:
1. Law Enforcement and Police Services.
a. Contracts for law enforcement services, including services provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department;
b. Patrol services, traffic enforcement, criminal investigations, detective services, crime analysis, specialized enforcement, school and community safety programs, and services addressing gangs, narcotics, organized crime, retail theft, burglary, vehicle theft, fraud, vandalism, and other criminal activity;
c. Community -oriented policing, neighborhood patrols, crime -prevention programs, public education, youth diversion, gang prevention, and services intended to prevent or reduce crime; d. Homelessness response, behavioral -health response, crisis -intervention services, outreach, and related programs when performed by, coordinated with, or materially supporting law enforcement, emergency response, or the mitigation of threats to public health or safety; e. Emergency dispatch, 911 services, records, evidence management, communications, radio systems, body -worn cameras, automated license -plate readers, surveillance systems, cybersecurity for public safety systems, and other public safety technology; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 3
460
f. Emergency response planning, tactical response, mutual aid, training, recruitment, retention, equipment, uniforms, vehicles, facilities, supplies, and other costs necessary to provide law enforcement services; and
g. Civil, administrative, or code enforcement activities primarily directed toward dangerous buildings, illegal occupancy, hazardous property conditions, public nuisances presenting a material threat to health or safety, illegal fireworks, unlawful dumping, dangerous animals, or other conditions reasonably determined to affect public safety.
2. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services.
a. Contracts for fire protection, fire suppression, emergency medical services, rescue services, paramedic services, and related emergency -response services, including services provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or any successor service provider;
b. The staffing, operation, maintenance, improvement, replacement, construction, or acquisition of fire stations, emergency -response facilities, training facilities, emergency operations centers, and related property;
c. Fire engines, trucks, rescue vehicles, ambulances, command vehicles, apparatus, personal protective equipment, communications systems, medical equipment, rescue equipment, tools, technology, and other supplies or equipment;
d. Fire prevention, inspection, plan review, vegetation management, defensible -space programs, weed abatement, wildfire mitigation, hazardous -materials response, technical rescue, public education, and community risk -reduction programs; e. Emergency medical response, paramedic squads, ambulance coordination, mass - casualty response, medical supplies, automatic external defibrillators, and programs intended to improve survival or reduce response times; and
f. Training, recruitment, retention, mutual aid, emergency deployment, overtime, standby coverage, and other costs necessary to provide fire and emergency medical services.
3. Emergency Management and Disaster Preparedness.
a. Emergency planning, preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, and continuity -of - operations activities;
b. Emergency operations centers, emergency alert and warning systems, interoperable communications, evacuation planning, shelter coordination, emergency supplies, generators, and backup power;
c. Community Emergency Response Team programs and other volunteer emergency - response or preparedness programs;
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 4
461
d. Response to wildfire, earthquake, flood, severe weather, hazardous -material incidents, terrorism, civil disturbance, pandemic, major utility disruption, and other natural or human -caused emergencies; and
e. Mutual -aid obligations, disaster -response contracts, emergency procurements, disaster recovery, and the non -reimbursed local share of eligible emergency or disaster expenditures.
4. Roadway and Transportation Safety.
a. Traffic enforcement, collision investigation, traffic -control operations, crossing -guard services, and public education concerning roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, e-bike, and vehicle safety; b. Traffic signals, traffic -control devices, warning systems, roadway signs, pavement markings, striping, crosswalks, guardrails, barriers, medians, traffic -calming devices, street lighting, and pedestrian or bicycle safety improvements; c. Engineering, design, construction, maintenance, repair, or replacement of roadways, intersections, sidewalks, trails, bridges, drainage facilities, slopes, shoulders, and related infrastructure when reasonably intended to reduce collisions, correct a hazardous condition, maintain emergency access, support evacuation, or protect the safety of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency responders, or adjacent properties; d. Pavement repair, resurfacing, reconstruction, pothole repair, vegetation clearance, drainage work, and similar work where the City Manager or designated City Engineer determines that the work has a substantial roadway -safety, emergency -access, evacuation, or hazard -reduction purpose;
e. Local road -safety plans, traffic studies, collision analyses, speed surveys, signal -timing studies, safe -routes -to -school projects, and grant matching funds for transportation -safety projects; and
f. Maintenance and improvement of designated evacuation routes and routes necessary for police, fire, paramedic, or other emergency response.
5. Public Safety Facilities, Vehicles, Equipment, and Capital Improvements. a. Acquisition, construction, leasing, financing, improvement, repair, maintenance, security, and operation of facilities used primarily for law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical response, emergency management, dispatch, communications, or other Public Safety Purposes;
b. Acquisition, leasing, financing, repair, replacement, maintenance, fueling, outfitting, and operation of vehicles, apparatus, aircraft, equipment, communications systems, software, technology, and other capital assets used for Public Safety Purposes; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. S
462
c. Debt service, lease payments, financing costs, and reserves associated with capital assets or facilities acquired or used for Public Safety Purposes; and d. Planning, design, environmental review, project management, construction management, inspection, permitting, and other costs associated with an eligible public safety capital project.
6. Public Safety Legal, Insurance, Administrative, and Support Costs.
The direct or reasonably allocable share of costs necessary to administer, support, protect, or deliver Public Safety Purposes, including:
a. City Attorney services and outside legal counsel concerning public safety contracts, operations, personnel, labor relations, enforcement, litigation, claims, risk management, emergency response, public safety facilities, public safety procurement, and related matters; b. Liability insurance, property insurance, vehicle insurance, workers' compensation, claims administration, self-insurance contributions, risk -pool contributions, deductibles, settlements, judgments, and loss -prevention activities reasonably attributable to Public Safety Purposes;
c. Finance, accounting, payroll, auditing, purchasing, contracting, grant administration, budgeting, revenue administration, and financial -reporting services supporting Public Safety Purposes;
d. Human resources, recruitment, classification, labor relations, employee benefits administration, training, occupational health, and workplace -safety services supporting public safety personnel or operations;
e. Information technology, cybersecurity, communications, geographic information systems, records management, data storage, software, hardware, and technical support used by or supporting public safety operations;
f. Fleet maintenance, facilities maintenance, utilities, fuel, procurement, warehousing, inventory, and logistical support for public safety facilities, vehicles, personnel, and equipment; g. Public information, community engagement, translation, accessibility, and communications reasonably related to public safety programs, emergencies, alerts, preparedness, or required public accountability;
h. Costs of administering Measure S, including California Department of Tax and Fee Administration charges, revenue consultants, independent audits, Citizens' Oversight Committee support, accounting, reporting, and legal compliance; and 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 6
463
i. A reasonable share of other City administrative or overhead costs that support Public Safety Purposes and are assigned pursuant to a documented and consistently applied cost - allocation methodology.
7. Other Substantially Related Expenditures.
Any other expenditure that the City Council expressly determines, based upon written findings made at a public meeting, has a primary and substantial relationship to protecting life, health, property, emergency access, roadway safety, community security, emergency preparedness, or the effective delivery and administration of public safety services.
Section 4. Measure S Expenditure Plan in Annual Budget.
A. Each proposed annual budget shall include a separately identified "Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan."
B. The Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan shall identify, at a minimum:
1. The amount of Measure S Revenues projected to be received during the fiscal year;
2. The amount of unspent or unencumbered Measure S Revenues carried forward from prior fiscal years;
3. Any interest or other earnings attributable to Measure S Revenues;
4. Every department, program, contract, project, capital improvement, administrative allocation, or expenditure category proposed to receive Measure S Revenues;
5. The amount proposed for each expenditure category;
6. Whether each proposed expenditure is a direct cost, indirect cost, capital cost, debt - service cost, reserve, transfer, or reimbursement;
7. For each material indirect or administrative allocation, the basis and methodology used to calculate the amount;
8. The projected amount of Measure S Revenues that will remain unappropriated or be carried forward at the end of the fiscal year; and
9. A certification by the City Manager that all proposed expenditures qualify as Public Safety Purposes under this Resolution.
C. The expenditure plan may provide for Measure S Revenues to support existing, restored, expanded, enhanced, or newly established public safety services. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 7
464
D. The City Manager shall submit the proposed Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan to the Citizens' Oversight Committee sufficiently in advance of budget adoption to allow the Committee to review the proposed expenditures and report its findings to the City Council as contemplated by Resolution No. 2024-41 and the Yucaipa Municipal Code.
E. Material amendments to the Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan shall be separately identified in any midyear budget review or other budget amendment presented to the City Council.
Section 5. Separate Accounting and Tracking.
A. The City Manager and the City's chief financial officer shall establish and maintain a separate fund, subfund, account, project code, cost center, or other accounting mechanism sufficient to identify and track:
1. Measure S Revenues received;
2. Interest or earnings attributable to Measure S Revenues;
3. Budgeted Measure S expenditures;
4. Actual Measure S expenditures;
5. Measure S encumbrances and contractual commitments;
6. Reimbursements and adjustments;
7. Transfers among eligible Public Safety Purposes; and
8. Unspent Measure S Revenues carried forward to subsequent fiscal years.
B. The accounting mechanism shall be maintained in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, applicable governmental accounting standards, the City's adopted financial policies, and the voter -approved requirements of Measure S.
C. Measure S Revenues shall not be used to make an internal loan to a non -public -safety fund or activity unless:
1. The City Council approves the loan at a public meeting;
2. The loan is documented in writing,
3. The loan does not impair the City's ability to fund budgeted Public Safety Purposes; and
4. All principal and interest are repaid to the Measure S account within the period approved by the City Council.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 8
465
Section 6. Annual Measure S Public Safety Accountability Report.
A. No later than March 31 following the close of each fiscal year, or such earlier date as may be reasonably practicable following completion of the City's year-end financial records, the City Manager shall prepare and present to the City Council an annual "Measure S Public Safety Accountability Report."
B. The report shall be presented and discussed at a noticed public meeting of the City Council.
C. Before presentation to the City Council, the report shall be provided to the Citizens' Oversight Committee for its review and report in accordance with the Yucaipa Municipal Code. To the extent practicable, the Committee shall receive the report at least 30 days before the City Council meeting at which the report will be considered.
D. The annual report shall include, at a minimum:
1. The total Measure S Revenues received during the fiscal year;
2. The beginning and ending balance of unspent Measure S Revenues;
3. Interest and investment earnings attributable to Measure S Revenues;
4. A comparison of budgeted and actual Measure S expenditures;
5. Actual expenditures organized by each category of Public Safety Purpose identified in Section 3;
6. Identification of each material contract, program, project, capital improvement, administrative allocation, or other expenditure funded in whole or in part with Measure S Revenues;
7. A description of the public safety service, program, asset, or supporting function provided by each material expenditure;
8. The amount of Measure S Revenues used for direct services, indirect or administrative support, capital improvements, debt service, reserves, and other categories;
9. The methodology used to calculate material indirect or administrative allocations;
10. The amount of Measure S Revenues encumbered but not yet expended;
11. The amount of Measure S Revenues carried forward for future Public Safety Purposes;
12. A reconciliation of total Measure S Revenues, expenditures, encumbrances, adjustments, and remaining balances;
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 9
466
13. A description of any expenditure initially questioned as potentially ineligible and the disposition of that matter;
14. A summary of service levels, staffing, facilities, equipment, projects, response capabilities, or other public safety outcomes supported by Measure S Revenues, to the extent reasonably measurable;
15. The findings of the city-wide independent annual financial audit (which may or may not separate Measure S);
16. The findings and recommendations of the Citizens' Oversight Committee; and
17. A written certification by the City Manager stating whether all Measure S Revenues expended during the fiscal year were used for Public Safety Purposes consistent with this Resolution.
E. The report, supporting expenditure schedules, independent audit, and Citizens' Oversight Committee report shall be made available for public inspection and posted on the City's website.
Section 7. Existing Services; No Maintenance -of -Effort Requirement.
A. This Resolution establishes an exclusive -use policy for Measure S Revenues. It does not establish a maintenance -of -effort formula, a minimum annual public safety appropriation, or a requirement that Measure S-funded expenditures be in addition to a particular historical level of public safety spending.
B. Measure S Revenues may be used to maintain, preserve, restore, replace, expand, or enhance existing Public Safety Purposes, including costs that otherwise would have been paid from other legally available General Fund revenues.
C. Nothing in this Resolution prohibits the City Council from redirecting other legally available revenues from public safety to other lawful municipal purposes when Measure S Revenues are used to pay eligible public safety costs, provided that all Measure S Revenues remain devoted exclusively to Public Safety Purposes.
Section 8. Relationship to Measure S and Prior Council Actions.
A. This Resolution implements, supplements, and strengthens the expenditure policy stated in Resolution No. 2024-41.
B. Nothing in this Resolution amends Ordinance No. 453, the voter -approved provisions of Measure S, or any codified provision implementing Measure S.
C. Measure S remains a general tax. This Resolution constitutes an exercise of the City Council's legislative and budgetary discretion and does not convert Measure S into a special tax or alter the voter -approval requirements applicable to the tax.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 10
467
D. This Resolution shall remain the policy of the City unless and until it is amended or repealed by subsequent action of the City Council. Any proposed amendment or repeal shall be separately identified on a City Council agenda and considered at a public meeting.
E. This Resolution does not create a contractual obligation, vested right, entitlement, or private right of action in favor of any person or entity. The adoption, amendment, and administration of the City budget remain legislative acts committed to the discretion of the City Council, subject to applicable law and the voter -approved requirements of Measure S.
Section 9. City Manager Authority.
The City Manager is authorized and directed to take all actions reasonably necessary to implement this Resolution, including establishing accounting procedures, developing expenditure and reporting forms, assigning responsibilities to City departments, obtaining professional or consulting services within existing purchasing authority, and presenting conforming amendments to the City's financial and budget policies.
Section 10. California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council finds that adoption of this Resolution is not a "project" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it constitutes a governmental fiscal and administrative activity that does not involve a commitment to a specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) and (b)(5). Any future capital project funded with Measure S Revenues shall remain subject to any environmental review otherwise required by law.
Section 11. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more portions may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 11
468
Section 12. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall apply to all proposed budgets, budget amendments, expenditures, and financial reports prepared after its effective date, including the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and each fiscal year thereafter.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Graham Pacifico,
City Attorney
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 12
469
ATTACHMENT 2
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 470
RESOLUTION NO.2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED
VOTERS OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA OF A NONBINDING ADVISORY
MEASURE CONCERNING THE USE OF MEASURE S REVENUES FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING RELATED
ELECTION ACTIONS
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-38, ordering the submission to the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa of the City of Yucaipa Public Safety and Essential Services Protection Measure, commonly known as "Measure S"; and WHEREAS, Measure S proposed Ordinance No. 453, imposing a one -percent general transactions and use tax within the City of Yucaipa, with the revenues deposited into the City's General Fund and available for any lawful municipal purpose; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, the qualified voters of the City approved Measure S by a majority vote, and on December 9, 2024, the City Council declared the election results and deemed Ordinance No. 453 adopted by the voters; and
WHEREAS, Measure S remains a general tax within the meaning of Article XI1I C of the California Constitution, and its revenues are not legally restricted by the voter -approved ordinance to any particular municipal program or purpose; and
WHEREAS, the ballot materials for Measure S identified the preservation of police, fire, paramedic, emergency response, roadway maintenance, and other essential services as intended uses of the locally controlled revenues generated by the measure; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-41, declaring its intention to use Measure S revenues to prevent reductions in public safety services and directing the preparation of an annual Measure S expenditure plan for review by the Citizens' Oversight Committee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to obtain the opinion of the qualified voters of the City concerning whether the City Council should adopt and maintain a budgetary policy directing that all Measure S revenues be budgeted and expended exclusively for broadly defined public safety purposes and subject to annual public reporting; and WHEREAS, police protection, fire protection, emergency medical services, emergency preparedness and response, roadway and traffic safety, public safety facilities and equipment, and the support services necessary to provide those services are all components of a comprehensive municipal public safety system; and
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 1 471
WHEREAS, Elections Code section 9603 authorizes a city, at its discretion, to hold an advisory election on a date on which the city is permitted to hold a regular or special election for the purpose of allowing voters to voice their opinions on substantive issues or indicate approval or disapproval of a ballot proposal; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code section 9603 requires an advisory ballot proposal to appear under the heading "Advisory Vote Only" and provides that the results of an advisory vote are an indication of general voter opinion and are in no manner controlling on the sponsoring legislative body; and
WHEREAS, the next General Municipal Election in the City of Yucaipa will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and will be consolidated with the statewide general election held on the same date; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that submitting the advisory measure to the qualified voters will provide useful public guidance concerning the City Council's future budgetary allocation and public reporting of Measure S revenues, while preserving Measure S as a general tax and preserving the City Council's legislative and budgetary authority under applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY RESOLVEs AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council.
Section 2. Submission of Advisory Measure.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9603 and all other applicable laws, the City Council hereby orders the nonbinding advisory measure attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference to be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa.
Section 3. Election Called.
The City Council hereby calls and orders that the advisory measure identified in this Resolution be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
Section 4. Ballot Heading and Question.
The exact form of the advisory ballot heading and question to be printed on the ballot shall be as follows, subject only to such non -substantive formatting, spacing, lettering, or other technical changes as may be required by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters or applicable law:
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 2
472
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY
Measure _: Measure S Public Safety Funding Advisory
Measure
Should the City Council adopt and maintain a policy requiring YES all revenues from the voter -approved Measure S one -percent transactions and use tax to be budgeted and spent only for public safety, including law enforcement; fire and emergency medical services; emergency preparedness and response; roadway and traffic safety; public safety facilities, vehicles, equipment and technology; and related legal, insurance, risk management, NO administrative and support costs, with annual public reporting? Section 5. Full Text of Advisory Measure.
The full text of the advisory measure to be submitted to the voters is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to maintain a copy of the full text in the City Clerk's office and to make it available for public inspection in the manner required by law.
Section 6. Advisory Nature and Effect of Vote.
A. The measure is an advisory vote only. It does not enact an ordinance, amend Ordinance No. 453, amend the Yucaipa Municipal Code, impose or repeal a tax, create a legally restricted special tax, appropriate funds, or legally bind the City Council or any future City Council.
B. If more voters vote "YES" than "NO," the result shall indicate the electorate's opinion that the City Council should adopt and maintain the policy described in the advisory measure. If more voters vote "NO" than "YES," the result shall indicate the electorate's opinion that the City Council should not adopt or maintain that policy.
C. Consistent with Elections Code section 9603, the election result shall in no manner be controlling on the City Council. The City Council shall receive and consider the certified results as an expression of general voter opinion.
Section 7. Request for Consolidation.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 10403, the City Council requests that the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors consolidate the election on the advisory measure with the statewide general election to be held on November 3, 2026. The City acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by Elections Code section 10418.
This request is subject to Elections Code section 9603 and all other applicable requirements governing ballot capacity and consolidation.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 3
473
Section 8. Election Services.
The City Council requests that the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters conduct all proceedings and provide all services necessary for the election, including preparing and printing ballots and voter information materials; establishing vote centers, ballot drop boxes, and election procedures; mailing and receiving ballots; canvassing the returns; certifying the results; and performing all other acts necessary to conduct the consolidated election.
Section 9. Canvass of Returns.
The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters is authorized and requested to canvass the returns of the election and certify the results to the City Council. The City Council shall thereafter receive and declare the results of the advisory election in the manner required by law.
Section 10. Reimbursement of Election Costs.
The City of Yucaipa shall reimburse San Bernardino County for the City's share of the costs of consolidating and conducting the election on the advisory measure upon presentation of a properly submitted invoice. The City Manager is authorized to approve and pay such costs from legally available City funds.
Section 11. Filing with County.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this Resolution, including the exact form of the ballot heading and question and the full text of the advisory measure, with the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters no later than August 7, 2026, or such earlier deadline as may be established by the Registrar of Voters.
Section 12. Impartial Analysis.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9280, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the advisory measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney is directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure, including its nonbinding advisory effect. The impartial analysis shall state that the measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council and shall be filed by the deadline established by the City Clerk or the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.
Section 13. Ballot Arguments.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9282, the City Council authorizes the filing of written arguments for or against the advisory measure in the manner provided by law. The City Council authorizes the Mayor and such other eligible signers as may be selected by the Mayor in accordance with applicable law to prepare and file an argument concerning the measure, subject to applicable word limits, priorities, and filing deadlines. The City Clerk shall establish and publish the filing deadline and shall select arguments for printing in accordance with law. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 4
474
Section 14. Rebuttal Arguments. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9285, rebuttal arguments shall be permitted for this advisory measure. Rebuttal arguments shall be prepared, signed, filed, selected, printed, and distributed in the manner and within the time required by law and the deadlines established by the City Clerk or the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.
Section 15. Public Examination.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to make the advisory measure materials, including the full text, impartial analysis, arguments, and rebuttal arguments, available for public examination in the time and manner required by Elections Code section 9295 and other applicable law.
Section 16. Notices.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the election and advisory measure, including notice of the time and place of holding the election, argument and rebuttal deadlines, public examination periods, and any other notices required by law.
Section 17. Ballot Letter and Non -Substantive Changes.
The advisory measure shall be designated by the letter assigned by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters. The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney, and their respective designees, are authorized to make non -substantive, technical, grammatical, or formatting changes to the ballot heading, ballot question, full text, or election materials that may be required by the Registrar of Voters or applicable law, provided that such changes do not alter the substantive meaning or advisory effect of the measure.
Section 18. California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council finds that adoption of this Resolution and submission of a nonbinding advisory measure to the voters is not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a governmental fiscal and administrative activity that does not approve a specific project, authorize construction, appropriate funds to a particular physical project, or commit the City to a course of action that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The City Council further finds that, even if the action were considered a project, it is exempt because it can be seen with certainty that submission of the advisory measure itself will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 19. Severability.
If any provision of this Resolution or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions and applications shall remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. S
475
Section 20. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Graham Pacifico,
City Attorney
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg- 6
476
EXHIBIT A
FULL TEXT OF ADVISORY MEASURE
CITY OF YUCAIPA MEASURE S PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING ADVISORY MEASURE Section A-1. Title.
This advisory measure shall be known as the "City of Yucaipa Measure S Public Safety Funding Advisory Measure."
Section A-2. Purpose and Advisory Nature.
A. The purpose of this measure is to obtain the opinion of the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa concerning whether the City Council should adopt and maintain a budgetary policy requiring all Measure S Revenues to be budgeted and spent exclusively for Public Safety Purposes and requiring annual public reporting of those expenditures.
B. This measure is an advisory vote only under Elections Code section 9603. It is not legally binding on the City Council or any future City Council and does not itself appropriate or restrict City funds.
C. This measure does not amend Measure S, Ordinance No. 453, or the Yucaipa Municipal Code; does not impose, increase, extend, reduce, or repeal any tax; does not convert Measure S into a special tax; and does not alter the legal availability of Measure S revenues for lawful municipal purposes.
Section A-3. Advisory Proposal.
The voters are asked whether the City Council should adopt and maintain a policy under which:
1. All Measure S Revenues are separately identified in the City's budget and financial records and are budgeted and expended only for Public Safety Purposes, as broadly defined in this measure;
2. Unspent Measure S Revenues are carried forward for future Public Safety Purposes rather than assigned to non -public -safety uses; and
3. The City Manager provides an annual public report to the City Council identifying Measure S revenues received, budgeted and actual expenditures, unspent balances, and the public safety purposes supported by those revenues.
Section A-4. Definitions.
A. "Measure S" means the one -percent general transactions and use tax approved by the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa on November 5, 2024, and enacted through Ordinance No. 453, including any successor provision of the Yucaipa Municipal Code. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. %
477
B. "Measure S Revenues" means all transactions and use tax proceeds received by the City pursuant to Measure S; separately identifiable interest, investment earnings, penalties, reimbursements, or other revenue attributable to those proceeds; Measure S proceeds carried forward from a prior fiscal year; and reimbursements received for expenditures originally paid from Measure S Revenues.
C. "Public Safety Purposes" shall be construed broadly and includes the direct costs and reasonably allocable indirect, administrative, overhead, capital, debt -service, reserve, and support costs described below.
1. Law Enforcement and Police Services.
(a) Contracts for law enforcement services, including services provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department;
(b) Patrol, traffic enforcement, criminal investigation, detective, crime analysis, specialized enforcement, school and community safety, and enforcement addressing gangs, narcotics, organized crime, retail theft, burglary, vehicle theft, fraud, vandalism, and other criminal activity;
(c) Community -oriented policing, neighborhood patrols, crime prevention, public education, youth diversion, gang prevention, and programs intended to prevent or reduce crime;
(d) Homelessness, behavioral -health, crisis -intervention, and outreach activities when performed by, coordinated with, or materially supporting law enforcement, emergency response, or the mitigation of threats to public health or safety; (e) Emergency dispatch, 911 services, records, evidence management, communications, radio systems, body -worn cameras, license -plate readers, surveillance systems, cybersecurity, and other public safety technology; (f) Training, recruitment, retention, overtime, mutual aid, vehicles, equipment, uniforms, facilities, supplies, and other costs necessary to provide law enforcement services; and
(g) Civil, administrative, or code enforcement primarily directed toward dangerous buildings, illegal occupancy, hazardous property conditions, public nuisances presenting a material threat to health or safety, illegal fireworks, unlawful dumping, dangerous animals, or comparable safety conditions.
2. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services.
(a) Contracts for fire protection, fire suppression, emergency medical response, paramedic, rescue, ambulance -coordination, and related emergency services, including 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. g
478
services provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or any successor provider;
(b) Staffing, operating, maintaining, improving, replacing, constructing, or acquiring fire stations, emergency -response facilities, training facilities, emergency operations centers, and related property;
(c) Fire engines, trucks, rescue vehicles, ambulances, command vehicles, apparatus, personal protective equipment, communications systems, medical equipment, rescue equipment, tools, technology, supplies, and equipment; (d) Fire prevention, inspection, plan review, vegetation management, defensible - space, weed -abatement, wildfire -mitigation, hazardous -materials, technical -rescue, public - education, and community -risk -reduction activities;
(e) Emergency medical response, paramedic squads, mass -casualty response, medical supplies, automatic external defibrillators, and programs intended to improve survival or reduce response times; and
(f) Training, recruitment, retention, mutual aid, emergency deployment, overtime, standby coverage, and other costs necessary to provide fire and emergency medical services.
3. Emergency Management and Disaster Preparedness.
(a) Emergency planning, preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, continuity of operations, evacuation planning, shelter coordination, and community resilience; (b) Emergency operations centers, emergency alert and warning systems, interoperable communications, emergency supplies, generators, backup power, and volunteer emergency -response programs;
(c) Response to wildfire, earthquake, flood, severe weather, hazardous -material incidents, terrorism, civil disturbance, pandemic, major utility disruption, and other natural or human -caused emergencies; and
(d) Mutual -aid obligations, disaster -response contracts, emergency procurements, disaster recovery, and the non -reimbursed local share of eligible emergency or disaster expenditures.
4. Roadway and Transportation Safety.
(a) Traffic enforcement, collision investigation, traffic -control operations, crossing guards, and education concerning roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, e-bike, and vehicle safety; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 9
479
(b) Traffic signals, traffic -control devices, warning systems, roadway signs, pavement markings, striping, crosswalks, guardrails, barriers, medians, traffic -calming devices, street lighting, and pedestrian or bicycle safety improvements; (c) Engineering, design, construction, maintenance, repair, or replacement of roadways, intersections, sidewalks, trails, bridges, drainage facilities, slopes, shoulders, and related infrastructure when reasonably intended to reduce collisions, correct a hazardous condition, maintain emergency access, support evacuation, or protect motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency responders, or adjacent property; (d) Pavement repair, resurfacing, reconstruction, pothole repair, vegetation clearance, drainage work, and similar work having a substantial roadway -safety, emergency -access, evacuation, or hazard -reduction purpose; (e) Road -safety plans, traffic studies, collision analyses, speed surveys, signal - timing studies, safe -routes -to -school projects, and grant matching funds for transportation - safety projects; and
(f) Maintenance and improvement of designated evacuation routes and routes necessary for police, fire, paramedic, or other emergency response.
5. Public Safety Facilities, Vehicles, Equipment, and Capital Improvements. (a) Acquisition, construction, leasing, financing, improvement, repair, maintenance, security, and operation of facilities used for law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical response, emergency management, dispatch, communications, or other Public Safety Purposes;
(b) Acquisition, leasing, financing, repair, replacement, maintenance, fueling, outfitting, and operation of vehicles, apparatus, aircraft, equipment, communications systems, software, technology, and other capital assets used for Public Safety Purposes; (c) Debt service, lease payments, financing costs, and reserves associated with eligible public safety capital assets or facilities; and (d) Planning, design, environmental review, project management, construction management, inspection, permitting, and other costs associated with eligible public safety capital projects.
6. Public Safety Legal, Insurance, Administrative, and Support Costs. (a) City Attorney and outside legal services concerning public safety contracts, operations, personnel, labor relations, enforcement, litigation, claims, risk management, emergencies, facilities, procurement, and related matters; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 10
480
(b) Liability, property, vehicle, workers' compensation, and other insurance; claims administration; self-insurance and risk -pool contributions; deductibles; settlements; judgments; and loss -prevention costs reasonably attributable to Public Safety Purposes; (c) Finance, accounting, payroll, auditing, purchasing, contracting, grant administration, budgeting, revenue administration, and financial reporting supporting Public Safety Purposes;
(d) Human resources, recruitment, classification, labor relations, employee benefits, training, occupational health, and workplace -safety services supporting public safety personnel or operations;
(e) Information technology, cybersecurity, communications, geographic information systems, records management, data storage, software, hardware, and technical support used by or supporting public safety operations; (f) Fleet maintenance, facilities maintenance, utilities, fuel, procurement, warehousing, inventory, and logistical support for public safety facilities, vehicles, personnel, and equipment;
(g) Public information, community engagement, translation, accessibility, and communications related to public safety programs, emergencies, alerts, preparedness, or required accountability;
(h) Administration of Measure S, including California Department of Tax and Fee Administration charges, revenue consultants, independent audits, Citizens' Oversight Committee support, accounting, reporting, and legal compliance; and (i) A reasonable share of other City administrative or overhead costs that support Public Safety Purposes and are assigned through a documented and consistently applied cost -allocation methodology.
7. Other Substantially Related Expenditures.
Any other expenditure that the City Council determines, based upon written findings made at a public meeting, has a primary and substantial relationship to protecting life, health, property, emergency access, roadway safety, community security, emergency preparedness, or the effective delivery and administration of public safety services.
Section A-5. Annual Public Reporting.
The proposed policy would require the City Manager to present an annual public report to the City Council after the close of each fiscal year. The report would identify, at a minimum:
1. Total Measure S Revenues received during the fiscal year and any balance carried forward from prior years;
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 11
481
2. Budgeted and actual Measure S expenditures, organized by Public Safety Purpose;
3. Material contracts, programs, projects, capital improvements, administrative allocations, and other expenditures funded in whole or in part with Measure S Revenues;
4. The methodology used for material indirect, administrative, insurance, legal, and overhead allocations;
5. Encumbered but unspent amounts and Measure S Revenues carried forward for future Public Safety Purposes;
6. A reconciliation of Measure S revenues, expenditures, encumbrances, adjustments, and ending balances; and
7. A certification by the City Manager stating whether all Measure S Revenues expended during the fiscal year were used for Public Safety Purposes under the policy.
Section A-6. Effect of Advisory Vote.
A. A greater number of "YES" votes than "NO" votes will indicate the electorate's opinion that the City Council should adopt and maintain the policy described in this measure.
B. A greater number of "NO" votes than "YES" votes will indicate the electorate's opinion that the City Council should not adopt or maintain the policy described in this measure.
C. The result is advisory only and will in no manner control the City Council. The City Council will retain all legislative and budgetary authority provided by law, including authority to adopt, amend, or repeal budget policies concerning Measure S revenues.
D. No provision of this advisory measure creates a contractual obligation, vested right, entitlement, legally enforceable restriction, or private right of action against the City, the City Council, or any City officer or employee.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 12
482
ATTACHMENT 3
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 483
RESOLUTION NO.2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED
VOTERS OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA OF A MEASURE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 453 AND CHAPTER 3.18 OF THE YUCAIPA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING ONE -PERCENT
MEASURE S TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX AS A SPECIAL TAX FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES ONLY AND AUTHORIZING RELATED
ELECTION ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Yucaipa provides essential public safety services to residents, businesses, property owners, and visitors, including law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical response, emergency management, roadway safety, code enforcement addressing dangerous conditions, and the facilities, equipment, legal, insurance, administrative, and other support necessary to provide those services; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-38, submitting to the qualified voters of the City the Yucaipa Public Safety and Essential Services Protection Measure, commonly known as Measure S, together with proposed Ordinance No. 453; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, a majority of the qualified voters voting on Measure S approved Ordinance No. 453, which established a one -percent transactions and use tax within the City, with no automatic sunset; and
WHEREAS, Measure S is presently a general tax, and Chapter 3.18 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code presently provides that the revenues may be used for general municipal services and all lawful public purposes and are deposited into the City's General Fund; and WHEREAS, the ballot materials for Measure S emphasized the protection of police, fire, paramedic, 911 emergency response, roadway safety, and other essential services, and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-41 expressing its intent to use Measure S revenues to prevent reductions in public safety services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the voters a binding amendment that would, without increasing the existing one -percent tax rate, convert Measure S from a general tax into a special tax and legally require all Measure S revenues received on and after the operative date of the amendment to be used solely for the public safety purposes and supporting costs specified in the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Article XIII C, section 1, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution defines a special tax as a tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes that is placed into a fund containing other monies; and 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 1 484
WHEREAS, Article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution requires a local -government special tax to be submitted to the electorate and approved by a two- thirds vote; and
WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91 authorizes the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax for specific purposes when the ordinance is approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the governing body, approved by a two-thirds vote of the qualified voters voting on the measure, conforms to the Transactions and Use Tax Law, and includes an expenditure plan describing the specific projects for which the revenues may be expended; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 53724 requires a tax proposal to identify the type and rate of the tax, the method of collection, the election date, and, for a special tax, the purpose or service for which the tax is sought, and further provides that special -tax revenues may be used only for the purpose or service for which the tax was imposed; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 50075.1 and 50075.3 require voter -approved local special -tax measures to identify the specific purposes of the tax, restrict the proceeds to those purposes, create an account into which the proceeds are deposited, and require an annual report concerning collections, expenditures, and the status of authorized projects; and WHEREAS, Elections Code section 9222 authorizes the City Council to submit to the voters, without a petition, a proposition for the amendment or enactment of an ordinance at a regular or special city election, provided that the election is held not less than 88 days after the order of election; and
WHEREAS, the City's next General Municipal Election will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and the City Council desires to submit the proposed special -tax amendment to all qualified voters of the City at that election and to consolidate the measure election with the statewide general election held on the same date; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance includes a detailed public safety expenditure plan, a separate restricted account, annual budget disclosure, independent audits, annual public reporting, and review by the existing Citizens' Oversight Committee; and WHEREAS, the proposed measure does not increase the Measure S transactions or use tax rate, does not impose a second or duplicate transactions and use tax, and is intended to continue the existing tax without interruption while changing the legal purposes for which future proceeds may be expended.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg- 2 485
Section 1. Recitals.
The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 2. Approval of Ordinance for Submission to Voters.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9222, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91, Government Code sections 50075.1, 50075.3, and 53724, Article XIII C of the California Constitution, and all other applicable law, the City Council hereby approves for submission to the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa the proposed ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 453 AND CHAPTER 3.18 OF THE YUCAIPA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO CONVERT THE EXISTING ONE -PERCENT MEASURE S GENERAL
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX INTO A SPECIAL TAX FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES ONLY, WITHOUT INCREASING THE TAX RATE."
Section 3. Election Ordered.
The City Council hereby calls and orders that the measure identified in this Resolution be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
Section 4. Ballot Question.
The exact form of the ballot question to be printed on the ballot shall be as follows, subject only to non -substantive formatting, spacing, capitalization, or lettering changes required by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters:
CITY OF YUCAIPA MEASURE S PUBLIC SAFETY
SPECIAL TAX MEASURE.
Shall the measure converting the existing one -percent YES Measure S transactions and use tax, without increasing the rate, into a special tax generating approximately
$9,000,000 annually until ended by voters, with proceeds restricted to police, fire, emergency medical response, emergency preparedness, roadway safety, and related
facilities, equipment, legal, insurance, administrative and support costs, with separate accounting, annual audits, NO public reports and citizens' oversight, be adopted?
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 3 486
Section 5. Full Text of Measure.
The full text of the measure to be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to maintain a copy of the full text of the measure in the City Clerk's office and to make it available for public inspection and distribution in the manner required by law.
Section 6. Two -Thirds Voter Approval Required.
The measure is a special tax and shall be adopted only if it receives the affirmative votes of at least two-thirds of the qualified voters of the City voting on the measure. If the measure does not receive the required two-thirds voter approval, the measure shall have no effect and Ordinance No. 453 and Chapter 3.18 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code shall continue in effect without the amendments proposed by Exhibit A.
Section 7. Two -Thirds City Council Approval.
This Resolution and the proposed special -tax ordinance attached as Exhibit A are adopted and approved for submission to the voters by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all members of the City Council, as required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91.
Section 8. Request for Consolidation.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 10403, the City Council requests that the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors consolidate the election on this measure with the statewide general election to be held on November 3, 2026, and that the consolidated election be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by Elections Code section 10418 and other applicable law.
Section 9. Election Services.
The City Council requests that the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters conduct all proceedings necessary for the election, including printing and mailing voter information materials, preparing and printing ballots, providing vote centers and ballot -processing services, canvassing the returns, and performing all other acts necessary to conduct the election.
Section 10. Canvass of Returns.
The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters is authorized and requested to canvass the returns of the election and certify the results to the City Council. The City Council shall thereafter receive and declare the results in the manner required by law.
Section 11. Reimbursement of Election Costs.
The City of Yucaipa shall reimburse San Bernardino County for the City's share of the costs of consolidating and conducting the election on the measure upon presentation of a properly submitted invoice.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg- 4
487
Section 12. Filing with County.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this Resolution, including the exact form of the ballot question and the full text of the proposed ordinance, with the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters at the same time and no later than August 7, 2026, as required by Elections Code section 10403 and other applicable law.
Section 13. Impartial Analysis.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9280, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney is directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure, including that the measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council and requires two-thirds voter approval.
Section 14. Ballot Arguments.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9282 and other applicable law, written arguments for and against the measure may be filed. The City Council authorizes the Mayor, and such other eligible signers as the Mayor may designate, to prepare and file an argument in favor of the measure, subject to applicable word limits, signature limits, and filing deadlines. The City Clerk shall establish or publish the applicable filing deadline and shall follow the statutory priority rules if more than one argument is submitted for either position.
Section 15. Rebuttal Arguments.
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9285, rebuttal arguments shall be permitted for the measure and shall be filed in the manner, form, and time required by law and by the deadlines established by the City Clerk or the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.
Section 16. Public Examination.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to make the measure materials, including the full text of the measure, the impartial analysis, arguments, and rebuttal arguments, available for public examination in the time and manner required by Elections Code section 9295 and other applicable law.
Section 17. Notices.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the election and the measure, including notice of the time and place of holding the election, argument and rebuttal deadlines, public examination periods, and any other notice required by law. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. S
488
Section 18. Measure Letter; Technical and Administrative Revisions.
The measure shall be designated by the letter assigned by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters. The City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, and their respective designees are authorized to make non -substantive, technical, conforming, or formatting changes to the ballot question, measure text, or election materials that may be required by the Registrar of Voters, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, or applicable law, provided that the changes do not alter the tax rate, restricted purposes, duration, voter -approval threshold, or substantive operation of the measure. Any change that would materially alter the measure shall be returned to the City Council for approval before the statutory filing deadline.
Section 19. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Review.
The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney are authorized and directed to submit the proposed ordinance to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for review and to take all actions reasonably necessary to coordinate the continued administration of the existing tax and the implementation of the special -tax restrictions if the measure is approved. This authorization does not permit a substantive amendment of the voter -approved purposes or tax rate without the voter approval required by law.
Section 20. California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council finds that adoption of this Resolution and submission of the measure to the voters is not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act because the action involves governmental fiscal and election activities and does not approve a specific physical project, authorize construction, or commit the City to a course of action that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The City Council further finds that, even if the action were considered a project, it is exempt because it can be seen with certainty that submitting the measure to the voters will not itself have a significant effect on the environment.
Any future physical project funded with Measure S revenues shall remain subject to any environmental review otherwise required by law.
Section 21. Severability.
If any provision of this Resolution or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions and applications shall remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 6 489
Section 22. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Graham Pacifico,
City Attorney
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg- 7
490
EXHIBIT A
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 453 AND CHAPTER 3.18 OF THE YUCAIPA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONVERT THE EXISTING ONE -PERCENT MEASURE S
GENERAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX INTO A SPECIAL TAX FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY PURPOSES ONLY, WITHOUT INCREASING THE TAX RATE
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, the qualified voters of the City of Yucaipa approved Measure S and adopted Ordinance No. 453, establishing a one -percent general transactions and use tax within the City; and
WHEREAS, Measure S is codified in Chapter 3.18 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code, continues until ended by the voters, and is presently available for general municipal services and all lawful public purposes; and
WHEREAS, the People of the City desire to retain the existing one -percent transactions and use tax rate while converting the tax into a special tax whose proceeds are legally restricted to the public safety programs, services, projects, facilities, equipment, and supporting costs described in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the People find that law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical response, emergency management, roadway safety, and the facilities, equipment, legal, insurance, administrative, and support services necessary to deliver those functions protect life, health, property, emergency access, and community security; and WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91 authorizes a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax for specific purposes when the ordinance is approved by two- thirds of the governing body and two-thirds of the qualified voters voting on the measure, conforms to the Transactions and Use Tax Law, and includes an expenditure plan describing the specific projects for which the revenues may be expended; and
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 50075.1 and 50075.3 require a voter -approved special tax to identify the specific purposes of the tax, restrict the proceeds to those purposes, establish an account into which the proceeds are deposited, and require an annual report concerning collections, expenditures, and authorized projects; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance provides a detailed expenditure plan, a separate restricted account, annual budget disclosure, an independent annual audit, annual public reporting, and Citizens' Oversight Committee review; and
p
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda b g
491
WHEREAS, this Ordinance does not increase the existing Measure S tax rate, impose an additional transactions and use tax, or extend the tax beyond its existing voter -approved duration, but instead changes the legal character and permitted use of Measure S revenues received after the operative date.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.
The foregoing recitals are true and correct, are adopted as findings of the People of the City of Yucaipa, and are incorporated into this Ordinance by this reference.
Section 2. Purpose and Voter Intent.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Ordinance No. 453 and Chapter 3.18 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code so that, beginning on the operative date established below, the existing one - percent Measure S transactions and use tax will continue without interruption as a special tax and all future proceeds will be legally restricted to the public safety purposes stated in this Ordinance.
The voters intend this Ordinance to preserve the existing tax rate and duration while imposing binding expenditure restrictions and enhanced accountability requirements.
Section 3. Amendment and Restatement of Selected Provisions of Chapter 3.18.
Sections 3.18.010, 3.18.020, 3.18.050, 3.18.060, 3.18.070, 3.18.080, and 3.18.160 of Chapter 3.18 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code are amended and restated, and Sections 3.18.170 through 3.18.210 are added, to read as follows:
Sec. 3.18.010. Title.
This chapter shall be known as the "City of Yucaipa Measure S Public Safety Special Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance."
Sec. 3.18.020. Purpose and intent.
In enacting this chapter, it is the purpose and intent of the People of the City to:
(1) Continue, without increasing the rate, the existing one -percent retail transactions and use tax approved by the voters as Measure S in 2024, but convert the tax from a general tax into a special tax whose proceeds may be used only for the Public Safety Purposes identified in Section 3.18.170. (2) Impose and administer the tax in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code sections 7251 et seq. and 7285.91, Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Article XIII C of the California Constitution, and other applicable law.
(3) Adopt an expenditure plan describing the specific public safety programs, services, projects, capital improvements, and supporting costs for which the tax proceeds may be expended. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 9
492
(4) Require the proceeds and attributable earnings to be deposited into a separate restricted account, budgeted and accounted for separately, independently audited, publicly reported, and reviewed by the Citizens' Oversight Committee.
(5) Retain administrative provisions that conform as closely as practicable to the statutory and administrative procedures used by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, minimize collection costs and retailer recordkeeping burdens, and maintain uninterrupted collection of the existing tax.
Sec. 3.18.050. Restricted special -tax proceeds; independent annual audit. (a) All proceeds generated by the tax on and after the Special Tax Operative Date, together with interest and other earnings attributable to those proceeds, are special -tax revenues and shall be deposited into a separate restricted account entitled the "Measure S Public Safety Special Tax Fund" or another separately identifiable restricted account established by the City's chief fiscal officer.
(b) The special -tax revenues shall be applied solely to the Public Safety Purposes and specific programs and projects identified in Section 3.18.170 and shall not be used for any other purpose. (c) The Measure S Public Safety Special Tax Fund and all expenditures from the fund shall be included in the City's independent annual financial audit. The audit shall determine whether the revenues were collected, managed, and expended in accordance with this chapter and applicable law and shall include any findings or recommendations concerning compliance. (d) The independent auditor's report shall be presented annually to the Citizens' Oversight Committee and the City Council at noticed public meetings and shall be made available for public inspection and posted on the City's website.
Sec. 3.18.060. Special Tax Operative Date; continuation and transition. (a) "Special Tax Operative Date" means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the City Council declares the measure approved by at least two-thirds of the qualified voters voting on the measure, or such later date as may be required by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for orderly implementation. (b) The existing one -percent tax imposed by this chapter shall remain continuously in effect before, on, and after the Special Tax Operative Date. This Ordinance does not impose a second or duplicate tax, increase the transactions tax rate, increase the use tax rate, or create a gap in collection. (c) Measure S revenues attributable to reporting periods ending before the Special Tax Operative Date shall remain general -tax revenues governed by the law in effect before that date. Measure S revenues attributable to reporting periods beginning on or after the Special Tax Operative Date shall be special -tax revenues governed by this Ordinance. The City Manager may adopt a reasonable and consistently applied allocation method for receipts or adjustments that relate to reporting periods spanning the Special Tax Operative Date. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg.
10 493
(d) If this Ordinance does not receive the required two-thirds voter approval, it shall have no effect and the existing general transactions and use tax under Ordinance No. 453 and Chapter 3.18 shall remain in force without interruption or amendment.
Sec. 3.18.070. Duration.
The tax shall continue until ended or amended by the vote of the registered voters of the City required by the California Constitution and applicable law. This Ordinance does not extend or shorten the existing duration of Measure S.
Sec. 3.18.080. Contract with California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
The City shall maintain and, as necessary, amend its contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this chapter. The City Manager is authorized to execute administrative agreements and documents necessary to continue collection and implement the conversion of the tax to a special tax, provided that no administrative agreement may alter the voter -approved tax rate, restricted purposes, duration, or accountability requirements.
Sec. 3.18.160. Citizens' Oversight Committee.
(a) The Citizens' Oversight Committee previously established for Measure S shall continue and shall independently review and report on the City's collection, budgeting, accounting, and expenditure of Measure S revenues. All meetings of the Committee shall be held in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
(b) The Committee shall consist of five members who are residents of the City. Members shall be appointed by the City Council at a public meeting, shall serve two-year terms at the pleasure of the City Council, and shall serve without compensation. Three members constitute a quorum. The City Council may adopt reasonable procedures governing recruitment, appointment, staggered terms, vacancies, attendance, and removal, provided that such procedures do not materially diminish the Committee's independent review function.
(c) The Committee shall annually review:
(1) The proposed Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan included in the City's budget; (2) The actual receipt and expenditure of Measure S revenues, (3) The independent annual audit prepared by the City; and (4) The annual accountability report required by Section 3.18.190. (d) The Committee shall submit an annual written report containing its findings and recommendations to the City Council for review and discussion at a noticed public meeting. The Committee shall not direct expenditures or exercise management authority over City operations. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 11
494
(e) The Committee may not hire or retain its own staff, consultants, or contractors. The City Manager, City Attorney, and City's chief fiscal officer shall provide reasonably necessary staff support and access to nonprivileged financial records. Nothing in this subsection waives the attorney -client privilege, attorney work -product doctrine, personnel confidentiality, law - enforcement privilege, security -sensitive information protections, or any other lawful privilege or exemption.
Sec. 3.18.170. Public Safety Expenditure Plan; permitted purposes. (a) This section constitutes the expenditure plan required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91. All Measure S special -tax revenues shall be expended solely for one or more of the specific public safety programs, services, projects, capital improvements, and supporting costs identified in this section.
(b) "Public Safety Purposes" means the following direct costs and the reasonably allocable supporting costs described below:
(1) Law Enforcement and Police Services.
(A) Contracts for law enforcement services, including services provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department or a successor provider. (B) Patrol, traffic enforcement, criminal investigations, detective services, crime analysis, specialized enforcement, school and community safety, and services addressing gangs, narcotics, organized crime, retail theft, burglary, robbery, vehicle theft, fraud, vandalism, and other criminal activity.
(C) Community -oriented policing, neighborhood patrols, crime prevention, public education, youth diversion, gang prevention, and programs intended to prevent or reduce crime.
(D) Homelessness response, behavioral -health response, crisis intervention, outreach, and related services when performed by, coordinated with, or materially supporting law enforcement, emergency response, or mitigation of a documented threat to health or safety.
(E) Emergency dispatch, 911 services, records, evidence management, radio and communications systems, body -worn cameras, automated license -plate readers, public safety cameras, cybersecurity for public safety systems, computer -aided dispatch, records - management systems, and other public safety technology. (F) Recruitment, retention, training, mutual aid, overtime, standby coverage, uniforms, vehicles, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other costs necessary to provide law enforcement services.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 12
495
(G) Civil, administrative, or code -enforcement programs primarily directed to dangerous buildings, unlawful occupancy, hazardous property conditions, public nuisances presenting a material threat to health or safety, illegal fireworks, unlawful dumping, dangerous animals, or similar safety conditions.
(2) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services.
(A) Contracts and operations for fire protection, fire suppression, emergency medical services, paramedic services, rescue, ambulance coordination, hazardous - materials response, and related emergency -response services, including services provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or a successor provider. (B) Staffing, operation, maintenance, improvement, replacement, construction, acquisition, or leasing of fire stations, emergency -response facilities, training facilities, emergency operations centers, and related property.
(C) Fire engines, trucks, rescue and command vehicles, ambulances, apparatus, personal protective equipment, communications systems, medical equipment, rescue equipment, tools, technology, and supplies.
(D) Fire prevention, inspection, plan review, vegetation management, defensible - space programs, weed abatement, wildfire mitigation, technical rescue, public education, and community risk -reduction programs.
(E) Emergency medical response, paramedic squads, mass -casualty response, medical supplies, automatic external defibrillators, and programs intended to improve survival or reduce emergency response times.
(F) Recruitment, retention, training, mutual aid, emergency deployment, overtime, standby coverage, and other costs necessary to provide fire and emergency medical services.
(3) Emergency Management and Disaster Preparedness.
(A) Emergency planning, preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, and continuity -of -operations activities.
(B) Emergency operations centers, emergency alert and warning systems, interoperable communications, evacuation planning, shelters, emergency supplies, generators, backup power, and emergency public information. (C) Community Emergency Response Team and other volunteer preparedness or emergency -response programs.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 13
496
(D) Response to wildfire, earthquake, flood, severe weather, hazardous -material incidents, terrorism, civil disturbance, pandemic, major utility disruption, and other natural or human -caused emergencies.
(E) Mutual -aid obligations, disaster -response contracts, emergency procurements, disaster recovery, and the non -reimbursed local share of eligible emergency or disaster expenditures.
(4) Roadway and Transportation Safety.
(A) Traffic enforcement, collision investigation, traffic -control operations, crossing -guard services, and public education concerning motorist, pedestrian, bicycle, e- bike, and vehicle safety.
(B) Traffic signals, traffic -control devices, warning systems, roadway signs, pavement markings, striping, crosswalks, guardrails, barriers, medians, traffic -calming devices, street lighting, and pedestrian or bicycle safety improvements. (C) Engineering, design, construction, maintenance, repair, or replacement of roadways, intersections, sidewalks, trails, bridges, drainage facilities, slopes, shoulders, and related infrastructure when the primary and substantial purpose is to reduce collisions, correct a hazardous condition, preserve emergency access, support evacuation, or protect motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency responders, or adjacent property. (D) Pavement repair, resurfacing, reconstruction, pothole repair, vegetation clearance, drainage work, and similar work only when the City Engineer or designee makes and retains a written determination that the project has a primary and substantial roadway - safety, emergency -access, evacuation, or hazard -reduction purpose. (E) Local road -safety plans, traffic studies, collision analyses, speed surveys, signal -timing studies, safe -routes -to -school projects, and matching funds for transportation -safety grants.
(F) Maintenance and improvement of designated evacuation routes and routes necessary for police, fire, paramedic, or other emergency response. (5) Public Safety Facilities, Vehicles, Equipment, Technology, and Capital Projects. (A) Acquisition, construction, leasing, financing, improvement, repair, maintenance, security, and operation of facilities used primarily for law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical response, emergency management, dispatch, communications, roadway safety, or another permitted Public Safety Purpose. (B) Acquisition, leasing, financing, repair, replacement, maintenance, fueling, outfitting, and operation of vehicles, apparatus, equipment, communications systems, software, technology, and other capital assets used for a permitted Public Safety Purpose. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 14
497
(C) Debt service, lease payments, financing costs, and legally required or fiscally prudent reserves associated with eligible public safety facilities or capital assets. (D) Planning, design, environmental review, project management, construction management, inspection, permitting, and other costs associated with an eligible public safety capital project.
(6) Legal, Insurance, Risk Management, Administrative, and Operational Support. (A) City Attorney and outside legal services concerning eligible public safety contracts, operations, personnel, labor relations, enforcement, litigation, claims, emergency response, facilities, procurement, financing, and related matters. (B) Liability, property, vehicle, cyber, and other insurance; workers' compensation; claims administration; risk -pool or self-insurance contributions; deductibles; settlements; judgments; and loss -prevention activities, but only to the extent directly attributable or reasonably allocated to eligible public safety operations, personnel, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or projects.
(C) Finance, accounting, payroll, independent auditing, purchasing, contracting, grant administration, budgeting, revenue administration, investment, and financial - reporting services supporting eligible Public Safety Purposes. (D) Human resources, recruitment, classification, labor relations, employee - benefits administration, training, occupational health, and workplace -safety services supporting public safety personnel or operations.
(E) Information technology, cybersecurity, communications, geographic information systems, records management, data storage, software, hardware, and technical support used by or supporting public safety operations. (F) Fleet maintenance, facilities maintenance, utilities, fuel, procurement, warehousing, inventory, and logistical support for eligible public safety facilities, vehicles, personnel, equipment, and projects.
(G) Public information, community engagement, translation, accessibility, and communications reasonably related to public safety programs, emergencies, alerts, preparedness, accountability, or required public reporting. (H) Costs of administering the tax, including California Department of Tax and Fee Administration charges, revenue consultants, audits, accounting, legal compliance, election -related implementation costs, and Citizens' Oversight Committee support. (I) A reasonable share of other City administrative or overhead costs that materially support eligible Public Safety Purposes, determined under a written, consistently applied, 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 15
498
and auditable cost -allocation methodology based on actual use, workload, staffing, expenditures, square footage, transactions, or another reasonable allocation factor. (7) Other Closely Related Public Safety Programs or Projects. (A) A program, service, project, capital improvement, or supporting cost not expressly listed above may be funded only if it falls within the scope of one or more of the categories in paragraphs (1) through (6), and the City Council determines by written findings adopted at a noticed public meeting that the expenditure has a primary and substantial relationship to protecting life, health, property, emergency access, roadway safety, community security, emergency preparedness, or the effective delivery of an expressly authorized Public Safety Purpose.
(B) This paragraph does not authorize the City Council to create a new purpose, materially broaden the voter -approved expenditure plan, or fund a general governmental activity merely because it provides an incidental or indirect public benefit. (c) The following expenditures are not authorized unless and only to the extent they independently satisfy an express category above: general parks and recreation, cultural or entertainment programs, economic development, routine beautification, general social services, ordinary street capacity or aesthetic improvements, and general administrative overhead lacking a documented and proportionate allocation to an eligible Public Safety Purpose. (d) Measure S revenues may be used to maintain, preserve, restore, replace, expand, enhance, or establish eligible Public Safety Purposes. This chapter does not establish a maintenance -of -effort requirement or require Measure S revenues to supplement rather than replace other legally available revenues previously used for an eligible Public Safety Purpose. (e) Unspent or unencumbered Measure S revenues shall remain in the restricted account and may be carried forward and accumulated for future Public Safety Purposes. The City Council may establish reasonable reserves for volatility, emergencies, capital replacement, or future eligible projects, provided that the reserve remains legally restricted by this chapter.
Sec. 3.18.180. Annual budget and Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan. (a) Each proposed annual budget shall contain a separately identified Measure S Public Safety Expenditure Plan. The plan shall identify:
(1) Projected Measure S revenues for the fiscal year;
(2) Unspent or encumbered Measure S revenues carried forward from prior years; (3) Interest and other earnings attributable to Measure S revenues; (4) Each department, contract, program, project, capital improvement, reserve, or expenditure category proposed to receive Measure S revenues and the amount proposed for each; 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 16
499
(5) Whether each proposed expenditure is a direct cost, indirect or administrative allocation, capital cost, debt -service cost, reserve, transfer, or reimbursement; used;
(6) For each material indirect or administrative allocation, the method and allocation factor (7) The projected year-end restricted fund balance; and (8) A certification by the City Manager and the City's chief fiscal officer that each proposed expenditure is authorized by Section 3.18.170.
(b) The proposed expenditure plan shall be provided to the Citizens' Oversight Committee sufficiently in advance of budget adoption to permit review and a report to the City Council. The City Council retains exclusive authority to adopt the budget and appropriate funds within the voter - approved purposes.
(c) Any material midyear amendment or transfer affecting Measure S revenues shall be separately identified in the staff report or budget document presented to the City Council and shall state the applicable authorized Public Safety Purpose.
Sec. 3.18.190. Separate accounting; annual accountability report. (a) The City Manager shall maintain accounting records sufficient to separately identify Measure S revenues, attributable earnings, appropriations, expenditures, encumbrances, reimbursements, adjustments, reserves, and carryover balances.
(b) At least once each year, and no later than March 31 following the close of the fiscal year unless a later date is reasonably necessary to complete the independent audit, the City's chief fiscal officer shall file with the City Council and make publicly available a Measure S Public Safety Accountability Report containing at least:
(1) The amount of Measure S funds collected and expended; (2) The beginning and ending restricted fund balances and the amount carried forward; (3) A comparison of budgeted and actual expenditures;
(4) Actual expenditures organized by the Public Safety Purpose categories in Section
3.18.170;
(5) The status of each material program, project, capital improvement, reserve, or contract funded or authorized to be funded;
(6) The amount used for direct services, indirect or administrative support, capital projects, debt service, and reserves;
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 17
500
(7) The methodology used for material indirect or administrative allocations; (8) The amount encumbered but not yet expended;
(9) A reconciliation of revenues, expenditures, encumbrances, reimbursements, adjustments, and remaining balances;
(10) A summary of measurable public safety staffing, service, response, facility, equipment, project, or program outcomes, to the extent reasonably available; (11) The findings of the independent annual audit;
(12) The findings and recommendations of the Citizens' Oversight Committee; and (13) A certification by the City Manager and the City's chief fiscal officer stating whether all Measure S revenues expended during the fiscal year were used for authorized Public Safety Purposes.
(c) The annual report, supporting expenditure schedules, independent audit, and Citizens' Oversight Committee report shall be considered at a noticed public meeting of the City Council and posted on the City's website.
Sec. 3.18.200. Notice of unauthorized expenditures.
If the City Manager determines that Measure S revenues were expended for a purpose not authorized by Section 3.18.170, the City Manager shall promptly notify the City Council.
Sec. 3.18.210. Amendments and voter control.
(a) The City Council may amend this chapter without voter approval only to the extent the amendment is administrative, procedural, clarifying, or necessary to conform to state law or California Department of Tax and Fee Administration requirements, and only if the amendment does not increase the tax rate, extend the duration, broaden or change the Public Safety Purposes, weaken the requirement that proceeds be used only for those purposes, or materially reduce the accountability protections approved by the voters.
(b) Any amendment that increases the rate, extends the duration, adds or materially broadens a permitted purpose, authorizes proceeds to be used for a non -public -safety purpose, or otherwise requires voter approval under the California Constitution or applicable law shall become effective only upon the required voter approval.
(c) Automatic incorporation of amendments to state sales and use tax law under Section 3.18.140 shall not alter the tax rate, voter -approved purposes, duration, or accountability requirements. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg.
18 501
Section 4. Administrative Conforming Amendment.
Throughout Chapter 3.18, references to the "State Board of Equalization" or "state board of equalization" in connection with the administration or collection of the transactions and use tax shall be construed and, upon codification, replaced with references to the "California Department of Tax and Fee Administration" or "Department," as appropriate. This section does not alter references to historical titles or statutory language where a conforming replacement would be legally inaccurate.
Section 5. Provisions Remaining in Effect.
Except as expressly amended by this Ordinance, Ordinance No. 453 and Sections 3.18.030,
3.18.040, and 3.18.090 through 3.18.150 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code remain in full force and effect. The transactions tax rate and use tax rate remain one percent.
Section 6. Approval Requirement and Effective Date.
This Ordinance is a City Council -sponsored special tax measure. It shall be considered adopted only if approved by at least two-thirds of the qualified voters of the City voting on the measure at the November 3, 2026 election and shall take effect as provided by law, but the special -tax expenditure restrictions shall apply beginning on the Special Tax Operative Date stated in Section
3.18.060.
Section 7. No Rate Increase; Continuity; Preservation of Existing Tax.
This Ordinance amends and continues the existing Measure S tax and does not repeal and reimpose the tax, impose a second tax, or increase the tax rate. The voters intend the existing tax to remain continuously effective. If any provision implementing the special -tax conversion is finally held invalid, Ordinance No. 453 and Chapter 3.18, as they existed immediately before the effective date of this Ordinance, shall remain or be reinstated to the maximum extent legally permissible, unless the court determines that a different result is required.
Section 8. Appropriations Limit.
Pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution and applicable law, the City's appropriations limit shall continue to be increased by the aggregate amount of proceeds received from the tax, as previously authorized by the voters in Ordinance No. 453, to the extent such adjustment remains necessary and legally available.
Section 9. California Environmental Quality Act.
The People find that adoption of this Ordinance is not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act because it concerns governmental fiscal and administrative activities and does not approve a specific physical project or commit the City to a course of action that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if considered a project, the action is exempt because it can be seen with certainty that the tax 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 19
502
classification and accountability amendments will not themselves have a significant effect on the environment. Any future physical project funded by Measure S shall remain subject to environmental review otherwise required by law.
Section 10. Legal Defense.
The People desire that this Ordinance, if approved and thereafter challenged, be defended by the City Attorney. The City Attorney is authorized and directed to defend the Ordinance, appeal an adverse judgment, and take other action that, in the City Attorney's reasonable legal judgment, is necessary to defend the validity and implementation of the Ordinance.
Section 11. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or application of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and applications shall remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law. The People declare that they would have adopted each remaining provision irrespective of the invalidity of any other provision, subject to the preservation -of -existing -tax provisions in Section 7.
Section 12. Liberal Construction.
This Ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectuate the voters' intent to continue the existing one -percent Measure S tax, legally restrict future proceeds to the stated Public Safety Purposes, and provide meaningful fiscal accountability.
Section 13. Municipal Affair.
The People declare that the purposes and administration of this Ordinance concern municipal affairs and that this Ordinance is intended to coexist with other lawful state, county, district, or City taxes.
Section 14. Certification and Codification.
The City Clerk shall certify the election results and adoption of this Ordinance, cause the Ordinance to be published or posted as required by law, transmit certified copies to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and other appropriate agencies, and cause the amended provisions to be codified. The City Clerk and City Attorney may correct typographical, clerical, numbering, and cross-reference errors in the codified text, provided that no correction changes the substantive meaning of the voter -approved measure.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg.
20 503
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS by the City Council of the City of Yucaipa this day of , 2026.
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Cleric
Chris Venable, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Graham Pacifico
City Attorney
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda pg. 21
504
CITY OF
Item No. 23
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager ✓
PREPARED BY: Megan Wolfe, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Renaming 7th Street Park to George Leja Park
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the renaming of 7th Street Park to George Leja Park; or
2. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Yucaipa has a long-standing tradition of recognizing individuals whose leadership, service, and dedication have made lasting contributions to the community. The City's Facility Naming Policy establishes criteria and procedures for naming or renaming public facilities in honor of individuals who have served the community with distinction or who have made exceptional contributions to the welfare and reputation of the City.
Mayor Chris Venable requested consideration of renaming 7th Street Park in honor of George Leja, whose decades of community service helped shape Yucaipa's parks and recreation system.
George Leja was inducted into the City of Yucaipa Wall of Fame in 2005 in recognition of his outstanding leadership, commitment to community service, and his ability to secure community support and resources for the development and improvement of parks, recreation facilities, and programs throughout Yucaipa. His efforts have had a lasting impact on the quality of life enjoyed by generations of residents.
On June 23, 2026, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposal in accordance with the City's Facility Naming Policy. Following discussion, the Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve renaming 7th Street Park to George Leja Park. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 505
If approved, staff will update the park name on all applicable digital resources. Costs associated with replacing permanent park signage have not yet been determined or budgeted and will be evaluated and presented to the City Council at a future date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total fiscal impact associated with the proposed park renaming has not been included in the FY26/27 budget.
Attachment(s):
1. City of Yucaipa Facility Naming Policy
2. George Leja Wall of Fame Plaque
3. Location Map — 7th Street Park
4. Park and Recreation Commission Minutes of the June 23, 2026 meeting 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 506
ATTACHMENT
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 507
City of Yucaipa
Policy on the Naming of Facilities [DRAFT]
I. INTRODUCTION
The naming of a facility contributes to the City's sense of its own heritage and is a significant event in the history of the community. Such namings demand due consideration and consultation. This policy and related guidelines provide the basic and controlling regulations involved in the naming of facilities (defined below) for individuals or organizations. This document amplifies the City's policy by stipulating the detailed policies and procedures to be observed at the City of Yucaipa.
City Council shall have the authority to approve the naming of City facilities for individuals and organizations, Facilities shall include, but not be limited to, buildings, structures, thoroughfares, areas, or other spaces within facilities.
II. CRITERIA
In naming facilities, due attention must be given to the point that the adoption of names of individuals, families or organizations prominent in the history of the community will contribute to the City's heritage. The guidelines (attached) shall be followed, as well as the following additional criteria:
1. Names of living or deceased individuals may be considered.
2. A name proposed for a future but presently untitled facility so as to recognize a donation to the project may be considered when the donation represents a significant proportion of the value of the facility. For fund raising purposes, a reasonable objective is at minimum 50 percent of the estimated cost of the facility.
3. A name proposed for all or part of a facility that is to be renovated will normally require that the donation cover the full cost of the renovation.
4. A name proposed for a facility component may be considered when the gift is similar to donations received for comparable naming at similar facilities.
5. If a naming is contemplated as part of a fundraising drive, the City Council must be apprised of this fact in advance.
-176-
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 508
III. PROCEDURES
1. For a significant monetary contribution to the actual construction cost, if for new construction; the entire amount of the replacement or major renovation of a facility; or the fundraising goal:
a. The donation may be made in cash or a legally binding pledge and can be paid over time, usually within five years of naming the facility, unless other arrangements are made.
b. A portion of the donation may be in an irrevocable trust or other planned gift. c. Qualified contributions are receipted by the City or the appropriate foundation. d. The City of Yucaipa reserves the right to remove names from facilities when the gift remains unpaid beyond the five-year limit or the agreed upon date.
2. Specific contribution levels may be established with either fixed or minimwn dollar amounts for sponsorship of other facility components.
a. Such property may include, but not limited to, hardscape, benches, seats, special features, rooms, and outdoor plazas.
b. Amounts for these naming opportunities shall be reviewed periodically by the City Council.
3. When a donation is received for naming, that facility receives a designation that shall last a lifetime of the facility, subject to paragraph 3 of this rule. a. Demolition or significant renovation shall tenninate the designation. b. The individual, family, corporation, foundation (donor) involved in the initial naming may be offered an opportunity to retain the natning before any other naming gifts are considered.
4. City Council shall approve any action causing a name to be removed from an existing facility.
5. Any legal impropriety or other act which brings dishonor to the City on the part of the donor or a corporate donor who is no longer in existence shall make the gift and naming rights subject to reconsideration by the City.
-177-
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 509
--z
Guidelines for Assigning the Names of Individuals,
Families or Organizations to City Facilities
1. When naming a facility for a person, family, or organization where there is no donation, the proposed honoree shall have achieved distinction in one or more of the following ways:
a. serving the City in a community service capacity with high distinction, or b. by contributing in other exceptional ways to the welfare and reputation of the City, or to the community in general.
2. When naming a facility for a person, family, or organization where there is a donation to the project or facility, consideration shall be given to the following factors:
a. the significance of the donation to the likely realization or success of a facility project, based on City guidelines and policies, b. the urgency or need for the project, or continuing support for the program, c. the standing of the individual, family, or entity in the community or profession,
d. the nature and duration of the relationship of the proposed honoree to the community.
3. Prior to approving the naming of a facility for a person, family or organization, the City Council shall have a reasonable assurance that:
a. the proposed name will bring additional honor and distinction to the City, b. the recognition implied by the naming is appropriate for the behavior exhibited by the individual, family, or organization, and c, any philanthropic commitments connected with the naming can be realized. -17s-
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 510
ATTACHMENT 2
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 511
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
512
ATTACHMENT 3
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 513
7�,
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 514
ATTACHMENT 4
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 515
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT
A Special meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission of the City of Yucaipa was called to order in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, at the hour of 6:06 PM., on the 23`d day of June 2026 with Chairperson Tarah Van Grouw presiding.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Denise Allen, Commissioner
Spencer Gonzales, Vice -Chairperson
Tarah Van Grouw, Chairperson
ABSENT: Joel Keller, Commissioner
A quorum of the Park and Recreation Commission was present.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO RENAME 7TH STREET PARK TO GEORGE LEJA PARK RECOMMENDATION: That the Park and Recreation Commission:
1. Review the proposal to rename 7th Street Park as George Leja Park; and
2. Forward the recommendation to the City Council for final consideration.
DISCUSSION: Director of Community Services, Megan Wolfe presented the item.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• Jim Holden
• Chris Venable
• Paul Kielhold
• Brett Granlund
• Red Simmons
DISCUSSION: Chairperson Van Grouw requested information regarding the cost of re-signage be provided. Commissioner Allen requested the history of how and when Lillian Eaton Park came to be, be provided as well in the staff report provided to City Council for consideration.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN, SECOND BY VICE -CHAIR GONZALES, CARRIED 3-0-1 (COMMISSIONER KELLER WAS ABSENT), TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND SEND THE ITEM TO CITY COUNCIL.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO }
CITY OF YUCAIPA } ss
I, Tara Davis, Administrative Assistant of the City of Yucaipa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and correct excerpt of the Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Yucaipa Park and Recreation Commission held on the 23`d day of June 2026.
Tara Davis
Administrative Assistant
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 516
Cl FY O
�w
Item No. 24
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Cif
Dr. Sean M. Moore, City
Fermin Preciado, Director of Devefopment Services/City Engineer Landon Kern, Assistant Engineer
Resolution Establishing Speed Limits within the City of Yucaipa RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-29, establishing speed limits upon certain streets and segments of streets within the City of Yucaipa; or
2. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The speed limits in California have been established and governed based on actual traffic data collected as required by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Sections 627, 22348 through 22413 and 40802. This requires cities and other local agencies to conduct engineering and traffic surveys (speed survey) for speed limits on public arterial and collector street segments once every five years. The speed survey may be conducted every seven years under certain circumstances where police officers have met specific speed detection equipment training requirements since speed limits may be enforced through the use of Radar (radio waves) or LiDAR (laser).
The most recent citywide speed survey was completed in 2023, which included analysis of the speed limits previously established and adopted by the City Council in 2018 for 94 street segments and 6 additional segments identified by staff to be added into the analysis. The results of the 2023 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits (2023 Speed Survey) were presented at the January 22, 2024, City Council meeting. At that time the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-01 establishing the speed limit for 100 street segments in the City of Yucaipa. Of these 100 street segments analyzed in 2023, speed limits were adjusted for 3 segments. With the requirement to conduct the citywide speed survey every 5 years, another speed survey will need to be completed in 2028.
In the City of Yucaipa, residential (local) streets, school zone streets and streets in the Uptown Yucaipa business area have historically been exempt from these requirements to establish speed 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 517
limits, as speed limits are established by the CVC at 25 mph. However, recent legislative actions, including AB382 and AB1014 have expanded local authority to prioritize safety outcomes under certain conditions. AB382 allows local agencies to adopt resolutions to reduce school zone street segment speed limits from 25mph to 20mph to enhance safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and other road users. AB 1014 provides additional flexibility for local agencies to reduce speed limits up to 5 mph below the data driven analysis speed limit recommendation, if streets and conditions meet certain criteria.
This new legislative framework provides cities flexibility to consider adjustments to the speed limits recommended by the results of a traffic engineering analysis.
Since the 2023 Speed Survey, both development projects and the City have completed several street widening and street improvement projects that have changed the conditions of the roadway and in some cases the roadway geometry along many of the street segments evaluated by that survey. In addition, over the last several years, the City has received feedback from the public regarding speeding and other traffic safety related concerns through the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
With the new tools and flexibility provided by the new legislation, staff selected 11 street segments to be further analyzed in 2026 to determine if speed limit changes would be warranted. The 11 street segments were selected based on changes in conditions to the street segments and from the input received from the public related to speeding concerns.
The City's on -call traffic engineering consultant, Minagar & Associates, Inc. (Minagar) completed the 2023 Speed Survey. Due to their familiarity with the City's street network and speed limits, staff requested a cost proposal from Minegar to prepare the analysis for the 11 street segments and 36 street segments within designated school zones. Their knowledge of the City's street network and previous traffic engineering work for the City would provide for the lowest cost to the City for this effort.
In April of 2026, staff administratively approved a contract with Minagar in the not -to -exceed amount of $27,779 for this effort. The cost of the analysis related to the school zones was in the amount of $17, 934 and the cost for the analysis of the 11 street segments was in the amount of $9,845.
Minagar completed the collection of the speed data while school was in session to ensure that the analysis considered school related traffic. The work has been completed and both the `Technical Memorandum for School Zone Speeds Under AB382' and the `2026 Citywide Engineering & Traffic Survey Update for Selected (11) Roadway Segments' have been prepared and attached to this report for reference. The following table summarizes the results of the analysis and are the basis of the proposed recommendations:
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 518
Street
Segment
Street Name
Segment Limits
Existing
Speed Limit
Proposed
Speed Limit
Number
1 Bryant Street
Date Avenue to
45 mph
40 mph
Yucaipa Boulevard
2 Oak Glen Road
Bryant Street to
50 mph
45mph
Cherry Croft Drive
3 Oak Glen Road
Cherry Croft Drive to
50 mph
50 mph
City Limits
4 Wildwood Canyon Road
Bryant Street to
45 mph
40 mph
Holmes Street
5 Wildwood Canyon Road
Mesa Grande Drive to
45 mph
45 mph
Oak Mesa Drive
6 Wildwood Canyon Road
Oak Mesa Drive to
45 mph
45 mph
Oak Glen Road
7 13th Street
Avenue E to
35 mph
35 mph
Oak Glen Road
8 Avenue E
Yucaipa Boulevard to
35 mph
35 mph
16th Street
9 Colorado Street
Wildwood Canyon Road to
35 mph
35 mph
8th Street
10 Colorado Street
8th Street to
35 mph
35 mph
9th Street
11 Colorado Street
9th Street to
35 mph
35 mph
1 oth Street
20 mph
School Zone Street
proposed
-
Segments
Various Locations
Varies
for 16 of 40
(40 Segments)
segments
1) No changes proposed to speed limit. Analysis recommends additional speed limit signage to increase driver awareness and support enforcement.
2) Details of speed limit recommendations for school zone streets are included in Technical Memorandum for School Zone Speeds Under AB382 (Attachment 2).
Based on the recommendations provided by the traffic engineer and following the requirements in the CVC, staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 2026-29 establishing speed limits upon certain streets and segments of streets in the City of Yucaipa.
Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-29 will help achieve the following:
1) Support the adopted 2026 City Council Goal No. 6 to "Ensure Public Safety has the necessary tools and resources"
2) Enhance safety along key transportation corridors and in school zones by facilitating traffic enforcement, reducing vehicle speeds and reducing the number of speed related traffic collisions
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 519
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost to implement the proposed recommendations are included in the Proposed FY26/27 Budget.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 2026-29
2. Technical Memorandum for School Zone Speeds Under AB382
3. 2026 Citywide Engineering & Traffic Survey Update for Selected (11) Roadway Segments 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 520
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 521
RESOLUTION NO.2026-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA
ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS UPON CERTAIN STREETS AND
SEGMENTS OF CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF YUCAIPA
WHEREAS, an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits is required to establish speed limits on certain City streets and where speed enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic speed measuring device; and
WHEREAS, an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits was performed in June of 2026, in accordance with the requirements of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the California Vehicle Code authorizes the City, by ordinance or resolution, to determine and declare a prima facie speed of limit 20 or 25 miles per hour.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts and establishes the speed limits based on the 2026 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey Update — Phase II for Selected Roadway Segments and Technical Memorandum 2026 School Zone Speeds Under New California AB 382 (Phase 1) to allow for enforcement of these speed limits using radar or other electronic device in conformance with the requirements of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27"' day of July,, 2026.
Chris Venable, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana Sauseda
Director of General Services/City Clerk
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 522
ATTACHMENT 2
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 523
Technical Memorandum
r
SCHOOL
SPEED
S-ED LIMIT
SPEED
LIMIT
20 20
WHEN
CHILRREN
ARE PRESENT
2026 School Zone Speeds
Under New California AB 382
Proposed School Zone Speed Limit
CAR—MP—H
rl r, Wi
(Phase 1)
City of Yucaipa, CA
IVY AVE
School Location
IIC
CARTER ST
I —I City Limits �C✓UN7"TY Y PARK VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
°
N
UNINCORPORATE❑ COMPETITNE EDGECH0.RT Eft ACADEMY
YDCNPAHIGH SCHOOL
OAK VIEW H IG H SCHOOL
°
s
HFIR AVE
y
�"SN.�NhxTolNY
m
O
❑IINLRP EL 9AENTARYSCHOOL
kN
CHAMN S
ELEMENTARY SMOd
N
ip
C"
RIDGE VIEW EL BA BJTARY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
C'%,r CuuPYf5 pf3HFIGHT$ Rp Q
UNINCORPORATED
�r G
DATE AVE
CRAPTOXHLLS
�,$
COLLEGE
r z
I LC S YBC CAM PI15
TENNE55EE 5T
y y H ,�„ ^
Yu aipa
YUCAIPA 6LVD INLAND LEADERS CHARTER SCHOOL
IL F
AVE D
f `I� ^
FAITH LIITHERAN PRESCHOOL
�
D AVE E
■
J■■
yR
AVE*
uNLAF gL VD
KENTOCI( AYES �.
� u n
v sn ry
y
g
'D
�e
v
m
8 VA LLEYELEMENTARYSCHOOL
COLOR ADC SS
C
U
GREEN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
BELLA VISTA D
Pd
AO`_-L 8LV 1MLDW60❑CANYON❑R
OR
CITY OF R* sA Pc1. 11V 11 v
REDLANDs �,w° COU�f"1'Y AVE H w,�b�° GahrDH wa
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY _
--------- ��F------:�����{Yd111TIE4 — --- ------------------------------ RIVERSIDECOUNTY y N N H � � t WILDWOODELEMENTARYSCHOOL
2 a i z
CALI.ESAELE.ENTARYSCHDOL 8
MESAGRAHOERCRDBAY
CITY OF YUCAIPA 2026 PROPOSEDL ZONE SPEED
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. SCHOO UNDERAB 382 LIMITS
..1 •
; i 11'L
CITY OF YUCAIPA
Public Works Department
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
PREPARED BY:
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - ITS - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive
East Tower, Suite 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel: (949)707-1199
Web: www.minagarinc.com
June 11, 2026
CITY OF
9®
N
July 15, 2026
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 524
U
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 City of Yucaipa
2026 School Zone Speed Limits
Under New California AB 382
PREPARED FOR:
CI�OF
w yo CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY:
M 1 NAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - ITS - Transportation Planning - CEM July 15, 2026
QMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3
/2026 City Council Agenda 525
SCHOOL
Ak s"`° LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 ?� City of Yucaipa
CITY OF
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
2026 School Zone Speed Limits
Under New California AB 382
I, Fred Minagar do hereby certify that this Technical Memorandum for the City of Yucaipa was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing reports of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional Civil Engineer. The study has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC 2026), the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2026 [Effective January 18, 2026]), and under the new California Assembly Bill 382 Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of existing traffic conditions identified on City of Yucaipa roadways.
This report and the establishment of the 2026 School Zone Speed Limits apply only to the 100 roadway segments for which corresponding speed limits were established in January 2024, following the ratification of the proposed speed limits by the Yucaipa City Council.
Fred Minagar, MS, RCE, PE, RSA, Registration No. 53466
Project Manager
Q4O QEO MINF�� F2
r
QoMCFV �`
s
z; z;
+ c5 a
S,p IVI �
tEOF CAA
SEAL
.....
Q� „ MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
/2026 City Council Agenda
526
,"' 1 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 �?� 20 City of Yucaipa
Introduction
This Technical Memorandum provides a comprehensive review of speed -limit authorities and new speed -related laws in California as of 2026 as it pertains to School Zone Speeds and City of Yucaipa, focusing on:
➢ AB 382: Pedestrian Safety: School Zones: Speed Limits • Signed/Chaptered: October 10, 2025
• Effective Date: January 1, 2026
➢ AB 1014: Traffic Safety: Speed Limits
• Signed/Chaptered: October 3, 2025
• Effective date: January 1, 2026
This Technical Memorandum is intended to support informed policy decisions, ordinance development, engineering and traffic studies, and implementation actions that enhance traffic safety particularly for children, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users.
Historically, speed limits in California have been governed by the 85th percentile rule, codified primarily in CVC Sections 22357 and 22358, which require that posted speed limits be based on the speed at or below which 85 percent of motorists travel under free -flow conditions. This approach has limited the ability of local jurisdictions to proactively address safety concerns in areas with high pedestrian and bicycle activity.
Recent legislative actions, including AB 382 (2025), and AB 1014 (2025) have expanded local authority to prioritize safety outcomes over strict adherence to the 85th percentile methodology.
New Statutory Framework
AB 382, chaptered in October 2025, revises California's Vehicle Code school -zone speed -limit rules. Key points:
• Default school zone limit:
o Historically, the prima facie school zone speed limit was 25 MPH when children are present near a school.
o Under AB 382, that baseline is being reduced to 20 MPH in school zones.
O LOZ6 C1fy CouBcI Rg r HATES, INC. 52�
D
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo.
City of Yucaipa
• Two phases of implementation:
o Now through Jan 1, 2031: Local authorities (cities/counties) may choose to adopt a 20-MPH school zone speed limit by ordinance or resolution and must post the appropriate signs for it to be enforceable without need for an E&TS.
o After Jan 1, 2031: The 20-MPH limit becomes the default prima facie school zone speed limit wherever proper signage is present (local vote not required then).
AB 382 — School Zone Speed Limits
Under AB382 the revised law becomes CVC § 22352:
"(b) Twenty miles per hour in a school zone when any of the following apply:
(1) A school speed limit sign with attached beacons states "speed limit 20 when flashing" and the beacons are flashing.
(2) A school speed limit sign states "children are present" and children are present. (3) A school speed limit sign with specific hours, which shall be determined by the local jurisdiction.
(d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "School zone" means an area of a highway within 500 feet of school grounds in any direction, unless otherwise posted, marked with appropriate signs giving notice of the area.
(2) (A) "Children are present" means whenever either of the following occurs:
(i) Children are going to or leaving the school.
(ii) School grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.
(B) "Children are present" does not include children who are separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier."
(Repealed (in Sec. 1) and added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 555, Sec. 2. (AB 382) Effective January 1, 2026.
Operative January 1, 2031, by its own provisions.)
CVC § 22352.5.:
"(a) Notwithstanding Section 22352, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 miles per hour in a school zone.
SI8.*,#§P1g1AATES, INC. 5286
M, 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382; Rio
20 City of Yucaipa
(b) For purposes of this section, "school zone" has the same meaning as defined in Section 22352.
(c) This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2031, and as of that date is repealed."
(Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 555, Sec. 3. (AB 382) Effective January 1, 2026. Repealed as of January 1, 2031, by its own provisions.)
Additional School Zone Provisions
AB 382 also revised CVC §22358.4 regarding school -zone speed limits. The revised provisions allow local agencies to establish a 15-MPH prima facie speed limit within qualifying school zones under specified roadway and land -use conditions. In addition, school -zone approach areas located between 500 and 1,000 feet from school grounds may be considered for 25-MPH school -zone approach treatments where appropriate signage is installed. These provisions were considered during the review of the roadway segments evaluated in this memorandum.
Legal Authority to Lower Speed Limits (AB 1014 — Traffic Safety:
Speed Limits)
AB 1014 provides targeted speed -limit flexibility on state highways and local roads by allowing a reduction of up to 5 MPH below the otherwise applicable speed limit without re-establishing a full new posted speed limit based on the 85th-percentile rule, when specific safety conditions are met.
Statutory Framework: CVC § 22358.7
CVC § 22358.7:
"(a) If the Department of Transportation or a local authority, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, the Department of Transportation may or the local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour for either or both of the following reasons:
(1) The portion of highway has been designated as a safety corridor. The Department of Transportation or a local authority shall not deem more than one -fifth of their streets as safety corridors.
(2) The portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused. lyl1 ,Py-Cou�ei, RFA%ATES, INC. 7
529
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 o
20 City of Yucaipa
(b) (1) As used in this section, "safety corridor" shall be defined by the Department of Transportation in the next revision of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In making this determination, the Department of Transportation shall consider highways that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities based on collision data that may be derived from, but not limited to, the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.
(2) The Department of Transportation shall, in the next revision of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, determine what constitutes land or facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians, as used in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). In making this determination, the Department of Transportation shall consider density, road use type, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure present on a section of highway.
(c) A peace officer shall issue only warning citations for violations of exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles per hour or less for the first 30 days that a lower speed limit is in effect as authorized by this section."
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 287, Sec. 3. (AB 1014) Effective January 1, 2026.) AB 1014 is codified in CVC § 22358.7, which establishes two qualifying conditions under subsection (a):
1. Safety Corridors — § 22358.7(a)(1)
2. Land or facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians — § 22358.7(a)(2)
If either condition is met, the responsible authority may reduce the posted speed limit by up to 5 MPH, subject to signage and approval requirements.
The new CA MUTCD 2026 defines the first term required to do this reduction as:
"CVC § 22358.7(a)(1) — "Safety Corridor" Definition
Standard:
12ai A safety corridor shall be defined as a roadway segment within an overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occur. 12aj One or more crash weighting factors as provided in paragraph 12ak of this section shall be used to prioritize the locations of fatal and serious injury crashes in developing the "Safety Corridor".
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 ,2026 City Council Agenda Cad
Mr 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
12ak Option: The crash weighting factors to prioritize the locations of fatal and serious injury crashes in developing the "Safety Corridor" may include, but are not limited to, the factors included in Table 2B-104(CA).
California MUTCD 2026 Edition Page 304
¢H'wiA's MUTCD 2023 Ed lion. as amended for use �n Cal fornia) Table 2B•104(CA). Safety Corridor Factors
Category
Factors
• Crash severity: Fatal Crashes, Serious Injury Crashes • Mode: Pedestrian -bicycle related crashes. vehicle.+other Crash Weighting Factors to
Factors
• Disadvantaged Community Status: MPOrRTPA or locally defined disadvantaged Develop One Shting
atal Injury
community status based on most current version of CalEnviroScreen Safety Corridor
• Vulnerable Populations: Seniors (age 65 and older) and Youth (under age 15) based on the American Community Survey
• School proximity (within 0.25 miles) based on the Califomia School Campus Database • Systemic or Predicted Crashes
Each roadway segment b!ocrc may be converted into - 0.25-mile overlapping or contiguous 'Corridor segments to create a consistent unit of measurement and assess the concentration of Crash Density
linear patterns of crashes within a defined distance. The highest scoring (i.e., most fatal and serious injury crashes per mi'e) "comdor'secments wftn a street need to be identified and an appropriate threshold set to determine safety corridor elicibility.
Maintenance
The jurisdiction may establish a review and re-evaluation frequency for safety corridors.
However, such frequency need not exceed seven years.
As shown in Table 2B-104(CA), roadway segments with concentrations of fatal and serious injury crashes may qualify for consideration as Safety Corridors under the California MUTCD 2026.
The new CA MUTCD 2026 defines the second term required to do this reduction as:
"CVC § 22358.7(a)(2) — "Land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians" definition
Standard:
12at A land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians shall be defined as the portion of the highway where one or more of any of the generators listed in Table 2B-105(CA) are present within a distance of 1320 feet longitudinally of highway, and meets condition specified in paragraph 12au. 12au Crash data demonstrates the highway segment is within the top twenty percent of pedestrian and/or bicyclist fatalities or serious injuries over a three -to -five-year. r,*Mtl8JR"U*C ►§gWqAATES, INC. 5319
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo 20 City of Yucaipa
C3 ioma MUTCr7 2026 Em on
IFH;','A s MUTCD 2023 Edition, as amended for use r Cal i:r^ a, Table 2B-1O5(CA). Generators of High Concentrations of Bicyclists or Pedestrians Category
Generator
Land Use
Employment center
Presence cf retal
Pans. mull -use Irairs, and recrealonal destinations
Schcolsrunve,,ities
Senior Centers
Cultural areas enerla nmcnt space areas or areas of communit s gn lance Rel:oaeus faciaties
HealUtir'ec cap fact t.es
Transit Factor
Transit stops
Transit-Ori rledDevelopmens;TransitPri,,it;sLe.-
Presence of Pedestrian Brcycl s
Infrastructure
S'.dewa;'c presence
Crossa;alk oresercc
Bikeway presence
Nearby rarahzed ir,lersect ons on fcur•,,a-ay irdcrsectjcns Presence of m,cromobil:ty devices such as bicycles or scooter, DemccraphicFaclors
Presence of vulnerao'e groups. including chi dren, senors, persons ;.,th d sabilities. users o' personal ass'slive mobility dev,ces, and ;he Accused
',,lPO!RTPAcrlocally defined djsadvantageccommumtystatus Presence of studenls ia'I levels)
Local Data
heed identified in a safety analysis, such as a road safety aucit or a formalized planning document such as a local road safety plan
Page v35
As shown in Table 2B-105(CA), educational facilities, schools, colleges, parks, and other land uses may qualify as generators of high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians for purposes of evaluating roadway segments under AB 1014.
City of Yucaipa 2026 School Zone Speeds
City of Yucaipa 2026 School Zone Speeds for the following forty (40) street segments within school zones and other locations
1. 2"d Street, 3rd Street, and Yucaipa Boulevard — Roadway Segments Adjacent to ILCS YBC Campus
The roadway segments 2"d Street, 3rd Street, and Yucaipa Boulevard are adjacent to and within the vicinity of the ILCS YBC Campus. The Segments reviewed include Segment No. 1 on 2"d Street from Date Avenue to Yucaipa Boulevard, Segment No. 3 O ",CAR
c�clfAg OCdaATES, INC. 5321
MIT 5 ED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo
20 City of Yucaipa
on V Street from Date Avenue to Yucaipa Boulevard, and Segment No. 98 on Yucaipa Boulevard from 51" Street to 2nd Street. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
7 a
71 7
Y0, 43OR .�
; z.
-:-�
' � .' � �'�•�-� a t�.- � a � C - i i � :m� R • - y � . � r✓ _ r+ y. ti� `� �! �1!1���(i T� °.ems-�. •� -�� � __ - 1.�' — v -�� `ra.:l:
[LCS YBC Cam us �,
_--d_
t
2"d Street is located adjacent to the eastern side of the ILCS YBC Campus. This roadway currently has a posted speed limit of 30-MPH and consists of two-way roadway. The portion of this roadway near the school is primarily commercial district, while the remaining portion going further west transitions into a residential area.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 1 of 2nd Street from Date Avenue to Yucaipa Boulevard was determined to be 30- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Commercial and the 85th percentile speed was 36-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
1.1 Recommendations: According to the aforementioned CVC section under the new AB382, roadway segments located within the school -zone limits may be considered for implementation of a 20-MPH school -zone limit. Based on the information gathered, the portion of the 2"d Street between Cedar Avenue and Yucaipa Boulevard appears to fall in within the 500 feet school -zone limits associated with ILCS YBC Campus. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to erect signage accordingly to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit. The recommendation includes installations of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
0' WVAR#&*c♦'P§,WW ATES, INC. 533i t
scnuoL
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382;j�i LIMIT f
20 City of Yucaipa
Roadway portions of 21d Street between Date Avenue and Cedar Avenue appears to function as an approach to the school -zone area
within the 500-1000 ft. Therefore, a 25-MPH school- scSPEEI+DDLD LIMIT SR`1-1(CA)
zone approach treatment may be considered with 20 Assembly C appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs,
and supplemental plaques in accordance with the
California MUTCD. 45
3.d Street is located adjacent to the western side of the ILCS YBC Campus. This roadway has a posted speed
limit of 30-MPH and consists of two-way roadway. Similar to 2nd Street, the portion of the roadway nearest the school is primarily commercial district, while the roadway transitions into residential land uses further away from the school.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across the Segment No.3 of V Street from Date Avenue to Yucaipa Boulevard was determined to be 30-MPH, as the adjacent land use was discovered to be Residential/Commercial and the 85th percentile speed was 36-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
1.2 Recommendations: According to the aforementioned SCHOOL EED
CVC section under the new AB382, roadway LIMIT sR,1-1(CA) segments located within the school -zone limits may be 20 Assembly considered for implementation of a 20-MPH school-
zone limit. Based on the information received, the
portion of 3rd Street between Cedar Avenue and
Yucaipa Boulevard appears to fall within the school -
zone 500 ft limit associated with the ILCS YBC
Campus. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to erect signage accordingly to establish a 20-MPH school - zone speed limit. The recommendation includes installations of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Roadway portions of 3rd Street between Date Avenue and Cedar Avenue appears to function as an approach to the school -zone area within the 500-foot to 1000-foot school distance. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered with appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Yucaipa Boulevard is located adjacent to the southern frontage of the ILCS YBC Campus. The roadway currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH limits and functions as a major east -west corridor serving the surrounding commercial area.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 98 of Yucaipa Boulevard from 5t" Street and 2nd Street was determined to be 35- 0 -- 1F9Pm"Ac,�R &1ATES, INC. 53412
M, 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 �z`o
20 City of Yucaipa
MPH, as the adjacent land us was found to be Business/Commercial and the 8511 percentile speed was 40-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
1.3 Recommendations: According to the aforementioned S C HHO0L CVC section under the new AB382, roadway LIMETO SR4-1(CA) ; segments located within the school -zone limits may be 20 Assembly C ;Me' considered for implementation of a 20-MPH school- -=
zone limit. Based on the information gathered, the ?< 45 y 3--
portion of the Yucaipa Boulevard between 3rd Street 2"p a and 2nd Street appears to fall in within the 500-foot
school -zone limits associated with ILCS YBC Campus.
According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to erect signage accordingly to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit. The recommendation includes installations of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, portions of Yucaipa Boulevard may fall within the 500-foot to 1000-foot school -zone approach area associated with the ILCS YBC Campus. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered with appropriate transitions, warning, and regulatory signage installed in accordance with the California MUTCD.
2. Avenue E, Bryant Street, and California Street — Roadway Segments Adjacent to Inland Leaders Charter School & Faith Lutheran Preschool The roadway segments Avenue E, Bryant Street, and California Street are adjacent to and within the vicinity of the Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool. The Segments reviewed include Segment No. 29 on Avenue E from California Street to Fremont Street, Segment No. 37 on Bryant Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Wildwood Canyon Road, Segment No. 41 on California Street from Avenue B to Avenue E, and Segment No. 42 on California Street from Avenue E to Wildwood Canyon Road. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
0 bV"@, l`,#RPgJATES, INC. 13
535
MT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 City of Yucaipa
zo r:.r.
.ram .r
-��� ' kL •� - '�� tom_ • - y — ----� >t , � ; '�® .t . �,, •+a�s� �- - SPEED _ 7
� :i� ,. _ .• t' � LIMIT . r• � + J'
a �•`
�.r . Inland Leaders Charter 25 ;'�i`, _j
dEr
• A 1*
+ � !T1I ` I_ i SPEED
ZA� , t� Y- � 1 LIMIT r,t®• ,
1. •®+ SPEED
Faith Lutheran Preschool LIMIT35
• SPEED IF
~ ' �.r.✓!s .... _ ".* _ ; LIMIT '' f �. �•{�• M.
40 S t.a ems ( •!`;. A67e►r .: +'f9
.�; a _ '`_ � • ' � S � 'ice 't� f� ! T'
13,
Avenue E is located adjacent to the southern side of Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool and the roadway currently has a posted speed limit of 25- MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential, civic and institutional, and commercial land uses. An existing crosswalk is present near California Street; however, no flashing beacons were observed within the imagery reviewed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 29 of Avenue E from California Street to Fremont Street was determined to be 30- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 41-MPH (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
2.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the information reviewed, the portion of the roadway of Avenue E between California Street and Bryant Street sceoo, appears to fall within the school -zone limits associated with PMETD SR4-1(CA) Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool. 20Assembly 2W� According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to erect signage accordingly to establish a 20-MPH *Wg§I6R#&#t,#§PaqMATES, INC. 53d'
F-19
T2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 City of Yucaipa
school -zone speed limit. The recommendation includes installations of S4-1 (CA) & S4- 5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
The remaining portion of Avenue E extending beyond Bryant Street appears to function as a school -zone approach area and may continue to operate under the existing 25- MPH speed limit, which is consistent with the school -zone approach treatment identified under AB 382.
Bryant Street is located adjacent to the western side of Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool and the roadway currently has a posted speed limit of 35- MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses.
An existing crosswalk, school pavement markings, and school crossing signs were observed; however, no flashing beacons were observed within the imagery reviewed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 37 of Bryant Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Wildwood Canyon Road was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 42-MPH (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified 17 reported crashes within Segment No. 37, including two severe injury collisions. One bicyclist was identified within the reviewed collision data. The reported collision types included broadside, rear -end, head-on, and sideswipe collisions.
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
1C
tzx -
_ -Injury i5•-rrcl : - In.,ry ICIh7l - Imun•
Paint
Crash Severity
� as s l _. _ • .: I-� ,.�,• v:; n c; • -t - I . � -,
Number of Victims by Victim Role
-
Pas.anC_( Peoos rla"
<-DCr_hs¢ 5-0-ther 6-Non-
Inlurod
Party
Victim Role
• - Corr i 2 - Passsrgc • 3 PC_ mar, • a - BicgcI r.
• c Omer • 6 - Party
C-1, Se -ray Count o
25. Victim Role Count .,
15 Pssenv_r 7 _CA31'..
=cacstrlan a 0.00%
000" tq'j LoU&iPRftgFJATES, INC. 53715
SPEED
LIMIT
20 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 City of Yucaipa
fl„_12'.
Am. l
k�MW
tM
n •• '.,
•
l .
:J. _..q L_:'J
K,Kkl Pxk
_ I
y
O
•
y YVCAID.
llm.an(Ary
•
ScMsi
YI t.AN Avg
�>Y
CE.L' IK'�
. AVENUE C
AYeNUC E
•
A5'TNUE C •
-`'111Ut L
,
/ •
!
1 •
. ra„� ra ( •
51 ^
(
3ELLA V !T: D'
A Vf5'A 1P.
j •
~
.. suwacm Da
•
•
r.fAu 57
�J
� fAKN�M�S^
01A%IA AD
:-IAIi
ELM CV
•
•
(1\J1
I
• .YI'_U'n'CUO CA'I'i n'-1 RI'.
_ •
11I0HOOD Ca NY(1N ND •
__ ___
pi";'. "
2.2 Recommendations:
Based on the upon the information reviewed, the portion of the roadway of I SCHOOL
Bryant Street appears to fall withing the school -zone limits that is associated with Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool. The SPEED portion of Bryant Street between Avenue A and Eureka Avenue appears to LIMIT fall within the 500-foot to 1000-foot school -zone approach area and may be 25 considered for implementation of a 25-MPH school -zone approach WHEN
CHILDREN
treatment consistent With the provisions of AB 382. ARE PRESENT Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD. 0QgtJMMff,f AS, RAATES, INC. 53816
D
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 ID City of Yucaipa
The remaining portions of Bryant Street extending beyond the school -zone approach limits do not appear to have need modification under AB 382 based on school proximity alone.
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collisions and bicyclist involvement identified withing the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segments may need further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine if additional speed management measures are appropriate.
California Street is located adjacent western side of Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool and the roadway currently has a posted school -zone speed limit of 25-MPH when children are present. The roadway consists of a one travel lane in each direction with a continuous center two-way left -turn lane and is boarded by an adjacent school and commercial land uses. An existing crosswalk is present near California Street; however, no flashing beacons nor SCHOOL warning sign was observed within the imagery reviewed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 41 of California Street from Avenue B to Avenue E was determined to be 25-MPH, as the adjacent land us was found to be School/Commercial and the 85th percentile speed was 35-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
2.3 Recommendations:
Based on the upon the information reviewed, the portion of the roadway of California Street between Avenue E and Avenue C appear to fall within the school -zone limits associated with Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under '20 the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
The remaining portions of California Street extending beyond the school -zone limits may continue to operate under the existing 25-MPH speed limit.
California Street is located adjacent Southern Side to Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool and currently has a posted speed limit of 40-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent school, residential, and commercial land uses. Existing roadway features include a continuous center two-way left -turn lane. The segment is directly adjacent to the school frontage and serves as a primary access route for school -related traffic activity. *Wy8WAC#AWqAATES, INC. 53917
LPMITO 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 City of Yucaipa
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 42 of California Street from Avenue E to Wildwood Canyon Road was determined to be 40-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Reside ntial/School and the 85th percentile speed was 48-M PH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified twelve reported crashes within Segment No. 42, including one severe injury collision and two bicyclists identified within the reviewed collision data.
AVFNJ-
Yuca�pj
S4,100t
VULA L4
AVFNUE E
0 AVENJE E
•
GFHFIF�A -V�
El. P. F K -',VF
.in
ELM, _N
E04 -N
#
Wcou CANYON P.-D
"'A
dG1"§I8WAC4§gVqAATES, INC. 54018
MT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo
20 City of Yucaipa
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
3`
.p _
Crash Sevenf�
Number of Victims by Victim Role
5icycilst _ - Dtcr o - Non-
=-._ qcr P.-aestrr.an Iniured
patty
2.4 Recommendations:
Crash Severity Count
833
Victim Role
�' Driv=•
r� '2r
Count
According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, roadway segments located within the school -zone limits may be considered for implementation of a 20-MPH school -zone limit. Based upon the reviewed information, portions of California Street within Segment No. 42 appear to fall within the applicable school -zone limits associated with Inland Leaders Charter School and Faith Lutheran Preschool.
According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit within �20
the applicable school -zone limits. The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, portions of California Street beyond the school -zone limits may function as an approach to the school -zone area within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school distance.
Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered with appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques in accordance with the California MUTCD.
OQ"1y8WAC#*gV1qAATES, INC. 54119
SPEED
MIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collision and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7.
3. 3rd Street, Avenue H, California Street, and County Line Road - Roadway Segments Adjacent to Calimesa Elementary School The roadway segments 3rd Street, Avenue H, California Street, and County Line Road are adjacent to and within the vicinity of Calimesa Elementary School. The Segments reviewed include Segment No. 5 on 3rd Street from Wildwood Canyon Road to County Line Road, Segment No. 31 on Avenue H from 2nd Street to Bryant Street, Segment No. 44 on California Street from Avenue H to County Line Road, and Segment No. 53 on County Line Road from 3rd Street to Bryant Street. The Segments studied with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below. 1 J
`4. ;rt1351
;.'
�, � r. - k. LIMIT r • �- �. A }I�
$9, (Owl -
Calimesa Elementary School w� t..' "
.- s • :r I�.Y-r, �t .-'1 - LIMIT '" � �+_ft.F.�
. SPEED-f y.J 4 [' %:\ ` 1 ' 35 ~[ • +1 'jJ 3 ♦)•
OVA
q. LIMIT • �. Kr �. g �� T!''i�r
1Y ♦ jaaa
Fr 14
ILL
r� as a �� , j► 4 :f !� N
SPEED
f•" ~ % r .. \ LIMIT ./. as �v ,ice
IL
0 WJ8R" {,,��P,99JATES, INC.
542�
Mr 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 �2.
20 City of Yucaipa
3rd Street is located within the vicinity of Calimesa Elementary School towards western side of the school. This roadway has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH and consists of two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. There were no school -zone speed limit signs, school crossing signs, marked crosswalks, or flashing beacons were observed within the imagery reviewed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across the Segment No. 5 of V Street from Wildwood Canyon Road to County Line Road was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was discovered to be Residential and the 851" percentile speed was 42-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified six reported crashes within Segment No. 5. No fatal collisions, severe injury collisions, pedestrian collisions, or bicycle collisions were identified.
3.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 5 does not appear to fall within the school -zone limits or school -zone approach limits associated with Calimesa Elementary School. Therefore, no modification is recommended under AB 382. The existing speed limit is recommended to remain unchanged based upon the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS.
Avenue H is located within the vicinity of Calimesa Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. No school crossing signs, school pavement markings, bicycle facilities, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery. Crosswalks were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 31 of Avenue H from 2nd Street to Bryant Street was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Commercial/Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 39-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified three reported crashes within Segment No. 31. No fatal collisions were identified. One severe injury collision, one pedestrian -involved collision, and one pedestrian victim were identified within the reviewed collision history.
O Mt'MA kf"I RPe9F3ATES, INC. 5431
City of Yucaipa
see 0
LM
'sel 'K E Y AY
Number of Victims by Victim Role Victim Role Count %
1 - Drive, 2 5 3.(:
® _ 2 - Passenger 0
3 - Pedestrian
E31 -'j C I i 5*. t 25.0.
5 -Other
I Driver 2- 3- acyclist 5 - Ether 6 - Non-
oa,
senqer Pedestrian injured
Party
Victim Role
0 IS!
* Pa!ly
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity Crash Severity Count % F-mal
2 - Injury +Se,,are) 3 3.3 1
3 - Injury )Other Visiblci 0 0.001111,
Ccrnplw,z of Pain)
ra*.al. 2 - injury ±Severel 3 - Injury i rh!:r I r.1 Li ry Visiblel ICoroplaint of
Paint
Crash Severity
A
QT )PeL,��5,§,ffApffijATES, INC. 544 22
MT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 r��r 20 20 City of Yucaipa %r
3.2 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Avenue H appear to function as an approach to the school -zone area associated with Calimesa Elementary School. The portion of Avenue H between 2nd Street and California Street appears to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area and may be considered for implementation of a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collision, pedestrian involvement, and pedestrian victim identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures are appropriate.
California Street is located within the vicinity of Calimesa Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. Existing school -related treatments were observed, including school crossing signs, marked crosswalks, and "SLOW SCHOOL XING" pavement markings.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 44 of California Street from Avenue H to County Line Road was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 43-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified five reported crashes within Segment No. 44, including one severe injury collision. The reviewed collision data also identified one pedestrian -involved collision and one bicycle -involved collision.
0 �"PIMI IIcf �MPJATES, INC. 545 3
SPEC. �
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20
City of Yucaipa
F, E Y 'OYN V
z
L r)
0 5 A 1,
SAN P. C- 1'E
-Y LINE 9L)
j-
-0 JI% RY PL
T
Number of Victims by Victim Role Victim Role Count 11;
T - Drive- 3 50.O6'",
PaS--Iv:,2r 1 16 67,"
3 - PedLntnan
5 - Other 0 O.rjr,",.
M,iv-2r 2 - 6-Nrn-
=-,ss,nnqer njurcd
Party
Victim Role
1 - 0 2 - PaSSC09c, • 3 0 4 EkycvS:
6 - Otre, * 6 - No-Injoer Party
0(DW14Ar?*&#,#A"WATES, INC. 54e'
jSMIT
PEED �
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
j
2 - injury {Severe!
3 - Inury 1Gltter
:: - Injury
Visib!e:
ICom.plaim ct
Pain;
Crash seventy
' fa:-' •Z Irl�•�:Scrrc•)
3•I^jdry ,'C;n_r `f;b�•.,
I Pij�ry Iranip ai
r. cf Fci^}
3.3 Recommendations:
Crash severity count
rr-s 0 00011c
2 - Injury ice,,,=rni 1 2000%
3- Injury(Ome: V.ciblej 3 o.!AO','!
b - Injury Complain,'of Painl 1 20!JC1f•,
Based upon the reviewed information, California Street appears to function as an approach to the school -zone area associated with Calimesa Elementary School. The portion of California Street located within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area may be considered for implementation of a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collision, pedestrian involvement, and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures are appropriate.
County Line Road is located within the vicinity of Calimesa Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH with an existing 25-MPH when children are present school -zone speed limit. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. Existing school -related treatments were observed, including school crossing signs, marked crosswalks, bicycle facilities, and school pavement markings. No flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 53 of County Line Road from 3rd Street to Bryant Street was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 38-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 53. No fatal collisions were identified. One severe injury collision was identified within the reviewed collision history. 0i VAf� 48U4CA►,A#QWATES, INC. 54' '
SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 LIMIT
20 20 City of Yucaipa
t,ua•r:a
c'tn rrle nta -y
,rh: nl
r
TAR
s
r
r,.rl r _'SEN C- A
.• — — - GOUfZiY ifNt Rl3 ._. uip
I �r-■ -. _._�.. -
_ - - z tuur,rar FL'.
LN x
r.K;T
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
nj-ry ';Severe; 3- Injury !Other ..-Irjur{
visiniel !complain of
Fain;
Crash Severity
• � Fa:a • � II•},•y ISevcrel • 3 I'+jur; I�:c'dst,:;• 4 tnJury;Con;p!ain:of Pulei Number of Victims by Victim Role
TD
:1
2 1 - Driver 2- 3- : - B;crclist 5 - Other 6 - :Vcn-
Pa5s-enter Pedestrian Injured
?arty
Victim Rote
• t - Drwer • 2 - Passcrger • 3 Pcecitrla-, • 4 - Myars'. • 5 - Otrcf • 8 - Not-Injurcc Party
Crash Severity Count ..
ra:a� 0 0.0n,
nj-ry• (Other 'Jlsible) d
.. --.ju:-y ICorrplairl. of Pa nj 0 0.001:;.
Victim Role
- �cde;trian
Count ..
4 80.00'S
20.00'',
0 0.00"
°
0 0(QMY",WA#x9WgATES, INC. 5486
�5PEED�
MIT2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 MIT
20 20 City of Yucaipa
3.4 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, County Line Road appears to function as an approach to the school -zone area associated with Calimesa Elementary School.
According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the existing school -zone treatment may be updated accordingly.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
The portion of County Line Road located within the school -zone approach area may continue to operate under a 25-MPH school -zone treatment consistent with the provisions of AB 382. Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed or updated as necessary to conform to current California MUTCD requirements.
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collision identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7.
SCHOOL
SPEED
4. 5th Street and Oak Glen Road — Roadway 20 Assembly4-1 ,C Segments Adjacent to Competitive Edge Charter "
Academy
5th Street and Oak Glen Road are roadway segments 12w0
located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Competitive Edge Charter Academy. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 7 on 5th Street from Oak Glen Road to Yucaipa Boulevard, Segment No. 79 on Oak Glen Road from Bryant Street to 5th Street, and Segment No. 80 on Oak Glen Road from 5th Street to Yucaipa Boulevard. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
0 WQA,§t?PASA9FJATES, INC. 54927
SPEED LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Competitive Edge Charter Academy '
P
�y
'fS SPEED
LIMIT
J ➢ � .� f
•.
.® '
r!i� 'rrt
X
R, '.sf`"l'+l
� � :.. 1�(�*•r.'��wp�
\..E.'r/ ,y�s' '�''� '�� .�� •%.? rt' i , ' - . L i .� . ?� 1~� K-.
•t
-
r �l .t
y
a
51" Street is located directly adjacent west side to Competitive Edge Charter Academy and currently has a posted speed limit of 40-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-lane roadway with adjacent residential land uses. Existing school -related ,*. treatments were observed including a marked crosswalk, school crossingo sign, bicycle lane, and school pavement markings. Historical imagery review identified an existing 25-MPH when children are present school -zone speed limit that appears to have subsequently been removed. No flashing beacon was observed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 7 of 5th Street from Oak Glen Road to Yucaipa Boulevard was determined to be 45- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 50-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Reviewing the most recent available 5-year TIMS collision data identified 14 reported crashes within Segment No. 7, including five severe injury collisions. The reviewed collision data also identified two bicyclists involved in reported crashes. Primary collision factors included unsafe speed, traffic signals and signs, automobile right-of-way violations, and driving under the influence.
00M Q&P,j R,AgSqATES, INC. 55028
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 City of Yucaipa
C JP
Sj
x
Hof
r.
ti
V9
CCZ.
", .CO
i.
41 r
r
SF
CIDAR AVE
'fUCAIPA BLVD
91J5A1PA5LVO
0 0
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
2 3-Injury (O:h=, 4 - Ir4ury
.IsiUiel (COM.Plaint Ct
P-3:nj
Crash Severity
0 0 4 lrj�r i IcLillpaiw cf No)
I
Crash S—My Count e/.
rala 0,00
35,7�
21r: Ot F 25,77.
OGMM",�Ruk#ASAyjFJATES, INC.
29 551
SGNWL :+,.w
SLIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Number of Victims by Victim Role Victim Role carat %
- F'ssenccr 2 13.33k',
n7 3-?edestron 0 000%
13%
.. - 3'rych5� 2. 13.331...
5 - 6mcr 0 0.00".
.. - Bicyclist 5 - other 6 - Nn_r.-
�_�^r�°r F^c'9tra. Injured
party
Victim Role
4.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, the portion of 5th Street adjacent to Competitive Edge Charter Academy appears to fall within the school -zone limits associated with the school. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to erect signage accordingly to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collisions and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures are appropriate.
Oak Glen Road is located adjacent north side to Competitive Edge Charter Academy and Yucaipa Community Park and currently has a posted speed limit of 45-MPH.
Existing school -related treatments were observed including school crossing signs, a school ahead warning sign, marked crosswalks, and bicycle lanes. The roadway serves both the school and adjacent recreational facilities.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 79 of Oak Glen Road from Bryant Street to 5th Street was determined to be 45- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Parks & Recreation and the 85th percentile speed was 48-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified 12 reported crashes within Segment No. 79, including one severe injury collision, one pedestrian - involved collision, and one bicyclist -involved collision.
O L�PMj ff,&ffRPeq&JATES, INC. 5520
Mn 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
J
on
0 ICAES- L4
7 clef c
Number of Victims by Victim Role
13St,, - 1i:
5 0 M 1�11
1 -:)rivzr 2- 3- 4 - S�CYCI]St 5 Other 6 - Non-
-Passenger Pedestria,^ Injured
Party
Victim Role
0 2. PLsscrgc- 0 Bicyc! s:
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
4 2
0 i - rasa: 2 - injury !S-everel 3 - Injury (Other 4 - Injury Visible) (Complaint of
Pain;
Crash Severity
0 * 0 3 - Injury (01,ncl V - bO 0 •1 - l,'j, Pain)
Victim Role
Count %
7 - Dnve-
2 - Passenger
3 - Dedestrian
4 - Bicyclis:
1 6.67'..:
5 - 0-her
0 3.00".
Crash Severity Count "? l;
. - Fa:at D 0.00"'..
2 - Injury tSevere 3.33""
3 - injury iOther Visibl7 53.33,-
.: - -jury lComplain: of Pain) 4 33.33",4
0OWMAR,�&k#MpgATIES, INC.
55331
SPIMIT
EE 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 L
zo 1?9 City of Yucaipa
4.2 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Oak Glen Road adjacent to Competitive Edge Charter Academy appear to fall within the school -zone limits associated with the school. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to erect signage accordingly to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit where the roadway falls within the applicable school -zone limits.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, due to the documented pedestrian and bicyclist involvement and severe injury collision identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7.
Oak Glen Road from 5th Street to Yucaipa Boulevard also serves Competitive Edge Charter Academy and currently has a posted speed limit of 45-MPH. Existing roadway features include a marked crosswalk and bicycle lane. No flashing beacons or existing school -zone speed limit signs were observed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 80 of Oak Glen Road from 5th Street to Yucaipa Boulevard was determined to be 45-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 54-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified 25 reported crashes within Segment No. 80, including one fatal collision, three severe injury collisions, two pedestrian -involved collisions, and one bicyclist -involved collision.
S�VA) - aek •
1 C. f
J
'At, j.
Yucaipa Valley : �r r P�F �'. — rrn.
PINCHi"ST DR
a,
4Wnipo Vakley
R4!0;1 Center
• i • �YUCA,PA FIt�Va •• • • [• !# • 010
AVE
0 Owy6f"A#§i 99AATES, INC. 5542
XHOOL -
LPMEo 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo
20 City of Yucaipa P
Number of Victims by Victim Role vicun, R.1c cuunt
-Fa,sereer 11
3 - POdest,,3n _ J6.115
Vmfin> Rnle
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity Oresh Sevarfly cb,rnt '_ - Inl�ry i5evere? 3
3 -In7.ry(011er '.rslW) :E r,"•..
.. - �- 41lir,; of F.") 14 56.00%
- r,:; _ - _.�ercl 3 - Invey (Cther 4 - Iriury
VisiUie; (C1=01alm of
Pahl
Crash Severity
4.3 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Oak Glen Road adjacent to Competitive Edge Charter Academy appear to fall within the school -zone limits associated with the school. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to erect signage accordingly to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit where the roadway falls within the applicable school -zone limits.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Due to the documented fatal collision, severe injury collisions, pedestrian involvement, and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, this segment warrants additional evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether further speed management measures are appropriate.
5. 6t" Street, 7th Street, Avenue E, and Yucaipa Boulevard — Roadway Segments Adjacent to Oak View High School
6th Street, 7th Street, Avenue E, and Yucaipa Boulevard are roadway segments located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Oak View High School. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 10 on 6th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E, Segment No. 12 on 7th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Enoch Avenue, Segment No. 28 on Avenue E from 8th Street to California Street, and Segment No. 97 on Yucaipa 000W&"tR,f,ffRPegFJATES, INC. 555 3
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo
20 City of Yucaipa
Boulevard from Oak Glen Road to 5th Street. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below. _,:.:. me-µ � , _ `,A�, -- —• r,�, �.:>� ;.^
y
.�. f'� SPEED Ii R. .. ".. �.. • _ _ _ `�.. i' �f r. -T � •- - LIMIT I ' "s 1 1•
-� 40 � .. SPEED IN t• 1- SPEED •_ � «.A .. �. - �..
♦. LIMIT 4.T.y�. T 1 ��
35 35 r " 77
a r s
Oak View HighIf-
School M eye
,,;�� .. .'�f. l�.e*�' LRq � :`L� »tl. i .' • .. _ , ....k� i , � • ' f ..'t�i ^r�yya j�; 7 • ..
IV "I �• _ ►'' SPEED T .�. L". .1 �1
J �,`> � ,. M��, _ • LIMIT - . _ _ LIMIT - , - _ -
yC
[,.I '+. `t.� • {� �'� 1,�t' C"-' ,'r `-�. ;� s a 'iti4 N �. CC
61 Street is located directly adjacent eastern side to Oak View High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH with an existing 25-MPH when children are present school -zone speed limit. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential and commercial land uses. Existing school - related treatments were observed including a school crossing sign, marked 1 crosswalk, and school pavement markings. No flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 10 of 6th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Commercial and the 85th percentile speed was 44-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Reviewing the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified nine reported crashes within Segment No. 10. No fatal collisions or severe injury collisions were identified. One bicyclist was identified within the reviewed collision data.
5.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 10 appears to fall entirely within the school -zone limits associated with Oak View High School. According to the 0 "M"R.§,fc SA1?FJATES, INC. 556 4
lMi 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo
20 City of Yucaipa
aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
7th Street is located adjacent west side to Oak View High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. A marked crosswalk was observed within the reviewed imagery. No school crossing signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, or flashing beacons were observed. The roadway is also located adjacent to a public park situated behind the school grounds.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 12 of 7th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Enoch Avenue was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 41-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified eleven reported crashes within Segment No. 12, including one severe injury collision. The reviewed collision data also identified one bicyclist involved in a reported collision. 00" ujf,c RpegRAATES, INC.
557�
SPEED
MIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 �20 20 City of Yucaipa
Number of Victims by Victim Role Victim Role
2 - Passenger
3 - ?ediistrian
35%
- .. 1-.y[list
L --
.. _ . - 6•cytist -Other 6 - Non-
-.__-._ - nl-red
mart%
Victim Role
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
,
C
- r,:❑ _ - :npry (Severe! 3 - Injury (Other 4 - Injury
Visolel (Complaint of
Paint
Crash Severity
ID 1 F,... • _ h•; , :. _, _�_•i 3. L^.�a•: (i?,a.?, V s-G4_i •1 - Irju, (C_mo:9int �f 1-.
5.2 Recommendations:
Gouts
Crash Severity Count %
rx 1 p o.uo'::
Iniory (Severe) t E:051.0
3 - in;Jr'y fOlhc• l sib!c) 5 45.45',.
„crulair,; ai Pan) 5 45.45_'.
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of 7th Street appear to fall within the school -zone limits associated with Oak View High School. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit within the applicable school -zone limits.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Appropriate school warning signs, school crossing signs, and supplemental plaques should also be installed as necessary to clearly define the school -zone limits.
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collision and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7.
O V8 ARP,%RATES, INC. 5586
SPEED
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Avenue E is located within the vicinity of Oak View High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. A marked crosswalk was observed near California Street. No school crossing signs, school warning signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 28 of Avenue E from 8th Street to California Street was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 41-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified thirty-three reported crashes within Segment No. 28, including one fatal collision and one severe injury collision. The reviewed collision data also identified one pedestrian -involved collision and one bicyclist -involved collision.
j.jroN
r
l r . • loll.. C • • • • •• • • • • • • • 4W • .1-1, .40. • • • • • •.. • • •AVE W1[ r„ • •. • • • • AVCnJ.c E
r, M>41MSil •
�+ (UPi AY 9Yr. OtLaln.`. E.t
P'.4M il[Fr r �
n Ai rr'(v. !r am
nWC[M1 l�
2 4EJ
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity crash severity count 2 - Inl�ry (Sev._r_' 1 3.03'.:
` 3 - Injury (Ott- V. ble) Id Ad.4L Y..
C - tnju: y (Cvn`plai n: Of Fa:ni 15 ••S.aS".
- F-D 2 - Injury tSeverel 3 - Injury (6(h3r 4 - Injury
V'.iblej (Ca taint of
Painl
Gash Severity
• 1 - I-a:o; • 2 - Ini��•r Is«,:-c1 • 3 - I•,;,+.; :u::,e• v: b:c, • n - I.", 'i rcomla.arnt Cr mini Number of Victims by Victim Role Vi-in, R.I. ce.,nE i
Fassenxr
20 3-?^tle.lrlan T 2.27""
ID
9 - Driver 2- - •• - 6' '". 5 - Other a - Non-
na...=nGer P^_�O-10an rnj—d
arty
YfrlfE» Qdr®
OOW18f�",*, §§ 9ftJATES, INC. 5597
R
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 City of Yucaipa �-
5.3 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, the portion of Avenue E between 7th Street and 6th Street appears to fall within the school -zone limits associated with Oak View High School and may be considered for implementation of a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit pursuant to AB 382.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Portions of Avenue E extending beyond the school -zone limits but remaining within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area may be considered for implementation of a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
The remaining portions of the roadway extending beyond the school -zone approach limits do not appear to warrant modification under AB 382 based on school proximity alone.
Additionally, due to the documented fatal collision, severe injury collision, pedestrian involvement, and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures are appropriate.
Yucaipa Boulevard is located within the vicinity of Oak View High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 40-MPH. The roadway functions as a major east -west arterial roadway serving residential and commercial land uses. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks and bicycle lanes. No school -related signs, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 97 of Yucaipa Boulevard from Oak Glen Road to 5th Street was determined to be 40-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Business/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 46-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified thirty-three reported crashes within Segment No. 97, including one fatal collision and four severe injury collisions. The reviewed collision data also identified two pedestrian -involved collisions and four bicyclist -involved collisions.
5.4 Recommendations:
Although Segment No. 97 was reviewed due to its proximity to Oak View High School, the roadway does not appear to fall within the applicable school -zone limits or school - zone approach limits identified under AB 382.
0 WPM#R*#§,WgATES, INC. 38
560
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Therefore, no modification is recommended under AB 382. However, due to the documented fatal collision, severe injury collisions, pedestrian involvement, and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures are appropriate.
6. 8t' Street, Avenue E, and Washington Drive - Roadway Segments Adjacent to Valley Elementary School
8th Street, Avenue E, and Washington Drive are roadway segments located within the vicinity of Valley Elementary School. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 13 on 8th Street from Liberty Road to Avenue E, Segment No. 28 on Avenue E from 8th Street to California Street, and Segment No. 88 on Washington Drive from 9th Street to 71h Street. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
40 Y
17 3"� i � -- ,_
J
Valley Elementary School
�. s
I ■ SPEED �'+) •1 • __ • •� 1 -
LIMIT r
f SPEED
Y'� \.Z� Y �i• LIMIT
35 07
i! 30 jar rkI Oki
IF
.' 41, ;1 611,
ka
4K IF.
Avenue E located within the vicinity of Valley Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. A marked crosswalk was observed near California Street. No school crossing signs, school warning signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 28 of Avenue E from 8th Street to California Street was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 41-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet). 0QWJP8Wu�hRP,%RATES, INC. 561'9
SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 LIMIT
20, 20 City of Yucaipa
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified thirty-three reported crashes within Segment No. 28, including one fatal collision and one severe injury collision. The reviewed collision data also identified one pedestrian -involved collision and one bicyclist -involved collision.
6.1 Recommendations:
It should be noted that Segment No. 28 was also evaluated under Oak View High School due to its closer proximity to that campus. As discussed previously, portions of Avenue E between 7th Street and 6th Street may be considered for implementation of a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit associated with Oak View High School. The same roadway segment also falls within the school -zone approach area associated with Valley Elementary School and may therefore qualify for a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment under AB 382.
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Avenue E appear to fall within the school -zone approach area associated with Valley Elementary School. Portions of Avenue E located within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area may be considered for implementation of a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Additionally, due to the documented fatal collision, severe injury collision, pedestrian involvement, and bicyclist involvement identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures are appropriate.
Washington Drive is located within the vicinity of Valley Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 30-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. No school -related signs, school pavement markings, marked crosswalks, bicycle lanes, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 88 of Avenue E from 9th Street to 7th Street was determined to be 30-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Civic & Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 35-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified no reported crashes within Segment No. 88.
00"J qj�&&i` RARFJATES, INC. 56240
SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 LIMIT
20 20 City of Yucaipa
6.2 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Washington Drive appears to fall within the 500- foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Valley Elementary School. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
No further modifications are recommended under AB 1014 as no reported fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified within the reviewed 5-year TIMS collision history.
8th Street is located within the vicinity of Valley Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 30-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. A marked crosswalk was observed within the reviewed imagery. No school -related signs, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, or flashing beacons were observed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 13 of 8th Street was determined to be 30-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 40-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified one reported crash within Segment No. 13. No fatal collisions, severe injury collisions, pedestrian - involved collisions, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified.
6.3 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 13 does not appear to fall within the applicable school -zone limits or school -zone approach limits associated with Valley Elementary School as identified under AB 382. Furthermore, review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified no fatal, severe injury, pedestrian - involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions.
Therefore, no modifications are recommended under either AB 382 or AB 1014, and the existing speed limit is recommended to remain unchanged.
7. Chapman Heights Road and 10th Street — Roadway Segments Adjacent to Chapman Heights Elementary School
Chapman Heights Road and 10th Street are roadway segments located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Chapman Heights Elementary School. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 50 on Chapman Heights Road from 10th Streer to Oak Glen Road O itC,tR & �ASgeOC�aATES, INC. 41
563
SPEED
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
and Segment No. 14 on 10th Street from Chapman Heights Road to Yucaipa Boulevard. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
PW
,,._ y , . ,
Chapman Heights Elementary School
� ! -- w �� �I��r�r+'�.....�„�„ mac' i•w-.,��°� 3��:';�� '� .n 4'.i 1i^ 1 �''• ,�p`"J � ij � .1, f xi �..' �� ;.i��M � '` './ .ram' .•��: �� it-' ', �'� •.R� r _ ��f.
t, `,,,,•. f' •�ti d+.tv� In
�y �' y j 3� ' 'c Yt A- 0. ,.+ �' �� " Sr
� ^•!. all .�"—mil ��. �� r �r r * f��' �'- •'. �, / ... � st`. --f Y r "'�� do
At L b, s
Chapman Heights Road is located directly adjacent to Chapman Heights Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH with an existing 25-MPH when children are present school -zone speed limit. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks and bicycle lanes. No flashing beacons, school crossing signs, or school pavement markings were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 50 of Chapman Heights Road from 10th Street to Oak Glen Road was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Open Space/Commercial and the 85th percentile speed was 42-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified twelve reported crashes within Segment No. 50, including two severe injury collisions. �qtI8 ,"ACCRPAA RATES, INC. 564 ,
SPEE
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 LIMIT
20 20 City of Yucaipa
QU
-
i D•o
1 W,11ds
Fie artiry
•
Pam`
•t'
h'L�•riGliil-V1T
�.
YUCairyi Valley
''1'
CcIF Club
Gtit�119
v
n
- teak
nn C' Yucni pa Vdlcy
\y7\t Rwtall Ceot�r
Number of Victims by Victim Role
V 5
S
1 -Driver _ - 3- 4 - Bicyclist 5 - Other 6 - Non-
"3s5enoer Pedestrian Injured
Party
Victim Role
• C, r; • _ ass:rgc• • ,. - F'Cc(:,t .. • d - e'cy.'ll,. t OIPar0 a Ncntr7,'�rc. Pa'C,
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
2 - Injury !Severel 3 - Injury (Other 4 - Injury
Visible; I'Camplaint of
Painl
Crash Severity
• -u:: _ _ - -
Victim Rolc
- Drive-
2 - Pa5son,.2r
3 - Pedestrian
. - Bicyclist
5 - Other
Count %
0 0.G
o a.oa r
Crash Severity Count %
t - Fata' D 0.00114
2 - Injury (Sevcre'r 2 16.67
's - Injury (.Other Vsiblci 7 58.33%
4-.njoylCoi7,pl3intofPa!n) 3 25.005.
O�LUZ6 CitCy' CouB`cll_KgeOCdaATES, INC. 43
565
SGEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 LIMIT
rig/rlir
20 z0 City of Yucaipa
7.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 50 appears to fall within the school - zone limits associated with Chapman Heights Elementary School. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collisions identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7.
10th Street is located within the vicinity of Chapman Heights Elementary School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. A marked crosswalk and crossing sign were observed within the reviewed imagery. No school -related signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, or flashing beacons were observed.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 14 of 10th Street from Chapman Heights Road to Yucaipa Boulevard was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 43-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified eleven reported crashes within Segment No. 14, including two severe injury collisions and one pedestrian -involved collision.
0LD26 CitC' cou8`cll ASOCdaATES, INC. 44
Y g 566
L2"""I
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 zo
City of Yucaipa
--
lY
li
e '
S�
•
"vcaipa "a'al�.c�
�•
Golf Club
:r
<i r
YcwiFy'r alley
`
�•JjS
R?tall Center
4(a J16
JVCAlPn51VD 9_
•:
0 r
•.ti�,tsr•
Ur
0 Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
2 2 - Inyiry (Sever l 2 - Irvury (Other 4 - Injury
Visible) (Carrplaint &
Painl
Crash Seventy
1 - F]:L 61 " IP��ry ISer�•rcl 3 - Inp�ty ;UtnCr ?r�5 UC) +1 - I^.pa`y IC^•n:p!ai;n 3f Pcinj Crash severity Count %
Injury i5evcrei 2 1UE
3 - Injury iOthe- 1•r lbiej 5 '5.45
4 - injury (Complain! of Pa'n) r. 2(3.531%,
00, MM99 C�,�,1�RftRFJATES, INC. 567 5
SPEED
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Number of Victims by Victim Role
C
I:I':.ter 2- 3-
Passenger Frcestrla,
Victim Role
• _ ... � _ - f=�a, rye � 3 - Pr:.estria,
7.2 Recommendations:
_ . c':is=. 5 - C':her 5 - Non -
Victim Role
- Drives
2 - Fas,•_nocr
3 - ?cd^strian
9icyclls:
Other
lr�
Count
.2 7C.53':
2353'i;
0 0.00111
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 14 does not appear to fall within the applicable school -zone limits or school -zone approach limits associated with Chapman Heights Elementary School as identified under AB 382. Furthermore, the segment appears to be located beyond the generator distances identified within the California MUTCD.
Therefore, no modifications are recommended under AB 382. While the segment experienced severe injury and pedestrian -involved collisions during the reviewed 5-year TIMS period, additional evaluation under AB 1014 may be considered as part of a broader corridor review if warranted by future safety analyses.
8. 11t' Street, 12' Street, 13t' Street, Chapman Heights Road, and Yucaipa Boulevard — Roadway Segments Adjacent to Yucaipa High School 11th Street, 12th Street, 13th Street, Chapman Heights Road, and Yucaipa Boulevard are roadway segments located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Yucaipa High School. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 16 on 11 th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue D, Segment No. 17 on 12th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E, Segment No. 18 on 13th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E, Segment No. 49 on Chapman Heights Road from Sand Canyon Road to 10th Street, and Segment No. 96 on Yucaipa Boulevard from Sand Canyon Road to Oak Glen Road. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
INpGpR & AgSOCIATES, INC. 46
02026 City Council Rgenda 568
/ LIMI1 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 City of Yucaipa
y,
��(. �1. 'x � f ,,��o •.. � �•�#r.t�®F�NT'Ji.b1• � `}''r" r �� 1w-�.. i `ice, ..'� i� f V ! 1 ;� + _ ��' •.x ' cot•.-• *• ,•. � �.�w w�I �i � r R
4. 11th Street is located within the vicinity of Yucaipa High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 30-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential and commercial land uses. No school -related signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, marked crosswalks, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 16 of 11 th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue D was determined to be 30- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Commercial and the 85th percentile speed was 34-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified no reported crashes within Segment No 16.
8.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of 11 th Street appear to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Yucaipa High School.
Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
O DZ6 CitC' CouB`cil R eO HATES, INC. 47
Y g 569
SLIMT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382""'�`-` z'o
20 City of Yucaipa
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
No further modifications are recommended under AB 1014 as no reported crashes were identified within the reviewed 5-year TIMS collision history. 92th Street is located adjacent to Yucaipa High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with predominantly residential land uses. Existing school -related treatments include marked crosswalks, school pavement markings, an existing 25-MPH when children are present school -zone speed limit sign, and a speed feedback sign. No school crossing signs were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 17 of 12th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/School and the 85th percentile speed was 39-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified five reported crashes within Segment No. 17, including one severe injury collision and two vehicle/pedestrian collisions. Three pedestrians were identified within the reviewed collision data.
O VMG'�ou�nc ��ASSO IATES, INC. 48
570
SPEED
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
r D ardldmy
C
m
r t
y
< <4.
YucalFa hi9n 0
Sc4aol _
4Js 1a:IvOt�µ,6C r. '
etGLE Pok. CN
i.L •\
YL'CAI lLVD i
• lI
S
Y • 1
z I • {
6 x 1 )
!I+AVCN.1E D
y ,I
~ n
IJI
1 • 1
11 I
IN�nla^ Flp nrntary
5:11c' .l
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
3 2
1 - ,:,, - m,_ry i=everel 3 • Injury (Oth^.r E - Injury Visible) ICorrplairt ct
Faml
Crash Severity
Number of Victims by Victim Role
2 y C
1 - Dm;er 2- 3- : - 3,tycli;^. 5-Other
6 - Nen-
Passeryer PeGCvtrlan 'niumd
nary
Victim Role
• ' - L`:;vc. • 2 . csn•�v •d - FC�Caria^ • t Eky-i's.
• <-Otiw� • eNon-pr;urco P,rty
a
cV 4
crash Severity Count
0.00".
2 - 1R.-ry severe) 1 20.00''.
3 -:np_ry lCtner 'Jisitaei 3 60.iG71
of
victim Role
Count ..
16 ci":
_ - Fasenccr
a 33.33".
- �c7escnm
3 5 - Other
0Ck0Z6 CitCy' Cou8cil AgeOC�aATES, INC. 49
571
IIM TD 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 o
20 City of Yucaipa
8.2 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 17 appears to fall within the school - zone limits associated with Yucaipa High School. Additionally, the segment is also located adjacent to Dunlap Elementary School and serves both educational facilities.
According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, due to the documented severe injury collision and pedestrian -involved collisions identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7.
13th Street is located adjacent to Yucaipa High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with predominantly residential land uses. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks. No school - related signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, school crossing signs, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 18 of 13th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/Commercial and the 85th percentile speed was 40-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified twelve reported crashes within Segment No 18. No fatal or severe injury collisions were identified. One bicyclist was identified within the reviewed collision data.
8.3 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of 13th Street appear to fall within the school -zone limits associated with Yucaipa High School. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to establish a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit within the applicable school -zone limits.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Appropriate school warning signs, school crossing signs, and supplemental plaques should also be installed as necessary to clearly define the school -zone limits.
M1Nq'pR & AgSOCIATES, INC. 50
0 026 City Council Agenda 572
x
IIMT� 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 "o
20 City of Yucaipa
Chapman Heights Road is located within the vicinity of Yucaipa High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 40-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent commercial, institutional, and park -related land uses. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks and bicycle lanes. No school -related signs, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 49 of Chapman Heights Road from Sand Canyon Road to 10th Street was determined to be 40-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential/School/Open Space and the 85th percentile speed was 50-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 49. No fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified.
8.4 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, the portion of Chapman Heights Road between 13th Street and the applicable 500-foot school -zone limits associated with Yucaipa High School may be considered for implementation of a 20-MPH school -zone speed limit in accordance with AB 382.
Additionally, Chapman Heights Road from Sand Canyon Road to 13th Street, as well as portions extending beyond the school -zone limits but remaining within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area, may be considered for implementation of a 25- MPH school -zone approach treatment consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, school crossing signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data did not identify fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions warranting further consideration under AB 1014.
Yucaipa Boulevard is located directly adjacent to Yucaipa High School and currently has a posted speed limit of 40-MPH with an existing 25-MPH when children are present school -zone speed limit. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks, bicycle lanes, school pavement markings, and school crossing signs with supplemental crossing plaques. No flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 96 of Yucaipa Boulevard from Sand Canyon Road to Oak Glen Road was determined to be 40-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Fri' MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 51
0 026 City Council Agenda 573
2SPEU� - _W
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 LIMO
�
City of Yucaipa If
'
Business/Commercial/School and the 85th percentile speed was 44-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified forty-four reported crashes within Segment No. 96, including one fatal collision, two severe injury collisions, three vehicle/pedestrian collisions, five pedestrian victims, and two bicyclists.
YWE
0, ••g".j;:AJ.l YD 9 •
eve •
IGq
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
30 G
C
7 - Fa*.a4 2 - !rjury iSevcrel Iniury (Other 4 - Injury Visible! lCorrplainr ot
Paint
Crash Severity
Number of Victims by Victim Role
I - D,,yor 2- 3- 1, 5 - Other 6 - Non-
Pass•_nqer P> destrtan lnj"'ed
Party
victAr" ROAR
• 1 Dri 0 2 1`11Cr,y_ • J 4
•t o 1, - C. 1 0 5 - 1.4- !- .
•
O
Crash Severity Count %
i - rasa; . 2.27"�
2 - Injury i5cvcre) 2 4.55',
3 - njury (Otne.- Visible! 17 35.64%1
4 - !nlury lCon-plaint or Pam) 24 54.55".
Victim Role
Count
%
Eirl—
39 1-,-24"-.
4 2
3.4 5;_
5 0
0,00", L
0 ouncil
Q811,�AG IATES, INC. 52
�R & ASSO�
Agen a 574
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 z"o.
20 City of Yucaipa
8.5 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 96 appears to fall entirely within the school -zone limits associated with Yucaipa High School. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, due to the documented fatal collision, severe injury collisions, pedestrian involvement, bicyclist involvement, and existing school -related activity identified within the reviewed TIMS collision data, the segment warrants additional evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures are appropriate.
�U c' 756 M? :'.1 c-a.�e: naePe
4r�cr r
ay. rii L • :
9. 12th Street, 13t' Street, Avenue D, Avenue E, and Kentucky Street - Roadway Segments Adjacent to Dunlap Elementary School
12th Street, 13th Street, Avenue D, Avenue E, and Kentucky Street are roadway segments located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Dunlap Elementary School. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 17 on 12th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E, Segment No. 18 on 13th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E, Segment No. 23 on Avenue D from 17th Street to 13th Street, Segment No. 24 on Avenue D from 13th Street to Oak Glen Road, Segment No. 26 on Avenue E from 16th Street to Oak Glen Road, and Segment No. 72 on Kentucky Street from 12th Street to Dunlap Boulevard. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
,,Q 2I Ci G CouBcilAAg o 'ATES, INC. 53
575
ILIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 City of Yucaipa
IN . William
irk;. •, ♦ �J+ ` --f, .� � ,�1. ��•' I. •'e i{r
�r�•-'-T1,.�, "5/�.i_ �+�i�'.• },�, -1 ��R • #i�SPEED •y � F��; LZ
. - �:._- �i .sa _ 'f �'$ - �®,SPEED C� -�'-•i �% ®+w .
SPEED ��1 �.• 1 _,'� .�`,y ,_ ♦'a ... ; 4.I�a.e 7r..,�
LIMIT SPEED
171
®. p", 35 : ' �+' = - LIMIT . .
35 - Dunlap Elementary School
+SPEED •16
[ -� • 1 1 � . .. r` LIMIT
35 V /r xi y r•7�je '_ •w!t �� dirt '>ts� !/ yNO
f
b11,
,i �. L a ,�;'�''� 'fit Z '` s.� i Q,.
12th Street is located adjacent to Dunlap Elementary School and within close proximity to Yucaipa High School. Segment No. 17 currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH with an existing school -zone speed limit of 25-MPH when children are present. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks, school pavement markings, and speed feedback signage. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential and school land uses.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 17 of 12th Street from Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential/School" and the 85th percentile speed was 39-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified five reported crashes within Segment No. 17, including two pedestrian -related collisions. No fatal collisions were identified.
9.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 17 falls within the school -zone limits associated with both Dunlap Elementary School and Yucaipa High School.
According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present for the entirety of Segment No. 17.
1Np,AR &ASSOCIATES, INC. 54
0 026 City Council Agenda 576
SPEED MIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified pedestrian -related collisions within Segment No. 17. Therefore, the segment may warrant additional evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional safety improvements are appropriate.
Segment No. 18 (13th Street) was previously evaluated under the Yucaipa High School section due to its proximity to both educational facilities. The recommendations contained therein remain applicable for Dunlap Elementary School.
Avenue D is located within the vicinity of Dunlap Elementary School and includes Segment No. 23 from 17th Street to 13th Street and Segment No. 24 from 13th Street to Oak Glen Road. Both roadway segments currently have a posted speed limit of 35-MPH and consist of two-way roadways with predominantly residential land uses. No school - related signs, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, marked crosswalks, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 23 of Avenue D from 17th Street to 13th Street was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential/Open Space" and the 85th percentile speed was 35-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified eight reported crashes within Segment No. 23. No fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified.
9.2 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Segment No. 23 appear to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Dunlap Elementary School. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data did not identify fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions warranting further consideration under AB 1014.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 24 of Avenue D from 13th Street to Oak Glen Road was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential" and the 85th percentile speed was 38-MPH. (see AppendixA for detailed segment sheet). ,f1�: 1�1�,gR 8 AASSOC�IATES, INC. 55
7 lr�L ity ounce gen a 577
SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 LIMIT
20 20 City of Yucaipa
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified three reported crashes within Segment No. 24, including one severe injury collision. No pedestrian -involved or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified.
9.3 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Segment No. 24 appear to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Dunlap Elementary School. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Additionally, review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified one severe injury collision within Segment No. 24. Therefore, the segment may warrant further evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional safety improvements are appropriate.
Avenue E is located directly adjacent to Dunlap Elementary School. Segment No. 26 currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH and an existing school -zone speed limit of 25-MPH when children are present. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential and school land uses. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks, school pavement markings, school crossing signs, supplemental SCHOOL warning signs, and a speed feedback sign. No bicycle lanes or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 26 of Avenue E from 161h Street to Oak Glen Road was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential/School" and the 85th percentile speed was 39-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified fourteen reported crashes within Segment No. 26, including one severe injury collision, one pedestrian -involved collision, and two bicyclist -involved collisions. 0 026 CitC' Cou& /ffl ATES, INC. �/ 56
Y g 578
io � SPEED
LiMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 City of Yucaipa
A'OENU- b
ti
tR
0 0 _0
e 0 0 0 a 1iiVJNQF Pj
0. AD
0.0 K EL_ f LN
'ENIU" S-'
Number of Crashes by Crash Severity
Crash Severity
Count
I
Faa�
C
8 2 - injury iSe,-crv,!
1 7-j4',
3 - Injury iOther V.siblc!
9 64.29
6 I.'iuj !cC.T.P13ir'-. of Palm
4 28.57'."
2 ra,,a: 2 - Injury (Severe; 3 - In.ury (C-,,her 4 - Injury Visible; I,CornFdaintc-
Pain:
Crash Severity
% sbc. 40 '1 C
Number of Victims by Victim Role Victim Role Count %
Drive.- 12 75.00,.
6.25",
10 3 - Pcdetrtan 1 6.25",
her 0 1001111�
3- 4-Bicyclist 5-Other 6 - N, n-
P-cestriar, injured
Party
Victmi Role
Pa'l'
9.4 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 26 falls within the school -zone limits associated with Dunlap Elementary School. According to the aforementioned CVC 00MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 57
026 City Council Agenda 579
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 '20 20 City of Yucaipa
sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school - zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Additionally, review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified a severe injury collision, pedestrian involvement, and bicyclist involvement within Segment No. 26. Therefore, the segment may warrant additional evaluation under AB 1014 and CVC §22358.7 to determine whether additional speed management measures or safety improvements are appropriate.
Kentucky Street is located within the vicinity of Dunlap Elementary School. Segment No. 72 currently has a recommended speed limit of 35-MPH and functions as a one- way roadway. Adjacent land uses include residential, commercial, institutional, and park -related uses. No school -related signs, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, bicycle lanes, marked crosswalks, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 72 of Kentucky Street from 12th Street to Dunlap Boulevard was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential/Commercial/School" and the 85th percentile speed was 37-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified six reported crashes within Segment No. 72, including one severe injury collision. No pedestrian - involved or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified.
9.5 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 72 does not appear to fall within the school -zone limits or school -zone approach area associated with Dunlap Elementary School as defined under AB 382. Therefore, no modifications to the existing speed limit are recommended under the provisions of AB 382.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified one severe injury collision within Segment No. 72. However, no pedestrian -involved or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified. Therefore, the segment does not appear to warrant school -zone speed -limit modifications and should remain subject to the recommendations contained within the 2023 Citywide E&TS unless future conditions warrant additional evaluation.
&. ,SSO�IATES, INC.
0$D51,NAGARrty Cound Agen a
ME
58 �SPEED� 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 MIT
?�0 City of Yucaipa
10. Avenue H, Fremont Street, and Mesa Grande Drive — Roadway Segments Adjacent to Wildwood Elementary School and Green Valley High School Avenue H, Fremont Street, and Mesa Grande Drive are roadway segments located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Wildwood Elementary School and Green Valley High School. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 32 on Avenue H from Bryant Street to Holmes Street, Segment No. 67 on Fremont Street from Avenue H to County Line Road and Segment No. 74 on Mesa Grande Drive from Wildwood Canyon Road to County Line Road. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
�r%. ,�,•;• = Wildwood Elementary School
17 Green Valley High School .�:_,;i+;. "►r`z-
h.
i i „® SPEED t�'.i+7h1 _ / s� •/ f
y1 jZ, LIMIT i . ✓�
35 c �l / �► N ii:r SPEED
FY '•j i }.:. d. �' _ MfT
SPEEA.
? ..+�. 1t r_ •1 _�-Ll--- t LIMIT j„ w r+ 'l�j�.. �� • ,� < � } ;� }�iry.� 's -. � •'r'� i. ,.! • � �' •�:+IC r i R "a ►4'� r�' - � ,_7' � r L� ' .wi ✓: �� �~'R.
AL
,-F,y►s
OL
tt
V N\� �� ' � F..,'A � •*.1 \fir
Avenue H is located adjacent to Wildwood Elementary School. Segment No. 32 currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH and includes an existing school -zone speed limit of 25-MPH when children are present. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential and school land uses. Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks and school crossing signs. No bicycle lanes, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 32 of Avenue H from Bryant Street to Holmes Street was determined to be 35-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential/School" and the 85th percentile speed was 42-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
QMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 59
6 C,, Council Agie a 581
/ U
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 \20 City of Yucaipa
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified one reported crash within Segment No. 32. No fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified.
10.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 32 falls within the school -zone limits associated with Wildwood Elementary School. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified one reported collision within Segment No. 32. No fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified. Therefore, no additional speed modifications are recommended under AB 1014 at this time.
Fremont Street is located within the vicinity of Wildwood Elementary School and Green Valley High School. Segment No. 67 currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH and consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. No bicycle lanes, marked crosswalks, school signage, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 67 of Fremont Street from Avenue H to County Line Road was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential" and the 85th percentile speed was 37-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data did not identify any reported crashes within Segment No. 67.
10.2 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 67 does not appear to fall within the school -zone limits or school -zone approach area associated with Wildwood Elementary School or Green Valley High School as defined under AB 382. Therefore, no modifications to the existing speed limit are recommended under the provisions of AB 382.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data did not identify any reported crashes within Segment No. 67. Therefore, no additional evaluation under AB 1014 is recommended at this time.
O LiJZ6 , Y CounE`cil /age ,�aATES, INC.
582
60 XMD04 � _r-
SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 r' LIMIT r 1
20 20 City of Yucaipa
Mesa Grande Drive is located within the vicinity of Wildwood Elementary School and Green Valley High School. Segment No. 74 currently has a posted speed limit of 40- MPH and consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential and park -related land uses. Existing roadway features include bicycle lanes. No marked crosswalks, school signage, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 74 of Mesa Grande Drive from Wildwood Canyon Road to County Line Road was determined to be 40-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential/Parks" and the 85th percentile speed was 42-MPH. (see Appendix for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified three reported crashes within Segment No. 74. No fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified.
10.3 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Segment No. 74 appear to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Wildwood Elementary School. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
The portion of Mesa Grande Drive located within the applicable school -zone approach area, generally between Village Road and the limits of the 1,000-foot school -zone boundary, may be considered for implementation of a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment subject to field verification.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified three reported crashes within Segment No. 74. However, no fatal, severe injury, pedestrian - involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified. Therefore, no additional evaluation under AB 1014 is recommended at this time.
11. County Line Road — Roadway Segments Adjacent to Mesa Grande Academy
County Line Road is a roadway segment located within the vicinity of Mesa Grande Academy. The segment reviewed includes Segment No. 54 on County Line Road from Bryant Street to Mesa Grande Drive. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 61
0` 026 City Council Agenda 583
LIMIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 City of Yucaipa
zo ',.
:,17� '—� r.J. k ...,��..it� ,-� r-`. �%( �.+> ..jet•'' r Is ";
1.���L i• i Ex w'd a f ll` r ' tt� r • 1 )sr > t
t
ar
' •' ���! k� �' r�ir �- i. i' � � `fir^ �
']{ + Mesa Grande Academy -- �• _'� � �
717
�Juj
Ir .
4 County Line Road currently has a no posted post and consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. No bicycle lanes, marked crosswalks, school signage, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 54 of County Line Road from Bryant Street to Mesa Grande Drive was determined to be 40-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be "Residential" and the 85th percentile speed was 43-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 54. No fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified.
11.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Segment No. 54 appear to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Mesa Grande Academy. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
The portion of County Line Road located within the applicable school -zone approach area associated with Mesa Grande Academy may be considered for implementation of e` MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 62
0 026 City Council Agenda 584
scn°a�
"`° 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa p' l
a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment, subject to field verification of the applicable school -zone boundaries.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 54. However, no fatal, severe injury, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified. Therefore, no additional evaluation under AB 1014 is recommended at this time.
12. Fir Avenue, Oak Glen Road, and Sunnyside Drive - Roadway Segments Adjacent to Park View Middle School and Ridgeview Elementary School Fir Avenue, Oak Glen Road, and Bryant Street are roadway segments located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Park View Middle School and Ridgeview Elementary School.
The segments reviewed include Segment No. 63 on Fir Avenue from Bryant Street to Sunnyside Drive, Segment No. 79 on Oak Glen Road from Bryant Street to 5th Street, and Segment No. 86 on Sunnyside Drive from Oak Glen Road to Bryant Street. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
y. 'MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 63
0 026 City Council Agenda 585
SPEED
MIT 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 z'o 20 City of Yucaipa
a`� ' } • •.,��M--- - � ��', SPEED �f'Trt T�1n �..� .. f R v .`"�3i•i t-LA.- .+�,
f ir` _Ifs 1L'ewV'+E:
Park View Middle School. _ 1� " 'r.
:SPEED
a
ST
LIMIT r
J
tary School
} yi i - ► " l
A".ITSP6ED•�. • -Y
Fir Avenue is located within the vicinity of Ridgeview Elementary School and Park View Middle School. Segment No. 63 currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH and consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential land uses. No bicycle lanes, school signage, school crossing signs, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery. The segment is located within the school - zone approach area associated with Ridgeview Elementary School.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 63 of Fir Avenue from Bryant Street to Sunnyside Drive was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 37-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 63. The reported collisions consisted primarily of broadside collisions. No fatal, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified. ,)_QM liCy'tioun�c- SO IATES, INC. 64
586
M* 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
12.1 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Segment No. 63 appear to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Ridgeview Elementary School. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 63. However, no fatal, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified. Therefore, no additional evaluation under AB 1014 is recommended at this time.
Oak Glen Road is located within the vicinity of Park View Middle School and Ridgeview Elementary School. Segment No. 79 currently has a posted speed limit of 45-MPH and consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent residential and park -related land uses.
Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks and bicycle lanes. The segment is located within the school -zone approach area associated with Park View Middle School and Ridgeview Elementary School and provides access via Sunnyside Drive.
Yucaipa Community Park is located adjacent to the roadway and generates pedestrian activity within the area.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 79 of Oak Glen Road from Bryant Street to 5th Street was determined to be 45- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 48-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified twelve reported crashes within Segment No. 79. No fatal collisions were identified.
12.2 Recommendations:
Based upon the reviewed information, portions of Segment No. 79 appear to fall within the 500-foot to 1,000-foot school -zone approach area associated with Park View Middle School and Ridgeview Elementary School. Therefore, a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment may be considered consistent with the provisions of AB 382.
The portion of Oak Glen Road located generally in the vicinity of Sunnyside Drive, where access to both schools is provided and pedestrian activity is anticipated, may be considered for implementation of a 25-MPH school -zone approach treatment subject to field verification.
Appropriate school warning signs, speed limit signs, and supplemental plaques should be installed at appropriate locations in accordance with the California MUTCD.
O Uz6 C, Y Cou& lCgeO IATES, INC. 65
587
SCNOOL -
SPEED 2026 School ZSpeed Limits Under NCalifornia AB 382 LIMIT ooone eeer New
\20,� ?9 City of Yucaipa
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified twelve reported crashes within Segment No. 79. Therefore, the segment may warrant continued monitoring for potential safety improvements.
Sunnyside Drive is located adjacent to Park View Middle School and Ridgeview Elementary School. Segment No. 86 currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH and includes an existing school -zone speed limit of 25-MPH when children are present.
Existing roadway features include marked crosswalks, school crossing signs, speed feedback signage, and traffic -calming speed humps. No bicycle lanes or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 86 of Sunnyside Drive from Oak Glen Road to Bryant Street was determined to be 25-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential and the 85th percentile speed was 28-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 86. No fatal, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified.
12.3 Recommendations: Based upon the reviewed information, Segment No. 86 falls within the school -zone limits associated with Park View Middle School and Ridgeview Elementary School. According to the aforementioned CVC sections under the new AB 382, the recommendation is to update the existing school -zone treatment from 25-MPH when children are present to 20-MPH when children are present.
The recommendation includes installation of S4-1 (CA) & S4-5 at appropriate locations as per the new CA MUTCD (Effective January 18, 2026).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified four reported crashes within Segment No. 86. However, no fatal, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified. Therefore, no additional evaluation under AB 1014 is recommended at this time.
13. Campus Drive and Sand Canyon Road —Roadway Segments Adjacent to Crafton Hills College
Campus Drive and Sand Canyon Road are roadway segments located adjacent to and within the vicinity of Crafton Hills College. The segments reviewed include Segment No. 47 on Campus Drive from Sand Canyon Road to U Bend, Segment No. 48 on Campus Drive from U Bend to Sand Canyon Road, and Segment No. 85 on Sand Canyon Road from North City Limits to Yucaipa Boulevard. The Segments studies with their corresponding existing posted speed limits are shown below.
Review of the 2023 Citywide Engineering & Traffic Survey indicates that the speed -limit information associated with Segment No. 47 (Campus Drive: Sand Canyon Road to U Bend) and Segment No. 48 (Campus Drive: U Bend to Sand Canyon Road) appears to MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 66
0 026 City Council Agenda 588
LIMIT SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
be switched within the summary table. Based upon review of the most recently available aerial and street -level imagery, Segment No. 47 is posted at 25-MPH, while Segment No. 48 is posted at 35-MPH. Accordingly, the roadway descriptions and recommendations contained in this document utilize the field -observed posted speed limits in order to accurately reflect existing conditions adjacent to Crafton Hills College.
IT
• ° - S :, -
,Ab — :fir
r
,:. «'101
Campus Drive is located adjacent to Crafton Hills College and currently has a posted speed limit of 25-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent open space and institutional land uses. Existing roadway features include pedestrian warning signage, a raised speed table, and accessible pedestrian crossing facilities. No bicycle lanes or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 47 of Campus Drive from Sand Canyon Road to U Bend was determined to be 25- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be College and the 85th percentile speed was 29-MPH. Due to limited sight distance, grade, and high pedestrian activity associated with the college campus, the posted speed limit was established at 25-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified no reported crashes within Segment No. 47.
002I6 Litt Co0u8cil geO�Ca ATES, INC. 67
589
Campus Drive is located adjacent to Crafton Hills College and currently has a posted speed limit of 25-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent open space and institutional land uses. Existing roadway features include pedestrian warning signage, a raised speed table, and accessible pedestrian crossing facilities. No bicycle lanes or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 47 of Campus Drive from Sand Canyon Road to U Bend was determined to be 25- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be College and the 85th percentile speed was 29-MPH. Due to limited sight distance, grade, and high pedestrian activity associated with the college campus, the posted speed limit was established at 25-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified no reported crashes within Segment No. 47.
002I6 Litt Co0u8cil geO�Ca ATES, INC. 67
589
xxDDL
SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 LIMIT 20 20 City of Yucaipa
13.1 Recommendations:
Since Crafton Hills College is a post -secondary educational institution and not a K-12 school, the provisions of AB 382 are not applicable to Segment No. 47. Therefore, no school -zone speed limit modifications are recommended under AB 382.
No further modifications are recommended under AB 1014 as no reported crashes were identified within the reviewed 5-year TIMS collision history.
Campus Drive is located adjacent to Crafton Hills College and currently has a posted speed limit of 35-MPH. The roadway consists of a two-way roadway with adjacent open space and institutional land uses. Existing roadway features include traffic -calming speed tables. A pedestrian crossing was observed at the intersection of Campus Drive and Sand Canyon Road. No bicycle lanes, school -related signage, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 48 of Campus Drive from U Bend to Sand Canyon Road was determined to be 35- MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be College and the 85th percentile speed was 43-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified no reported crashes within Segment No. 48.
13.2 Recommendations:
Since Crafton Hills College is a post -secondary educational institution and not a K-12 school, the provisions of AB 382 are not applicable to Segment No. 48. Therefore, no school -zone speed limit modifications are recommended under AB 382.
No further modifications are recommended under AB 1014 as no reported crashes were identified within the reviewed 5-year TIMS collision history.
Sand Canyon Road is located within the vicinity of Crafton Hills College and currently has a posted speed limit of 50-MPH. The roadway does not consist of a two-way roadway and includes adjacent residential, commercial, and institutional land uses.
Existing roadway features include bicycle lanes. No school -related signage, school pavement markings, or flashing beacons were observed within the reviewed imagery.
Under the previous 2023 Citywide E&TS, the established speed limit across Segment No. 85 of Sand Canyon Road from North City Limits to Yucaipa Boulevard was determined to be 50-MPH, as the adjacent land use was found to be Residential, Commercial, and Institutional and the 85th percentile speed was 45-MPH. (see Appendix A for detailed segment sheet).
� I YAR & �1Rg,,,FIATES, INC. 68
i y ounce gen a 590
'20
MIT
2E0
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 -
City of Yucaipa
Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified twelve reported crashes within Segment No. 85. No fatal, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist - involved collisions were identified.
13.3 Recommendations:
Since Crafton Hills College is a post -secondary educational institution and not a K-12 school, the provisions of AB 382 are not applicable to Segment No. 85. Therefore, no school -zone speed limit modifications are recommended under AB 382. Review of the most recently available 5-year TIMS collision data identified twelve reported crashes within Segment No. 85. However, no fatal, pedestrian -involved, or bicyclist -involved collisions were identified. Therefore, no additional evaluation under AB 1014 is recommended at this time.
14. Conclusion:
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 382 and the California Vehicle Code, the City has the discretionary authority, by ordinance or resolution, to establish a 20-MPH prima facie speed limit within designated school zones. AB 382 expressly authorizes this action without requiring the preparation of an Engineering and Traffic Survey, provided that the school zone limits are properly established and signed in accordance with the California MUTCD. Accordingly, the City may apply AB 382 within school zones as it deems appropriate to enhance safety, independent of prevailing speed data or traditional speed -zoning requirements.
,,0811MGgCR & ffSO�IATES, INC. 69
�YL� i y ounce gen a 591
SLIMITPEED
2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 zo — City of Yucaipa
Resources & References
1. AB 382 — Pedestrian safety: school zones: speed limits.
Bill Text: CA AB382 1 2025-2026 1 Regular Session I Chaptered I LegiScan
2. AB 1014 —Traffic safety: speed limits.
Bill Text: CA AB1014 1 2025-2026 1 Regular Session I Chaptered I LegiScan
3. CVC § 22358.7 — Speed Limits
California Code, VEH 22358.7.
4. CVC § 22352, 22352.5 — School Zone Speed
California Code, VEH 22352. & California Code, VEH 22352.5.
5. CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2026
CA MUTCD 2026
6. Minagar & Associates, Inc., 2023 Citywide Yucaipa Engineering & Traffic Survey Report, January 5, 2024.
OC81MGA�R & �1�SSO�IATES, INC. 70
i y ounce gen a 592
SPEED 2026 School Zone Speed Limits Under New California AB 382 20 20 City of Yucaipa
Appendix A:
2023 Yucaipa Citywide Engineering & Traffic Survey Report Segment Summary Sheets
Segment 1 2nd Street: Date Avenue to Yucaipa Boulevard
➢ Segment 3 3rd Street: Date Avenue to Yucaipa Boulevard Segment 5 3rd Street: Wildwood Canyon Road to County Line Road `r Segment 7 5th Street: Oak Glen Road to Yucaipa Boulevard Segment 10 6th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E
Segment 12 7th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Enoch Avenue Segment 13 8th Street: Liberty Road to Avenue E
Segment 14 10th Street: Chapman Heights Road to Yucaipa Boulevard ➢ Segment 16 11th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue D ➢ Segment 17 12th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E ➢ Segment 18 13th Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Avenue E Segment 23 Avenue D: 17th Street to 13th Street
Segment 24 Avenue D: 13th Street to Oak Glen Road
Segment 26 Avenue E: 16th Street to Oak Glen Road
Segment 28 Avenue E: 8th Street to California Street
➢ Segment 29 Avenue E: California Street to Fremont Street ➢ Segment 31 Avenue H: 2nd Street to Bryant Street
➢ Segment 32 Avenue H: Bryant Street to Holmes Street
➢ Segment 37 Bryant Street: Yucaipa Boulevard to Wildwood Canyon Road ➢ Segment 41 California Street: Avenue B to Avenue E
➢ Segment 42 California St: Avenue E to Wildwood Canyon Road ➢ Segment 44 California Street: Avenue H to County Line Road ➢ Segment 47 Campus Drive: Sand Canyon Road to U Bend
➢ Segment 48 Campus Drive: U Bend to Sand Canyon Road
➢ Segment 49 Chapman Heights Road: Sand Canyon Road to 10th Street M�Np,pR & AgSOCIATES, INC.
0 026 City Council /agenda 593
S(IDOL
SPEED 2026 School ZSpeed Limits Under NCalifornia AB 382 LIMIT ooone eeerew im rit
zo 20 City of Yucaipa
y Segment 50 Chapman Heights Road: 10th Street to Oak Glen Road i- Segment 53 County Line Road: 3rd Street to Bryant Street r Segment 54 County Line Road: Bryant Street to Mesa Grande Drive i- Segment 63 Fir Avenue: Bryant Street to Sunnyside Drive Segment 67 Fremont Street: Avenue H to County Line Road Segment 72 Kentucky Street: 12th Street to Dunlap Boulevard - Segment 74 Mesa Grande Drive: Wildwood Canyon Road to County Line Road y Segment 79 Oak Glen Road: Bryant Street to 5th Street Y Segment 80 Oak Glen Road: 5th Street to Yucaipa Boulevard Segment 85 Sand Canyon Road: North City Limits to Yucaipa Boulevard Segment 86 Sunnyside Drive: Oak Glen Road to Bryant Street y Segment 88 Washington Drive: 9th Street to 7th Street Segment 96 Yucaipa Boulevard: Sand Canyon Road to Oak Glen Road Segment 97 Yucaipa Boulevard: Oak Glen Road to 5th Street Segment 98 Yucaipa Boulevard: 5th Street to 2nd Street
R & A S0cIATES, INC. 72
0Ckrp,Ar-ity Council /agenda 594
ATTACHMENT 3
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 595
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING
AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)
UPDATE - PHASE II FOR
SELECTED ROADWAY
SEGMENTS
YUCAIPA, CA
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - ITS - Transportation Planning - CEM JURY 15, 2026
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 596
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)
UPDATE FOR SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
I, Fred Minagar do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Yucaipa was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional Civil Engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CA MUTCD 2026, effective January 18, 2026. Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of existing traffic conditions collected and measured in the field on City of Yucaipa roadways.
Fred Minagar, MS, RCE, PE, FITE, RSA, Registration No. 53466 Project Manager
EOF CtltiG _
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 597
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SAEE° EAF°ACE°
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS eY
J' CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA AA°Afl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 — Executive Summary ............................................................................. 2 — Background/Discussion..................................................................... 3 — Current Regulations............................................................................ 4 — Speed Zoning Principles.................................................................... 5 - Methodology........................................................................................... 6 — Engineering & Traffic Survey Results and Recommendations 7 — Applicable Vehicle Codes.................................................................. 8 - References..............................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDICES
.............................. 5
...................................... 7
...................................... 8
...................................... 9
....................................11
....................................18
....................................19
...................................... 31
Appendix A: 2026 Updated Citywide E&TS Map of Recommended Speed Limits Appendix B: 2023 Citywide E&TS Map of Recommended Speed Limits Appendix C: Summary of Recommended Changes to Posted Speed Limits Appendix D: Roadway Segment Analysis of Factors Not Readily Apparent and Traffic Data Summary Sheets
Appendix E: Radar Speed Survey Sheets
Appendix F: 24-Hour Machine Counts (ADT) Traffic Volume Data Appendix G: Speed Gun Calibration Certification
P12712026
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0City Council Agenda
4 - 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II ENFORCED SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
1 — Executive Summary
This report provides an update to the City of Yucaipa's Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) for selected roadway segments throughout the City. The study includes the reevaluation of eight (8) roadway segments previously analyzed under the 2023 Citywide Engineering & Traffic Survey and the addition of three (3) new roadway segments not previously evaluated. The Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) was conducted by Minagar & Associates, Inc. and was requested by the City of Yucaipa to provide updated traffic engineering data, validate existing posted speed limits, and evaluate the need for any modifications to currently established speed zones.
Engineering and Traffic Surveys are required by the State of California to establish intermediate speed limits on local streets and to enforce those limits using radar or other speed measuring devices. In accordance with the latest relevant sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD Rev. 9, effective January 18, 2026), and Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD, 11 th Edition Rev. 1, Dec. 2025), the E&TS must consider, at a minimum, the following contributing factors toward the establishment of appropriate posted speed limits:
1) Analysis of prevailing speeds, as determined by traffic engineering measurements 2) Analysis of collision records for the most recent available January 1, 2021 — December 31, 2025 period
3) Other highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to drivers.
When qualifying an appropriate speed limit, local
authorities may consider factors such as roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, superelevation,
shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection
spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, the 10-MPH pace range of prevailing traffic, roadside development and environment, parking practices, and the density of adjacent residential and/or business frontage.
The findings of this E&TS reveal that eight (8) of the eleven (11) surveyed roadway segments are recommended to
remain at their currently established posted speed limits as documented. Based upon the collected speed survey data, collision history, traffic volume counts, roadway
characteristics, and surrounding land use conditions, three (3) roadway segments are recommended for a decrease
in the existing posted speed limit. The recommended
roadway segments to be decreased include Segment No.
36 on Bryant Street from Date Avenue to Yucaipa
Boulevard from 45 MPH to 40 MPH, Segment No. 78 on
Oak Glen Road from Cherry Croft/Jefferson Street to
The findings of this EBTS reveal
that eight (8) of the eleven (11)
surveyed roadway segments are
recommended to remain at their
currently established posted
speed limits as documented.
Three (3) roadway segments of
Bryant Street from Date Ave to
Yucaipa Blvd from 45 MPH to 40
MPH, Oak Glen Rd from Cherry
CroWJefferson St to Bryant St
from 50 MPH to 45 MPH, and
Wildwood Canyon Rd from
Bryant St to Holmes St from 45
MPH to 40 MPH are
recommended for a decrease in
the existing posted speed limit.
Three (3) newly evaluated
roadway segments on Colorado
St are recommended to be
posted at 35 MPH.
172 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
599
5 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED / Jflr ENf0ACE0
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Ar
RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Bryant Street from 50 MPH to 45 MPH, and Segment No. 91 on Wildwood Canyon Road from Bryant Street to Holmes Street from 45 MPH to 40 MPH. Additionally, the three newly evaluated Colorado Street segments are recommended to be posted at 35 MPH.
The following list summarizes the findings of the E&TS and categorizes street segments which are recommended to maintain, increase, or decrease their existing posted speed:
Summary of Proposed 11 Speed Limits
19 -
13th Street
Ave E
to
Oak Glen Rd
35 MPH
25 -
Avenue E
Yucaipa Blvd
to
16th St
35 MPH
77 -
Oak Glen Road
Northeast City Limits
to
Cherry Croft Dr
50 MPH
93 -
Wildwood Canyon Road
Mesa Grande Dr
to
Oak Mesa Dr
45 MPH
94 -
Wildwood Canyon Road
Oak Mesa Dr
to
Oak Glen Rd
45 MPH
101
Colorado Street
Wildw ood Canyon Rd
to
8th Street
35 MPH
102
Colorado Street
8th St
to
9th St
35 MPH
103
Colorado Street
9th St
to
10th St
35 MPH
36 -
Bryant Street
Date Ave
to Yucaipa Blvd
45 to 40 MPH
78 -
Oak Glen Road
Cherry Croft Dr/Jefferson St
to Bryant St
50 to 45 MPH
91 -
Wildwood Canyon Road
Bryant St
to Holmes St
45 to 40 MPH
A summary table of proposed speed limits is provided in Appendix C and roadway segment analysis sheets, collision analysis summaries, and traffic data certification sheets supporting the recommended posted speed limits for the eleven (11) surveyed roadway segments are provided in Appendix D.
Additional supporting documentation of the survey's methodology is provided in the following sections of this report, including project background, current speed regulations, speed zoning principles, survey methodology, daily traffic volume counts, and radar spot speed survey data upon which the overall conclusions of this Engineering and Traffic Survey and recommended posted speed limits are based.
Radar speed survey sheets, 24-hour machine tube counts (ADT) data, speed gun calibration certificates are provided in Appendices E, F, & G respectively.
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/Z712026 City Council Agenda
C.
ME
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED �'-"•.I• =' ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS I BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA I
RADAR
2 — Background/Discussion
The California Manual on Traffic Uniform Control Devices (CAMUTCD) states that local agencies should conduct engineering studies at least once every 7 or 14 years, in compliance with Section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) to reevaluate non -statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone significant changes since the last review. Speed limits are used to both regulate and guide motorists' speed choices, and are visibly posted on the roadside as a tool to reduce the dangers that drivers might otherwise impose on road users by driving at unsafe speeds.
It is a common assumption that the posting of a speed limit sign will lead to a motorist driving at that speed; however, historical evidence and research shows that the majority of drivers will travel at roadway speeds which seem the most reasonable given the prevailing driving conditions.
Speed regulations construed as unreasonable have the potential to be disregarded by an unsafe majority of motorists; therefore, a "reasonable" speed limit is commonly one that conforms to the actual behavior of the general motoring public. Based upon this concept, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) provides the Basic Speed Law which states that:
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than what is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." The purpose of controlling speed limits using law enforcement is not to burden motorists with unreasonable laws, but to give motorists a clear indication of the maximum driving speed that is reasonable and prudent under typical driving conditions, and reflects surrounding roadway and roadside conditions which may not be apparent to drivers. Speed limits established on the basis of an E&TS provide law enforcement officers with a means to regulate the top fringe of drivers who are disposed to reckless and unreliable driving behaviors, have faulty judgment, or will otherwise not conform to the Basic Speed Law and to what the majority of drivers find to be reasonable and prudent.
i'r MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 2026 City Council Agenda
7 601
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II OBI for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
3 — Current Regulations
Under California law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is 65 miles per hour (mph). All other speed limits are called prima facie limits, which "at first sight", are safe and prudent under normal conditions. Specific prima facie limits established by California law include:
70 mph - May be posted by the governing authority on the basis of an engineering and traffic study and consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP). 65 mph - On all streets and highways, unless otherwise posted or if prevailing conditions meet the criteria for a lower prima facie speed limit, as described below. 55 mph - On two-lane undivided highways (i.e., highways not physically divided and have no more than one lane per each direction, excluding passing lanes). 20 mph - When approaching or passing a posted "SCHOOL" zone, when children are going to and from school; in a "business district" or "residence district," as defined by the CVC; or when passing a "senior center" facility.
15 mph - In any alley; or when approaching a "blind" highway intersection or rail -highway grade crossing uncontrolled by traffic control devices (i.e., limited sight distance in advance of the uncontrolled intersection or crossing, as defined by the CVC).
In addition to the above prima facie speed limits, a local authority may declare and establish intermediate prima facie speed limits upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) in increments of 5 miles per hour up to 60 mph, or a maximum speed limit of 65 mph, whichever is found to be most appropriate in facilitating the orderly movement of traffic and is also reasonable and safe. E&TS provide an analysis of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of drivers representatively traveling the highway under study. Since unjustified speed limits can be difficult to enforce, the E&TS is essential in preventing the establishment of speed limits which are below or above what is safe, and/or what the majority of drivers consider to be reasonable for the prevailing roadway, roadside and traffic conditions.
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that the use of radar or other speed measuring device to enforce speed limits which have not been justified based on an E&TS constitutes a "speed trap," notwithstanding certain qualifying conditions. An E&TS is valid for up to seven (7) years if the speed measuring devices used for speed enforcement are certified and properly calibrated, and the enforcing officer has completed the required operating courses for the speed -measuring device used, per CVC 40802(c)(2)(13)(i)(1). If an E&TS was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, but a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, it is valid for up to 14 years.
Given the above requirements, the California Vehicle Code prohibits authorities from securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle based on a speed trap. Conversely, drivers who do not comply with speed limits which have been lawfully justified and posted are subject to enforcement action. See Section 7 for CVC divisions and articles pertaining to this E&TS. i ; MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. $
07 I2026 City Council Agenda 602
=- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED ERfORCEO
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS 9Y
RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA. CA
4 — Speed Zoning Principles
Driver behavioral research has
been conducted over several CAUFORIRR
decades and finds that the VENICLE
average driver chooses their _� „ CODE
r
driving speed based on the
appearance of the highway itself
45 �
and the prevailing traffic
w A1W
conditions. Thus, the CVC and
CAMUTCD require that speed
limits be established in accordance with appropriate engineering practice and methods. The CAMUTCD provides standards, guidance and support for the preparation of engineering and traffic surveys, and requires that, at a minimum, the three following factors be considered in determining appropriate speed limits to facilitate the safe, sensible and orderly flow of traffic:
■ Prevailing speeds
■ Collision records
17 Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver Prevailing Speeds
Measuring the typical speed, or prevailing speed, of existing traffic flow allows the selection of an effective speed limit based on the presumption that the majority of motorists drive at speeds that are generally safe and reasonable. Prevailing speeds are determined by conducting a radar - based spot speed survey along a particular segment and direction along a roadway to measure a sample number of vehicle speeds during generally free -flow traffic conditions. For this E&TS, radar speed surveys were conducted to collect a minimum of 100 speed samples during morning and afternoon time periods (9:00 AM — 4:00 PM).
The resulting measured speed data is organized and analyzed to extract various speed characteristics and driver trends, such as the ten -mile pace range, average speed traveled, and the 85th percentile speed. The most significant speed attribute obtained from the survey is the 85th percentile speed, or critical speed, and is defined as one (1) standard deviation above 501h percentile (average speed), or simply the free -flow speed at or below which 85% of the motorists were surveyed to be traveling. Since only 15% of the motorists exceed this value, the 85th percentile speed is normally used as an initial (presumptive) value for the updated posted speed limit, and adjusted downward or upward as other conditions necessitate. Based on current CAMUTCD guidelines and California state law, when a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5-MPH increment to the surveyed 85th percentile speed, except under the following optional conditions in which it may otherwise establish:
The posted speed may be reduced by 5 MPH from the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile speed upon due consideration for additional factors not readily apparent to �; MINAGAR 8� ASSOCIATES, INC.
9 00City Council Agenda 603
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II EN ORCEN for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
the typical driver which have been appropriately justified and documented in the E&TS, and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer (see CVC §627 and 22358.5).
For cases which require rounding up the field -surveyed 851h percentile speed to the nearest 5-MPH increment (e.g., 38 MPH rounded up to 40 MPH), the selected speed limit may instead be rounded down to the nearest 5-MPH increment below the surveyed 851h percentile speed, if no further reduction is used (see CVC §21400(b)).
In accordance with CVC §40802, a "speed trap" does not apply to active and posted school zones or "local streets" as defined in the current California Road System (CRS). A local authority may therefore post an appropriately established prima facie speed limit on such roadways without requiring a recent engineering and traffic survey or determination based on the procedures set forth in §22352, §22354, §22357 or 22358.3 of the code.
Collision Records
The most recent collision data was also considered in setting appropriate speed limits. Drivers may underestimate the effects of higher speeds on crash probability and severity. An above - average collision rate, particularly due to unsafe speeding related incidents, might suggest existence of conditions which are not readily apparent to motorists; this should be considered when reevaluating the appropriate speed limit for the roadway segment.
Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists
Each street segment was additionally evaluated to identify and document any roadway, roadside, traffic and other significant features which may not be readily apparent to motorists and may justify selecting a posted speed limit based on a five mile -per -hour reduction from the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile speed. Such conditions would exist where the combined influence of one or more of these factors could result in uncharacteristic or unexpected driving conditions, and in turn, affect the ability of drivers to properly judge the safest and most appropriate travel speed for a particular situation or location.
Examples of such factors include: shoulder conditions (e.g., on -street parking, closely -spaced and/or blind driveway traffic), sight distance and/or geometric constraints (e.g., narrow streets, horizontal roadway curvature, hilly grades), pedestrian and bicyclist safety (e.g., mid -block crosswalks, bike lanes and routes), uniformity and consistency between contiguous speed zones (e.g., length of the speed zone, spacing and frequency of traffic -controlled intersections, speed zone transitions on "boundary line" streets), and land use conditions adjacent to the roadway (e.g., residential and business districts, commercial driveways, senior centers, etc.).
The CVC stipulates that, in the absence of other factors, physical conditions such as roadway width, curvature, grade and surface pavement conditions are considered to be readily apparent and are the responsibility of the driver to perceive and react to without requiring a special downwardly zoned posted speed limit, per CVC Section 22358.5. Valid consideration of one or more of the above conditions determined as not readily apparent to motorists, however, provides the required justification to allow for a 5-mile per hour (MPH) reduction from the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile where engineering judgment presents evidence and �; MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
10 0 2026 City Council Agenda 604
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
EN(DACED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS er
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
documentation that an adjustment for these factors is needed to match the existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community and road users. 5 - Methodology
Data Collection
In accordance with discussions with city staff, the scope of the study consisted of eleven (11) roadway segments on six (6) citywide streets within the City of Yucaipa. The study included the reevaluation of eight (8) previously surveyed roadway segments and the addition of three (3) new roadway segments. Study segments were determined by City staff based upon the need to update existing Engineering and Traffic Survey data and evaluate additional roadway segments.
Procedure
The primary goal of this E&TS is to determine the suitability of currently -posted speed limits on the selected roadway segments within the City of Yucaipa, and resolve to either change or maintain as -is the designated speed limits along each of the surveyed roadway segments. To make these determinations, the study compiled information both in the field and from City records on prevailing motorist speeds, recent collision history, comparative collision rates for similar roadway types, and any significant roadside conditions not evident to motorists. References under which this study was conducted include sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) provided in Section 7 of this report and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) developed by Caltrans in cooperation with the USDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Speed Zoning
The principal method utilized in this E&TS was speed zoning, a process which uses prevailing speeds of drivers as a guide to establish reasonable speed limits for highway sections where original statutory speed limits set by State ordinance may be considered less suitable for the local conditions. Establishment of posted speed limits by speed zoning methods allows motorists to be informed of the safe speed limit under which to drive on a particular roadway under normal conditions, and also protects the general public from unreasonable and reckless drivers. Spot radar speed surveys were conducted to determine the prevailing speeds of drivers on each of the eleven (11) surveyed roadway segments.
The surveys were performed during normal, non -holiday weekdays in May of 2026 during typical daytime periods. The unimpeded free -flow speeds of individual vehicles were measured during the off-peak time periods (9:00 AM — 4:00 PM) with a minimum survey count of either one hundred (100) or two hundred (200) radar samples (i.e., approximately 50 and 100 per direction for street segments without or with raised medians respectively, or for 2 hours of survey). Detailed radar speed zoning sheets are included in Appendix E.
Following the collection of spot speed survey data, all radar measurements were organized, computed, analyzed and summarized on standard Traffic Survey Forms. Various speed -related characteristics were then determined, including the following:
MINAGAR 8. ASSOCIATES, INC.
11 002 226 City Council Agenda 605
-- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SaO i r _j ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS By
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAfl
85t" Percentile Speed: The speed at which 85% of surveyed motorists did not exceed (i.e., no more than 15% of traffic exceeded) during the radar survey. Also called critical speed, equals one standard deviation from the average speed.
501t' Percentile Speed: The speed at which half of surveyed motorists did not exceed during the radar survey. Also called the median speed, by definition 50% of the observed speeds are below the median, and the other half are above the median.
10-MPH Pace: The 10-mile per hour range containing the largest percentage of speed observations; provides an alternative and more readily identifiable measure to the standard deviation to describe the dispersion of speeds within the survey sample. Consistency in travel speeds is evidenced by a pace that usually includes between 70% and 80% of the free -flowing vehicles. Similar reported statistical data includes the percentage of surveyed vehicles over and under the 10-MPH Pace range.
Average Speed: Equals the calculated average speed of all surveyed vehicles.
Also called the mean speed.
The above statistical attributes were obtained for each segment from the speed survey data collected in the field, and then applied using the CAMUTCD guidelines. The recommended speed limit was presumptively determined as the nearest 5-MPH increment to the 85th percentile speed of free -flowing traffic, with a downward 5-MPH adjustment applied if necessary to reflect the presence of conditions not readily apparent to drivers or to match the existing traffic needs of the community.
It is significant to note that former versions of the California MUTCD required that posted speed limits be presumptively set at the nearest 5-MPH increment to the surveyed the 85th percentile speed, and then adjusted by 5 MPH if justifiable and documented in the study. The most current release of the CA MUTCD 2026, effective January 18, 2026, allows for speed limits to be set at the lower 5-MPH increment to the surveyed 85th percentile speed in those cases where the nearest 5-MPH increment would normally require rounding up, if no further reduction is used. In order to satisfy local traffic and roadway conditions, local agencies may apply this judgment at its own discretion without any required supporting documentation or reasons in the Engineering and Traffic Survey. The results of the speed zoning analysis are summarized in Table 1.
Collisions Analysis
The analysis was based on a review of reported traffic accidents obtained from the University of California Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the most recent available five-year period between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2025. The raw collision data was then screened to consider only speeding -related accidents as the primary collision factor, based 09MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12
12026 City Council Agenda 606
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED �ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS eY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
on the recommended practice provided in the CAMUTCD and Caltrans' Traffic Manual. Non - speeding related accident reports were omitted from the analysis since this data does not directly correlate to vehicle speeding and can tend to overstate collision rates, particularly for shorter segments.
Prevailing collision rates for each segment were calculated by first determining the total number of speed -related collisions which have occurred during the selected 60-month period. This, along with the measured 24-hour average daily traffic volume of the segment from machine traffic counts collected in the field (see Appendix F for machine count data sheets) and the known segment length, was used in the standard formula below to determine the calculated collision rate for each segment, expressed in terms of collisions per million vehicle miles traveled:
Collision Rate Collisions No. o f Collisions 1,000,000
MVM - ALIT * Distance * No.of Days
where: No. of Collisions
Number of speed -related collisions on the segment during the selected analysis period (60 months), both directions
1,000,000 Conversion factor for Million -Vehicle -Miles (MVM) ADT Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day), both directions Distance Roadway segment distance traveled by each vehicle (miles) No. of Days Number of days during the selected analysis period (i.e., 1.00 year = 365 days)
The speed zoning analysis tables for each segment are provided on the following pages and utilize the following abbreviations and terminology.
DEFINITIONS:
Equals the 10-mile per hour range in which the largest
10-mi. Pace
number of vehicles were observed to be traveling
% in 10-mi. Pace
The percentage of the total vehicles observed traveling in the 10-mile per hour pace
50th Percentile
The speed at which half of the observed speeds were
observed below and half were observed above
85th Percentile
The speed at or below which 85% of the observed vehicles were surveyed to be traveling at
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 2026 City Council Agenda
13 607
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II AADASPEED �ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Rr
R
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Table 1: Speed Zoning Analysis Summary for Updated and New Segments Street
ROADWAY INFORMATION
Segment _
iJO.
From To
5—roprien _
Oisl
m,l i rrpo Lu
ro-m� a to coin
Pace i Porcennle
("ph) €e1 Pace' (mp)
esrn
i Po,co W.
I (npn)
sp�dumrr __ gnalysrs/
Posh,d PPSL Rec
= Justification(s)
mnnl Im nl i (mph) u
13th St
19 Ave E
Oak Glen Rd
0.53 i COL
RIB
!
32�11 ` 69%
I 35
40 35 40 35
No change - due to calculated
- rate
collision
Avenue E
25 Yucaipa Blvd
16th St
0.91 COL
R!S/
30-39 i 78 % i 34
39 35 40 35
_ No change -due to calculated
C&I
-
collision rate
i
!
Decrease - due to allowable 85th
Bryant St
36 Date Ave
Yucaipa Blvd
0.50 ART
R/C
35-44' 79 % ! 41
44 45 45 i 40
percentile rounding and
i
residenha0;onanercial setting
Oak Glen Rd
Northeast City
77 Cherry Croft Dr
1.95 COL
R/O
44-53 i 63 % i 48
53 50 55 i s0
No change - due to calculated
-
Limits
collision rate
Cherry Croft
I
Decrease - due to allowable 85th
Oak Glen Rd
78 Dr/Jefferson St
Bryant St
0.86 i COL
R C
3948 57 % 44
49 50 50 45
w percentile rounding and
residential/commercial setting
Wildwood Canyon
91 i
Decrease - due to residential
Rd
Bryant St
Holmes St
0.75 ART
R
38-47' 78 % 42
46 45 45 40
w setting and higher calculated
collision rate than errpected
Wildwood Canyon
93 Mesa Grande
Oak
ART/
I
R/P!
_
No change -due to current 85th
Rd
Dr
Mesa Dr
1.03 i COL
O
41-50 79% ; 46
49 45 50 45
- percentile speed & residential
setting
Wildwood Canyon
94 No change - due to current 85th
Rd
Oak Mesa Dr
Oak Glen Rd
1.58 COL
R!O
43-52 77 % 47
51 45 50 45
_ percentile speed & residential
setting
Wildwood
+
No change - due to current 85th
Colorado St
101 Canyon Rd
8th St
0.49 COL
R
3443 84 % 38
42 35 40 35
_ percentile speed & residential
i
I
j
setting
Colorado St
102 8th St
9th St
0.25 COL
R
28-37 1 83 % i 32
36 35 35 I 35
_ No change -due to current 85th
i
percentile speed
No change - due to current 85th
Colorado St
103 i 9th St
10th St
0.33 COL
R
30-391 71% i 35
40 35 40 i 35
- percentile speed & residential
i
setting
KEY:
Dist.
= Distance of segment
LU
= Land Use
ART
= Arterial (CRS)
C
= Commercial
COL
= Collector (CRS)
B
= Business
LOC
= Local St (CRS)
R
= Residential
Posted
= Existing Posted Speed Limit
C&I
= Civic and Institutional
PPSL
= Presumptive Posted Speed Limit
S
= School
Rec.
= Recommended Posted Speed Limit
P
= Parks & Recreation
A
= Speed Increase
O
= Open Space
V
= Speed Decrease
•
= Post Speed Limit Sign
Table 2 on the following page shows the average statewide collision rates obtained from Caltrans' Collision Data on California State Highways, adjusted to represent proportional rates for speeding -related collisions. These expected rates were used to identify survey segments which exhibit a higher -than -expected collision rate.
t MINAGAR &ASSOCIATES, INC.
14 00City Council Agenda 608
- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED ENrOflCED
j for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS B
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA !;OY
Table 2: Expected Statewide Sneed -Related Traffic enfllclr,n Ratac ROADWAY TYPE* (URBAN) EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE**
2 - 3 Lanes
0.90 collisions per million vehicle miles
4+ Undivided Lanes
0.73 collisions per million vehicle miles
4+ Divided Lanes
1.09 collisions per million vehicle miles
Source: 2021 Caltrans Annual Collision Data on California State Highways - Crash Summary for District 8 Agency, Department of Transportation, Division of Research, Innovation, and System Information. Sacramento, California.
Based on FHWA approved 2020 adjusted urban area boundaries which are derived from the 2020 Census urban area boundaries " Basic Average Accident Rates tabulation data. Number of lanes are for both directions of travel and are applicable for both uni- and bi-directional surveyed roadway segments.
Other collected collision history data is summarized in the following figures. Overall, from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2025, there has been a total of 756 total collisions reported on the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), based on Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This included 19 fatalities and 1,023 other injured victims. The top primary collision factor (PCF) of these collisions was unsafe speed, as shown in the figure below. This PCF was responsible for 246 collisions out of 756 total collisions. 9 (1.20%)
63 (8.39%)
11 0.46%)
135 (17.98%)
132 (17.58%)
PCF KOM6017
- Sra bea
� _ - �-1,cr fi��aracus `di_Ltion
:ar:irq cr ['ar_p[n}
54 (7.195a)
- — 246 (32.76%)
17 (2.26X.)
23 (3.06'/ )
,I - Cri•;ing or uicvclirn i in7er t -c IrflLcrce of ?. cohcl or D-Lc r dl:;:;ing Tco Ch:;cly
_ = npmpor Fassinw
_anRi.htcf'V'ia,,
1_ Traffic Sinn.alc and ;ions
14 - _igh,.s
16 - Cithcr Equipment
18 - O h r Than Driver:or = __-riar
22 - 4th_r -p,:cc- Dri'dinri
Figure 1: Number of Crashes by Primary Crash Factor (PCF) Violation (January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2025)
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 Z2026 City Council Agenda
15 ME
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II 0=0 for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
200
100
0 ,q, eke \,
Q
Type of Crash
Not Stated A - Head-on, B - Sideswipe
C Rear End p Broadside 41 E - Hit Object
I H Other
Figure 2: Number of Crashes due to Unsafe Speed by Crash Type (January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2025)
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) i50
100
50 0
246 Crasru,_
1 - Fatal 2 - Injury (Severe) 3 - Injury (Other 4 - Injury Visible) (Complaint of
Pain)
Crash Severity
0 1 ra.yl 2 Injury (Severe) 0 3 - Injury (Other Visible) 0 4 - Injury (Complaint of Pain) Figure 3: Number of Crashes due to Unsafe Speed by Crash Severity (January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2025)
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 16
07 /2026 City Council Agenda 610
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE - Phase II SPEECED D f ` r ENFOR
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS 9Y
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
To evaluate the collision behavior of each street segment, the calculated collision rate for each segment was compared to the average statewide collision rates for streets with comparable characteristics. The results of the accident analysis for the eleven (11) surveyed roadway segments are summarized in Tables 3.
Table 3: Collision Data Summary and Analysis for New and Updated Segments
ROADWAY
INFORM
Segment Limits
'
A TION
Roadway Type
--' Direction
Length
ADT
COLLISION ANALYSIS
I Collision Rafe
Numberof --
Street
F
From
TO
No of
Division of Travel i
(mi.)
! (vpd)
Collisions'
Expected'
Calculated'
Lanes'
i
7i7
i (A/MVM)
(A/MVMJ
13th Street
19 'Ave E
Oak Glen Rd
2 U
NYS i
0.53 2.366
4 0 90
1.75 Avenue E
25 Yucaipa Blvd
16th St
2 U/D
E(W
0.91 3,059
5 0.90
0.98 Bryant Street
36 Date Ave
Yucaipa Blvd
4 D
Nis
0.50 13863 863
10 109
1.01 Oak Glen Road
77 Northeast City Limits i Cherry Croft Or
2 U
NS
1.95 1,537
6 0.90
1.10 Oak Glen Road
I
78 Cherry CroftiDr/Jefferson St
'Bryant St
2 U
WS
0.86 14,550
5 0.90
0.70 Wildwood Canyon Road
91 Bryant St
Fbhnes St
2 U i
E/W I
0.75 6,705
11 0.90
1 20
Wildwood Canyon Road
93 [Mesa Grande or
;Oak Mesa Dr
2 U
FJW
1.03 5.339
7 1
1 0.90
0.70 Wildwood Canyon Road
94 :Oak Mesa Or
;Oak Glen Rd
2 U '
ItI
ENV I
1.58 3,730
0 i 0.90
0.00 Colorado Street
101 Wildwood Canyon
81h St
2 U 1
EfW 11I
0.49 ,
2,455
0 0.90
0.00 Colorado Street
102 81h St
9lh St
2 U
FlW ]
0.25 i 1,867
0 0.90
0.00 Colorado Street 1
103 9th St
10th St
2 i
U
E/W
0.33 1,386
0 0.90
0.00 Notes:
(1] Includes both directions of traffic on the selected roadway segment [2] Over a 5-year period from 111121 to 12/31/25. Data compiled from U.C. Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). [3] Collisions pertaining to unsafe speed as the primary collision factor. [4] Per Mllion Vehicle Mles (WM)
[5] Collisions per Mllion Vehicle -Mies of Travel = W. of Collisions x 1,000,000 ADTx Distance x No. of Days
w here:
No, of Collisions = Total number of speed -related collisions recorded on the segment for period of 5.00 years (1826 days) ADT= Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day, both directions of traffic except for one-sided segments as indicated) Distance = Total length ofsegment (miles)
No. of Days = 365 days for a duration period of 1.00 years of collision data Bold/Underline = Calculated collision rate is higher than the expected rate for a similar roadway type LEGEND
ADT: Average Daily Traffic (in vehicles per day, both directions of traffic) A/MVM: Accidents Per Million Vehicle Miles
D: Divided
U: Undivided
Survey of Street Segments
Minagar & Associates, Inc. staff also evaluated each of the eleven (11) roadway segments to observe the following existing roadway, roadside and traffic conditions, and identify individual or combined factors which may not be readily apparent to drivers.
Segment length
■ Roadway pavement width
■ Number of travel lanes
■ Center median division
■ Type and frequency of traffic controls on the primary road Sight distance and visibility of driveways and side street traffic due to:
o Horizontal curvature
o Vertical alignment and grade shifts
I' MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 12026 City Council Agenda
17 611
_-> 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II UDA'l for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTSCITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
o On -street parking
o Large street trees planted in the median and/or adjacent parkway(s) o Two-way left turn traffic in the center lane
o Offset or skewed intersection approaches
v Roadway lighting
v Abutting land use density and property access along the roadway ■ Commercial and residential driveway spacing
■ Bicyclists and bike lanes/routes
it Heavy vehicle, golf cart, and NEV/LSV traffic
Pedestrians, crosswalks, sidewalks, school children walking along roadway due to the absence or discontinuity of sidewalks
These characteristics are described for each segment in the summary sheets provided in Appendix D.
6 — Engineering & Traffic Survey Results and Recommendations This Engineering & Traffic Survey update is intended to evaluate and validate posted speed limits for eleven (11) surveyed roadway segments within the City of Yucaipa, based on a thorough evaluation of the collected data and standard speed zoning practice. Prima Facie speed limits serve to advise drivers and law enforcement of what is the reasonable and prudent speed under normal conditions.
The field radar -measured 85th percentile speed was rounded to the nearest upper or lower 5-MPH increment, as appropriate, and used as the recommended posted speed limit. Where other significant factors were demonstrated, such as an above -average collision rate; traffic, roadway and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver; and/or the need to consider legal prima facie speed limits, the presumptive speed limit was adjusted upward or downward by a 5 mile per hour increment to the final recommended posted speed. In some cases where the roadway segment is located along a "local street" as designated by the California Road System (CRS), several of the existing posted speed limits are proposed to maintain as -is, notwithstanding presumptive posted speed limit, in order to meet the needs of the local community and prevailing road users in accordance with applicable provisions of the CVC (§40802, §22358, §22352, §22354, §22357, and 22358.3) allowing the local authority to do so.
The findings of this E&TS indicate that eight (8) of the eleven (11) surveyed roadway segments evaluated as part of this update are recommended to remain unchanged. Three (3) roadway segments are recommended for a decrease in posted limit. The three (3) newly evaluated Colorado Street segments are recommended to be posted at 35 MPH. The recommended speed limits are based on prevailing speeds, collision history, traffic volumes, roadway characteristics, and surrounding land use conditions documented within this report.
The recommended speed limit decreases include Segment No. 36 on Bryant Street from Date Avenue to Yucaipa Boulevard, Segment No. 78 on Oak Glen Road from Cherry Croft i'; MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 18
0 /2026 City Council Agenda 612
-- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE— Phase II E FORCED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Rr
RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Drive/Jefferson Street to Bryant Street, and Segment No. 91 on Wildwood Canyon Road from Bryant Street to Holmes Street. No increases to existing posted speed limits are recommended as part of this Engineering & Traffic Survey update.
See Appendix C for a summary of the above findings and recommendations for each segment. 7 — Applicable Vehicle Codes
The following codes were considered relevant in preparing the E&T Survey Report as provided in the 2026 California Vehicle Code (CVC):
■ 235 Business District
A "business district' is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 240 Business and Residence Districts: Determination
In determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the following limitations shall apply and qualify the definitions in Sections 235 & 515:
(a) No building shall be regarded unless its entrance faces the highway and the front of the building is within 75 feet of the roadway. (b) Where a highway is physically divided into two or more roadways only those buildings facing each roadway separately shall be regarded for the purpose of determining whether the roadway is within a district. (c) All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, & public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures. (d) A highway or portion of a highway shall not be deemed to be within a district regardless of the number of buildings upon the contiguous property if there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from the contiguous property.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 515 Residence District
A "residence district' is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than MINAGAR 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
19 0i; 2026 City Council Agenda 613
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
one -quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 627 Engineering and Traffic Survey
(a) Engineering and traffic survey," as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities. (b) An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:
(1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.
(2) Accident records.
(3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
(c) When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities, in addition to the factors set forth in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b) may consider all of the following:
(1) Residential density, if any of the following conditions exist on the particular portion of highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district:
(A) Upon one side of the highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is
occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or
business structures.
(B) Upon both sides of the highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.
(C) The portion of highway is longer than one -quarter of a mile but has the ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway described in either subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, with increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 690, Sec. 1. (AB 43) Effective January 1, 2022.) ■ 21400 Uniform Standards
(a) The Department of Transportation shall, after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach i MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20
07 12026 City Council Agenda 614
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SP IA�DJA�
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
signs, street name signs, lines and markings on the roadway, and stock crossing signs placed pursuant to Section 21364.
(b) The Department of Transportation shall, after notice and public hearing, determine and publicize the specifications for uniform types of warning signs, lights, and devices to be placed upon a highway by a person engaged in performing work that interferes with or endangers the safe movement of traffic upon that highway.
(c) Only those signs, lights, and devices as are provided for in this section shall be placed upon a highway to warn traffic of work that is being performed on the highway.
(d) Control devices or markings installed upon traffic barriers on or after January 1, 1984, shall conform to the uniform standards and specifications required by this section.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 690, Sec. 2. (AB 43) Effective January 1, 2022.) ■ 22349 Maximum Speed Limit
(a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. For purposes of this subdivision, the following apply:
(1) A two-lane, undivided highway is a highway with not more than one through lane of travel in each direction.
(2) Passing lanes may not be considered when determining the number of through lanes.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that there be reasonable signing on affected two-lane, undivided highways described in subdivision (b) in continuing the 55 miles -per -hour speed limit, including placing signs at county boundaries to the extent possible, and at other appropriate locations.
(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 724, Sec. 41. Effective January 1, 2000.) ■ 22350
asic pee aw
No person shall drive a vehicle upon a
highway at a speed greater than is
reasonable or prudent having due regard for
weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the
surface and width of, the highway, and in no
event at a speed which endangers the safety
of persons or property.
"No Person Shall Drive a
Vehicle Upon a Highway at a
Speed Greater Than is
Reasonable or Prudent..."
Basic Speed Law
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
DI /Ch7/Art1 /§22350
(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 724, Sec. 41. Effective Jan. 1, 2000.) ■ 22351 Speed Law Violations
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 21
07 /2026 City Council Agenda 615
:_i- -- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SREED
ENFDACED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
(a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 22352 Prima Facie Speed Limits
(a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
(1) Fifteen miles per hour:
(A) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100 feet of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of an tr ffith R f
20 MPH
SPEED LIMIT
"When approaching
or passing a school
building or school
grounds where a
20 MPH school -zone
speed limit has been
properly established
and posted"
- Prima Facie Speed
Limits: 20mph, California
Vehicle Code (CVC)
§22358.4 AB 382
y a s on e rai way or a distance of 400 feet in both
directions along the railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway grade crossing where a human flagperson is on duty or a clearly visible electrical or mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car.
(B) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the last 100 feet of the driver's approach to the intersection the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals.
(C) On any alley.
(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:
(A) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning
sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard
�. MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 /2026 City Council Agenda
22 WEIR
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
ERFORCEO
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
"SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.
(B) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning
sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard
"SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds. (C) When passing
a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority may erect a sign pursuant to this paragraph when the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may
request grant funding from the Active Transportation
Program pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
2380) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other grant funding available to it, and use that grant funding to pay for the erection of those signs, or may utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs, including, but not limited to, donations from private sources.
(Amended by Stats. 20121, Ch. 690, Sec. 3 (AB 43) Effective Jan. 1, 2022.) IN 22357 Increase of Local Speed Limits to 65 Miles Per Hour (a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The declared prima facie or maximum speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street and shall not thereafter be revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. This section does not apply to any 25-mile-per-hour prima facie limit which is applicable when passing MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 23
07 /2026 City Council Agenda 617
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS EHPDRCED
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA er
RADAR
a school building or the grounds thereof or when passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens.
(b) This section shall become operative on the date specified in subdivision (c) of Section 22366.
(Repealed (in Sec. 28) and added by Stats. 1995, Ch. 766, Sec. 29. Effective January 1, 1996. This section became operative, by its own provisions, on the date described in Section 22366.) ■ 22357.1 Decrease Near Children's Playgrounds
Notwithstanding Section 22357, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, set a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour on any street, other than a state highway, adjacent to any children's playground in a public park but only during particular hours or days when children are expected to use the facilities. The 25 mile per hour speed limit shall be effective when signs giving notice of the speed limit are posted.
(Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 508, Sec. 1.)
■ 22358 Decrease of Local Speed Limits
(a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the limit of 65 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of any street other than a state highway where the limit of 65 miles per hour is applicable, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, or 15 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared prima facie limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street. (b) This section shall become operative on the date specified in subdivision (c) of Section 22366.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 690, Sec. 5 (AB43) Effective Jan. 1, 2022.) ■ 22358.4 Decrease of Local Limits Near Schools or Senior Centers (a)
(1) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit established by subdivision (b) of Section 22352 is more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 15 miles per hour if justified as the appropriate speed limit by that survey.
(2) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway.
(b)
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 618
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED �'
j for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
J" CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA NADAR ENFDNCED
(c)
(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare prima facie speed limits as follows:
(A) A 15 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, in a school zone. (B) A 25 miles per hour prima facie limit on a highway when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, a school zone. (2) The prima facie limit established under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) applies only to highways that meet all of the following conditions:
(A) A maximum of two traffic lanes.
(B) A maximum posted 30 miles per hour prima facie speed limit immediately prior to and after the school zone.
(3) The prima facie limits established under paragraph (1) apply to all lanes of an affected highway, in both directions of travel.
(4) When determining the need to lower the prima facie speed limit, the local authority shall take the provisions of Section 627 into consideration. (5) (A) An ordinance or resolution adopted under paragraph (1) shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice of the speed limit are erected upon the highway and, in the case of a state highway, until the ordinance is approved by the Department of Transportation and the appropriate signs are erected upon the highway.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 15 miles per hour may be placed at a distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.
(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), school warning signs indicating a speed limit of 25 miles per hour may be placed at any distance between 500 and 1,000 feet away from the school grounds. (D) A local authority shall reimburse the Department of Transportation for all costs incurred by the department under this subdivision.
For purposes of this section, "school zone" has the same meaning as defined in Section 22352.
(Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 208, Sec. 15. (AB 2906) Effective January 1, 2026.) ■ 22358.5 Downward Speed Zoning
It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of Section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions. (Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 11.)
■ 22358.7 Additional Reduction of Local Speed Limits (AB 1014) i : MINAGAR 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
25 0 026 City Council Agenda 619
-- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase If SPEED
EHFDRCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
(a) If the Department of Transportation or a local authority, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, the Department of Transportation may or the local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour for either or both of the following reasons:
(1) The portion of highway has been designated as a safety corridor. (2) The portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch 287, Sec. 3. (AB1014) Effective January 1, 2026) ■ 22359 Boundary Line Streets
With respect to boundary line streets and
highways where portions thereof are within
different jurisdictions, no ordinance adopted
under Sections 22357 and 22358 shall be
effective as to any such portion until all
authorities having jurisdiction of the portions of
the street concerned have approved the same.
This section shall not apply in the case of
boundary line streets consisting of separate
roadways within different jurisdictions.
(Amended by Stats. 163, Ch. 209.)
■ 22361 Multiple -Lane Highways
On multiple -lane highways with two or more
separate roadways different prima facie speed
limits may be established for different roadways
under any of the procedures specified in Sections
22354 to 22359, inclusive.
(Amended by Stats. 1963, Ch. 209.)
"No ordinance... shall be
effective... until all
authorities having
jurisdiction of the portions
of the street concerned
have approved the same."
(Does not include boundary
line streets consisting of
separate roadways within
different jurisdictions)
- Boundary Line Streets
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
DI /Ch7/Art1 /§22359
AB 1014
Additional 5 MPH
Speed Reduction
"A local authority may
reduce a speed limit an
additional 5 MPH where a
safety corridor exists or
where adjacent land uses
generate high
concentrations of
bicyclists or pedestrians."
AB 1014
- California Vehicle Code
(CVC) §22358.7 AB 1014
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 12 26 City Council Agenda
26 620
- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase If EN ORCED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Rr
R
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADA
40801 S
■ peed Trap Prohlbltlon
No peace officer or other person shall use a
speed trap in arresting, or participating or
assisting in the arrest of, any person for any
alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed
trap be used in securing evidence as to the
speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest
or prosecution under this code.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
■ 40802 Speed Traps
(a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway
measured as to distance and with
boundari k d d; t d
"No peace officer or
other person shall use a
speed trap in
arresting...any person for
any alleged violation of
this code, nor shall any
speed trap be used in
securing evidence as to
the speed of any
vehicle..."
es mar e , eslgna e ,
or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone. (b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as "local" on the "California Road System Maps," that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the "California Road System Maps," it may be defined as a "local street or road" if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length.
Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section, "school zone" means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. "School zone" also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, M[NAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 /2026 City Council Agenda
27 621
-- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase III E E.,, � - for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.
(3) For purposes of this section, "senior zone" means that area approaching or passing a senior center building or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SENIOR" warning sign, pursuant to Section 22352.
(4) For purposes of this section, "business activity district" means a section of highway described in subdivision (b) of Section 22358.9 in which a standard 25 miles per hour or 20 miles per hour speed limit sign has been posted pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of that section.
(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was
approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in
subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of
subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(d) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.
(2) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 /2026 City Council Agenda
28 622
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II ENFOflCEO 4 for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS I BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA !2
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise
determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be
calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(B)
(i) A particular section of a highway or state highway
with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established
under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if
that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an
engineering and traffic survey conducted within one
of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit
involves the use of radar or any other electronic
device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(1) Except as specified in subclause (11), seven
years.
(11) If an engineering and traffic survey was
conducted more than seven years prior to the
date of the alleged violation, and a registered
engineer evaluates the section of the
highway and determines that no significant
changes in roadway or traffic conditions have
occurred, including, but not limited to,
changes in adjoining property or land use,
roadway width, or traffic volume, 14 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone, senior zone, business activity
district, or speed limit adopted under Section
22358.7 or 22358.8.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 406, Sec. 5. (AB 1938) Effective January 1, 2023.) ■ 40803 Speed Trap Evidence
(a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap. (b) In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speedtrap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802.
(c) When a traffic and engineering survey is required pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802, evidence that a traffic and M[NAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 29
0 12 26 City Council Agenda 623
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS ERFDREED
BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
engineering survey has been conducted within five years of the date of the alleged violation or evidence that the offense was committed on a local street or road as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802 shall constitute a prima facie case that the evidence or testimony is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802.
(Amended by Stats. 1996, Ch. 124, Sec. 147. Effective January 1, 1997.) i : MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 30
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 624
:_- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II EIIrORCED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RaoAa
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA ?I
8 - References
1. 2026 California Vehicle Codes (CVC)
- Division 1: Words and Phrases Defined. §100-681
- Division 11: Rules of the Road. Chapter 7, Article 1: Generally (Speed Laws). §22348- 22413
- Division 17: Offenses and Prosecution. Chapter 3, Article 1: Prosecutions Under Code. §40800-40808
2. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), Jan.18, 2026 - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as amended for use in California. - Chapter 2B: Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates
- Sections 2B.13 and 2B.18
3. Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD, 11th Edition, Revision 1, Dec. 2025)
4. Citywide Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) Reports Conducted and Prepared by Minagar & Associates, Inc.
Minagar & Associates, Inc.'s 32 Citywide E&TS Projects in Southern California Contract
No of Speed
Agency
County
Year
MUTCD Version
Zone
Segments
1 City of Rancho Mirage
Riverside
2026
CAMUTCD 2026 (Jan 18 2026)
7 2
e
City of Norco
Riverside
2025
CAMUTCD 2014 (Rev 9 2025)
78 3
City of South Gate
Los Angeles
2025
CALIUTCD 2014 (Rev 9 2025)
49 4
City of South Pasadena
Los Angeles
2025
CALIUTCD 2014 (Rev 9 2025)
58 5
City of Hawaiian Gardens
Los Angeles
2024
CAI'•;IUTCD 2014 (Rev 8 2024)
38 6
City of Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles
2024
CAMUTCD 2014 (Rev 7 2024)
118
7 City of Yucaipa
San Bernardino
2023
CA;lUTCD 2014 (Rev 7 2024)
100
8 City of Rancho Mirage
Riverside
2023
CAMUTCD 2014 (Rev 7 2024)
67 9
City of Solona Beach
San Diego
2023
CArr1UTCD 2014 (Rev 7 2024)
29 10
Q
City of Needles
San Bernardino
2022
CAl`AUTCD 2014 (Rev 6 2024)
21 11
City of Colton
San Bernardino
2022
CAMUTCD 2014 (Rev 6 2024)
44 12
City of South Gate
Los Angeles
2021-2022
CAMUTCD 2014 (Rev 6 2024)
49 13
City of Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles
2021-2022
CAf IUTCD 2014 (Rev 6 2024)
115
14 City of Pomona
Los Angeles
2020-2021
CANIUTCD 2014 (Rev 5 2024)
131
15 City of Beaumont
Riverside
2017-2018
CAI•;IUTCD 2014 (Rev 2 2024)
48 16
City of Bell
Los Angeles
2017
CAh•;1UTCD 2014 (Rev 2 2024)
14 17
City of Rancho Mirage
Riverside
2017
CA(AUTCD 2014 (Rev 2. 2024)
66 18
City of Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles
2016-2017
CAr•AUTCD 2014 (Rev 1 2024)
115
19 City of South Pasadena
Los Angeles
2014-2015
CAMUTCD 2014
60 20
City of Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles
2014
CAr•AUTCD 2012
115
21 City of Colton
San Bernardino
2013-2014
CAMUTCD 2012
44 22
City of Culver City
Los Angeles
2013
CAMUTCD 2012
70 23
City of Lawndale
Los Angeles
2013
CAIAUTC❑ 2012
22 24
City of South Pasadena
Los Angeles
2012
CAMUTCD 2012
5 25
a
City of San Marino
Los Angeles
2011
CAMLITCD 2010
59 26
City of South Pasadena
Los Angeles
2010
CAMUTCD 2010
6 27
City of Manhattan Beach
Los Angeles
2010
CAr•,1UTCD 2010 (2009 Rev)
51 28
01 City of Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles
2009
CAMUTCD 2006
115
29 {_;
City of Baldwin Park
Los Angeles
2009
CAMUTCD 2006
54 30
w)
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
Orange County
2004
P,iUTCD 2003 (CA Supp)
11 31
{ ,
City of Baldwin Park
Los Angeles
2004
rAUTCD (CA Supp)
54 32
City of Redondo Beach
Los Angeles
2003
MUTCD
57 E&TS Projects - Total Radar Speed Zone Segments Surveyed as of May 27, 2026
1.870
QMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 31
0026 City Council Agenda 625
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS ENFB@EED
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
Appendix A
2026 Citywide E&TS Update Map of
Recommended Speed Limits for Selected
Roadway Segments
i. MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07J27 ,2026 City Council Agenda
626
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
i t-I I T Ur TUGAIF'A, l;A
Proposed Posted Speed Limit
25 I 35 50
MPH APH M
School Location
City Limits R�n2nL o
OUNTY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
o
N
z
m
UNINCORPORATED
w
ix
N
Z
LL
Z
�z
}
m
w
��� HEIGHTS Ro
a�o
7 N
OAK GLEN RD�
PpMpN
CAMPUS09' G� N
DvRD
y'G
ti y N N N N o r
OP
DATE AVE
5 TENNESSEE ST YUCAIPA VD
YUCAIPA BLVD
AVE D . �
AVE E
I
r r r
~
~
N AVE E
/-
AVEE
DUNLAFgIVD KENTUCKY
a
z
n
r
T ^
N r
o
O
i
OUNTY ooLoRADo
J
a
a:O
w
o
of
LL
'A' CERN 1RnINO
COUNTY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
U
BELLA
VISTA DR
O
CITY OF �O�
REDLANDS61
CACIMESA WILDWOOD CANYON DR
2 �V
AVE H
=
Q
W/EDWOODCANYONDR p
=
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
--
F r
—— Z-----
h
m
(n
———
U)
————'—— —— ————
con
—————————— — — — --—— — — — — ——
U1 o
.
Q
F
fN
f
2 W
N
J
m
o
0 LL
Q
U
CITY OF YUCAIPA 2026 CITYWIDE
MINAGAR Sc ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEE(EBTS) UPDATE ING & TRAFFIC SURVEY ��/�l'�jyfj y �' Jul 15, 2026
33 !MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 627
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS EirBYCED
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA PADAR
Appendix B
2023 Citywide E&TS Map of Posted Speed
Limits
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 /2026 City Council Agenda
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
SPEED
ENFORCED
BY
RADAR
Proposed Posted Speed Limit
25 I 35
45 MPH
MPH I
IVY AVE
School Location
)GIPAPCAVE
CARTERST
City Limits
�� Rca : nnE,�
FCOUNTY' NSAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY
U)UNINCORPORATEDzFIR
AVE LLw
N
N
7 2Q
Q-�
�
OAK GLEN RD
c
9.I,
YON�
�r
�.G �
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CAMPUSO'�
MANNEIG14TSRp
UNINCORPORATED
DATE AVE
1+
h
pR
H
rA
YUCAIPA BLVD
TENNESSEE ST
o
s�
1 in
N
H
to
in
"
r
VE'D
!o��
a~i
(fl N
WEE'
AVE Ee`r.
Z
z
O
4,
C
ST
m
i�
�o
u>
a
iV
of
Q cD
K O
i
yg�
`t
�LORAD06(�
BELLA VISTA DR
O
CITY OF p��
CA(�FSq
e(VD
WI
WOOD C
NYON DR
REDLANDS
�GP�i
�2o�oa
AVE H
=
W�LDWOOD
CANYON
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
-----
—--------------------------------
OR
_ _____ _
RIVERSIDE COUNTY — —
r F u~i En u~i
0 (n
` �-
►
N a z a
min ' K > CD
z W
O E
N
LL K 0
m O
a o
K 2
LL
U
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CITY OF YUCAIPA 2023``
CITYWIDE ENGINEERING &
JANUARY 5, 2024
TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS)
01 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
35 629
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase If FSPEEo for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS EAAOApEO
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Appendix C
Summary of Recommended Changes to
Posted Speed Limits
r. MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 � J2026 City Council Agenda
630
'
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE —Phase 11 SPEED
ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS By
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
SEGMENT
INFORMATION
SPEED
ANALYSIS
ZONING
No. ............................ I ......................
Limits
...............................................
Speed Limit (mph)
Street
From
I TO
...............
Ex
.....................
85th
Rec.
Change
13th Street
19 :Ave E
:Oak Glen Rd
35 40
35 -
Avenue E
25 :Yucaipa Blvd
1 6th St
35 39
35 -
Bryant Street
36 Date Ave
:Yucaipa Blvd
45 44
40 Decrease
Oak Glen Road
77 :Northeast City Limits :Cherry Croft Dr
50 53
50 Oak Glen Road
:Cherry
78 : Croft
:Dr/Jefferson
:Bryant St
50 49
45 Decrease
St
Wildwood Canyon Road
91 Bryant St
Holmes St
45 46
40 Decrease
Wildwood Canyon Road
93 :Mesa Grande Dr
Oak Mesa Dr
45 :49
45 -
Wildwood Canyon Road
94 :Oak Mesa Dr
Oak Glen Rd
45 51
45 Colorado Street
101 :Wildwood Canyon Rd 18th St
35 42
35 Colorado Street
102 :8th St
:9th St
35 36
35 Colorado Street
103 :9th St
1 Oth St
35 40
35 Ex: Existing Prima Facie Speed
Lin -it
85th: Eighty-fifth Percentile Survey
Speed
Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
Adak.
07RI NAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
712726 City Council Agenda
631
�=r 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE - Phase II 7 EIFORCaEO for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS 1 8Y
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA L!2!Lj
Appendix D
Roadway Segment Analysis of Factors Not
Readily Apparent and Traffic Data Summary
Sheets
MINAGAR 8, ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 2026 City Council Agenda
632
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II ENFORCCD SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Dr
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 19 13th Street
lAve E to Oak Glen Rd
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 9:30 PM - 10:00 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
40 Miles
10 MPH Pace
32-41 MPH
Percent in Pace
69%
Posted Speed Limit
35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
1 Total Accidents
4 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rafe
1.75 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Tratric
2366 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Trafic Controls
Stop - Oak Glen/Ave E
Crosswalks
At Ave E (sch)
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Few/Few
Truck Traftic
No
On -Street Parking
Yes
Other
Areas of wide and narrow roadway with no schoulders, areas of no parking 4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
0.53 Miles
Vertical Curve
Slight gradual up/downhill grades, dips at intersections Horizontal Curve
None
Lateral Visibility
Good
Road Conditions
Good
Sidewalk/Driveways
No/Yes
Street Lighting
No
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Business
35 MPH
Speed Limit Change
No Change
Justification
Due to calculated collision rate
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify thatthis Engineering and Traffic surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed undermy supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this
type a nd am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines
contained in the most currentversions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data containedin this report represents a trueand accurate description of traff cconditions existing on Yucaipa's streets.
RCE #53466 6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
OMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
tU MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
633
- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED i �" �"ENrORCED
% for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA. CA RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 25 Avenue E
Yucaipa Blvd to 16th St
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 9:00 PM - 9:30 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
39 Miles
10 MPH Pace
30-39 MPH
Percent in Pace
78%
Posted Speed Limit
35 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
1 Total Accidents
5 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rath
0.98 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
3059 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Traffic Controls
Signal - Yucaipa/Oak Glen / Stop - 12th/13th/14th/16th/Dunlap (EB only) Crosswalks
at Yucaipa/Oak Glen/12th (sch)/13th (sch)
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Yes/Few
Truck Traffic
No
On -Street Parking
Yes
Other
"Cross traffic does not stop" at 161h, equestrian xing
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length ofSegrnent
0.91 Miles
Vertical Curve
Slight up/downhil grades
Horizontal Curve
Slight"S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Good
Road Conditions
Poor
Sidewalk/Driveways
Partial/Yes (Many)
Street Lighting
No
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, School, Civic & Institutional
35 MPH
Speed Limit Change
No Change
Justification
Due to calculated collision rate
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Mina gar do herby certifVth at this Engineering and Traffic Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed under my supervision.I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys oft his type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in them ostcurrentversions oft he California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manua Ion Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents at rue and accurate description of traffic conditions existing
on Yucaipa'sstreets.
dRCE#53466
6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
i ; MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
IQW
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
634
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase 11 SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Ry
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 361 Bryant Street
Date Ave to Yucaipa Blvd
DATE: 7/15/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 2:20 PM - 2:40 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
44 Miles
10 MPH Pace
35-44 MPH
Percent in Pace
79%
Posted Speed Limit
45 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
3 Total Accidents
10 Expected Collision Rate
1.09 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
1.01 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
10863 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
2 Lane Per Direction
Trafic Controls
Signal - Yucaipa / Stop - Date
Crosswalks
At Dale/Yucaipa
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Yes/Yes
TruckTrafic
Yes
On -Street Parking
No
Other
No shoulders/red curb entire segment
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
0.5 Miles
Vertical Curve
Slight up/downhill grades
Horizontal Curve
None
Lateral Visibility
Good
Road Conditions
Fair
Sidewalk/Driveways
PartiaVYes
StreetLightng
Yes
Other
Divided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Commercial
40 MPH
Speed Limit Change
DECREASE
Justification
Due to current 85th percentile speed, allowable rounding to the lower 5-MPH increment and residential/commercial settin .
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify thatthis Engineering and Traffic Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed undermy supervision. I certify that I am both experiencedin performing surveys of this
type and am duly registered in the State ofCalifornia as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines
contained in the most currentversions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of trafficconditions existing
on Yucaipa's streets.
4 RCE #53466 7/15/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
OMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
t': MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
635
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING $ TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEE° xs' for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RA°AR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 77 Oak Glen Road
Northeast City Limits to Cherry Croft Dr
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 3:00 PM - 3:25 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
53 Miles
10 MPH Pace
44-53 MPH
Percent in Pace
63%
Posted Speed Limit
50 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
3 Total Accidents
6 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
1.10 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Trafic
1537 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Trafic Controls
None
Crosswalks
None
Pedestrian/Bicycles
No/Few
Truck Trafic
Yes
On -Street Parking
No
Other
Areas of narrow roadway with no shoulders
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
1,95 Miles
Vertical Curve
Gradual -moderate up/downhill grades
Horizontal Curve
Gradual -sweeping 'S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Limited sight distance
Road Conditions
Poor
Sidewalk/Driveways
No/Few
Steel Lighting
No
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Open Space
50 MPH
Speed Limit Change
No Change
Justification
Due to calculated collision rate
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify thatthis Engineering and Traffic Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed undermy supervision. I certify that I am both experienced i n performing surveys of this
type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The survey has been conductedin strict compliance with guidelines
contained in the most currentversionsof the California Vehicle Code(CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description oftrafflc conditions existing on Yucaipa's streets.
RCE #53466 6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
CMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
r MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED j for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 78 Oak Glen Road
JCherry Croft Dr/Jefferson St to Bryant St
DATE: 7/15/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 2:40 PM - 3:00 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
49 Miles
10 MPH Pace
39-48 MPH
Percent in Pace
57%
Posted Speed Limit
50 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed-Relaed Accidents
0 Total Accidents
5 Expected Collision Rat
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
0.70 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Trafic
4550 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Traffic Controls
Signal - Bryant
Crosswalks
At Bryant
Pedestrian/Bicycles
NoNes
Truck Traffic
Yes
On -Street Parking
No
Other
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
0,86 Miles
Vertical Curve
Gradual -moderate up/downhill grades
Horizontal Curve
Slight"S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Good
Road Conditions
Poor
Sidewalk/Driveways
Partial/Few
Street Lighting
Yes
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Commercial
45 MPH
Speed Limit Change
DECREASE
Justification
Due to current 85th percentile speed, allowable rounding to the lower 5-M PH increment, and residential/commercial setting.
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify thatthis Engineering and Traffic Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed undermy supervision. I certify that I am both expenencedin performing surveysof thistypeand am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description oftrafficconditions existing
on Yucaipa's streets.
4 L
RCE #53466 7/15/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
aMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
a
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
637
=- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase If SPEED '1 for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RaoaR
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 91 Wildwood Canyon Road
Bryant St to Holmes St
DATE: 7/15/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 1:15 PM - 1:35 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentle
46 Miles
10 MPH Pace
38-47 MPH
Percent in Pace
78%
Posted Speed Limit
45 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
2 Total Accidents
11 Expected Collision Rafe
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
1.20 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
6705 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Trattc Controls
Stop - Bryant/ Holmes
Crosswalks
None
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Few/No
Truck Traffic
Few/No
On -Street Parking
Partial
Other
Areas of no parking anytime, areas of narrow roadway with no shoulders 4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
0.75 Miles
Vertical Curve
Gradual -moderate up/downhill grades
Horizontal Curve
Slight"S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Limited sight distance
Road Conditions
Fair
Sidewalk/Driveways
NoNes
Street Lighting
Yes
Otter
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
40 MPH
Speed Limit Change
DECREASE
Justfcation
Due to residential setting and calculated collision rate exceeding the expected rate.
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar dolnerbycertifythatthis Engineering and Traffic SurveVforthe City of Yucaipa was performed undermy supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys ofthis
type a nd am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conductedin strict compliance with guidelines
contained in the most currentversionsofthe California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department ofTra nsportation Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existingon Yucaipa's
streets.
4 RCE #53466 7/15/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
OIUIINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
1 6
- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED ' for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS flY
CITY OF YUCAIPA. CA RADAfl
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 93 Wildwood Canyon Road
I Mesa Grande Dr to Oak Mesa Dr
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 1:35 PM - 1:55 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85(h Percentile
49 Miles
10 MPH Pace
41-50 MPH
Percent in Pace
79%
Posted Speed Limit
45 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
1 Total Accidents
7 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
0.70 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Trafic
5339 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Trafic Controls
Slop - Mesa Grande
Crosswalks
At Mesa Grande / Canyon
Pedestrian/Bicycles
No/Few
Truck Trafic
Few
On -Street Parking
No parking anytime
Other
Areas of narrow roadway with no shoulder
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
1.03 Miles
Vertical Curve
Constantslight-gradual up/downhill grades
Horizontal Curve
Constant gradual -moderate "S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Limited sightdistance
Road Conditions
Good
Sidewalk/Driveways
No/No
Street Lighting
Yes
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Park, Open Space
45 MPH
Speed Limit Change
No Change
Justification
Due to current 85th percentile speed & residential setting
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify thatthis Engineering and Traffic Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type a nd am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most currentversions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on Yucaipa's streets.
RCE#53466 6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
MIINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
639
- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED �" ' ENfORLED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA. CA RADeR
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 94 Wildwood Canyon Road
10ak Mesa Dr to Oak Glen Rd
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 1:55 PM - 2:20 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
51 Miles
10 MPH Pace
43-52 MPH
Percent in Pace
77%
Posted Speed Limit
45 MPH
2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
0 Total Accidents
0 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rat
0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traft
3730 Vehicles Per Day
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Traffic Controls
Stop - Oak Glen
Crosswalks
None
Pedestrian/Bicycles
No/Few
Truck Traftic
Few
On -Street Parking
Perrrrtted
Other
Areas of narrow roadway with no shoulders
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
1.58 Miles
Vertical Curve
Gradual -moderate up/downhill grades
Horizonhal Curve
Grad ual-moderate "S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Limited sight distance
Road Conditions
Fair
Sidewalk/Driveways
No/No
Street Lighting
Yes
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Open Space
45 MPH
Speed Limit Change
No Change
Jusfification
Due to current 85th percentile speed & residential setting
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify thatthis Engineering and Traffic Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed undermy supervision. I certify that) am both experienced in performing surveys ofthis type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conductedin strict compliance with guidelines contained in the most current versions ofthe California Vehicle Code (CVC)and the California Department ofTra nsportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing
on Yucaipa's streets.
"
RCE #53466 6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
CMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
aMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
ME
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase 11 SREE° % for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RAD R
CITY OF YUCAIPA. CA
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 101 Colorado Street
Wildwood Canyon Rd to 8th St
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 12:15 PM - 1:15 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
42 Miles
10 MPH Pace
34-43 MPH
Percent in Pace
84%
Posted Speed Limit
35 2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
0 Total Accidents
0 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
2,455
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Trafic Controls
Stop - Wlldwood Canyon Rd / 81h St
Crosswalks
None
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Few/Few
Truck Traffic
No
On -Street Parking
Yes
Other
Areas of no parking anytime
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
0.49 Miles
Vertical Curve
Several slight up/downhil grades
Horizontal Curve
Several gradua to moderate 'S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Limited sightdislance
Road Conditions
Fair & Good
Sidewalk/Driveways
No/Many
Street Lighting
Yes
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Park
35 Speed Limit Change
No Change
Justification
Due to current 85th percentile speed & residential setting
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby certify thatthis Engineering
and Traffic Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experiencedin performing surveys ofthis type and am duly registeredin the State of California as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines
contained in the most current vers ions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) andthe California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniforn Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions emsting an Yucaipa's
streets.
RCE #53466 6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
OMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
641
- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SREE° r for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RAUAfl
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 102 Colorado Street
18th St to 9th St
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 10:50 AM - 12:15 PM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
36 10 MPH Pace
28-37
Percent in Pace
83%
Posted Speed Linn
35 2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
0 Total Accidents
0 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
1,867
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Traffic Controls
Stop - 8th St/ 9th St
Crosswalks
At Mission Dr / 91h St
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Few/Few
Truck Traffic
No
On -Sheet Parking
Yes
Other
Areas of no parking anytime
4- ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
0.25 Miles
Vertical Curve
Several slight up/downhil grades
Horizontal Curve
Several gradua to moderate "S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Limited sight distance
Road Conditions
Fair & Good
Sidewalk/Driveways
Partial/Many
Sheet Lighting
Yes
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Park
35 Speed Limit Change
No Change
Justification
Due to current85th percentile speed
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Minagar do herby cerdfy thatthis Engi neering a nd Traffc Surveyfor the City of Yucaipa was performed undermy supervision. I certify that I am both ex pe d en ced in p erfo rm ing s urveys of th is type and am duly registered in the State of Cal ifo rnia as a professional engineer. The su rvey has been conducted in strictcompliancewith guidel ines
contained in the most current versions ofthe Califomia Vehicle Code (CVC) a nd the California Department ofTra nsportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true a nd accurate description of traffic conditions epsti ng on Yucaipa's streets.
RCE 453466 6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
0MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AmIll
v. MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
642
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA. CA AAOAA
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2026CITYWIDE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (E&TS) REPORT 103 Colorado Street
9th St to 10th St
DATE: 6/11/2026
SURVEY BY: Counts Unlimited
TIME: 10:00 AM - 10:50 AM
CHECK BY: P Navarro
1- PREVAILING SPEED DATA
85th Percentile
40 10 MPH Pace
30-39
Percent in Pace
71 %
Posted Speed Limit
35 2 - ACCIDENT HISTORY
No. of Months Observed
60 Speed -Related Accidents
0 Total Accidents
0 Expected Collision Rate
0.90 (Speed Related Only)
Calculated Collision Rate
0.00 (Speed Related Only)
3 - TRAFFIC FACTORS
Average Daily Traffic
1,386
Lane Configuration
1 Lane Per Direction
Traffc Controls
Stop - 9th St/ 10th St
Crosswalks
None
Pedestrian/Bicycles
Few/Few
Truck Traffic
No
On -Street Parking
Yes
Other
Areas of no parking anytime
4 ROADWAY FACTORS
Length of Segment
0,33 Miles
Vertical Curve
Several slight up/downhil grades
Horizontal Curve
Several gradua to moderate "S" curves
Lateral Visibility
Limited sight distance
Road Conditions
Fair & Good
Sidewalk/Driveways
No/Many
Street Lighting
Yes
Other
Undivided
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Park
35 Speed Limit Change
No Change
Justification
Due to current85th percentile speed & residential setting
CERTIFICATION
I, Fred Mina gar do herby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Yucaipa was performed under my supervision. I certifythatI am both experienced in performing surveys of this
type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional engineer. The surveyhas been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines
contained in the most current versions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description oft4 iccOnd'rtionse�ipa's
streets.
"� /t{,n
RCE #53466 6/11/2026
Fred Minagar
State Registration No. Date
OMINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
i', MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
643
SPEED
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II r�srf for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RY
%'- RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA ENFDRCED
Appendix E
Radar Speed Survey Sheets
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 /2026 City Council Agenda
Ti i
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II j, for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
SPEED
ENFORCED
BY
RADAR
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Survey
ron
vehicles 5urveyerl
TOT
S'a
Ne
56 1b)n1lbound
So ut hhound
�
LVcatirn: want ltrl.et
Between: Date Avenue - Yucaipa Boulevard
Weather: Clear
Dale: 5 21 /26
Time
From: 2.20
Time
To: 240
Existing
Speed Limit: 45 MPH
65 o
1 65
134
63 62
61 60
59 58
57 56
55 54
53 52
51 50
49 48
47 46
45 44
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 1 20
19 18
17 16
15 0
0 0
0 0
64 63
a
o
o
o
12 61
a
a
o
o
so
5s
0 a
o
o
1 0
0 0
0 0
$41
57 0
o
o
o
56 ss I
o
c
0 c
54 53 I
c
o
o
0 0
0 0
0 52 I
51 c6
a
o
so I
d9
o
G
o
o
X
X
X X X x X
x x x
X
X x x
0 _
4 1
4 de
u
l
5 3
dG
45 c
1 1
3 "
5 3
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xx -xxxx
x x x x x
X X
_
x
x
x x x
xxxxxx
xxxxxxx
x x
X x X
6 13
14 7
43 12
71 1 7
5 6
-
P
A
C
E%
'
'
_ _
Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics
% Over Pace: 4% 0% 14 %
In Pace: 94% 72'S 79%
%Under Pace: 2% 28% 7%
Average Speed: 40 MPH 41 FAPH 41 MPH
Pace Speed: 35 - 44 MPH 39 - 48 MPH 35 - 44 MPH
do
35 2
.
5 x x x x
X X X X X
X
X X X
X X X X X
X
X X
x x x
X X x x
X X
xX
7 10
3 3
9 34
37 6
1 +
2 34
35 3
7 o
2 3d
33 o
1 2
2 X
X x
X X
x
x
_
3 1
1 0
32 c
3t
3o
a
n
2s
2e
o
o
o
o
0 0
0 0
0 15th Percentile / Critical Speed: 35 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 50th Percentile 1 Critical Speed: 41 MPH 42 MPH 41 MPH
27 26
o
o
o
0 25
24 e
o
o
o
85th Percentile / Critical Speed: 43 MPH 47 MPH 44 MPH
0 0
0 0
0 22
22 I o
0 o
Radar Survey Conducted By:
Counts Unlimited. Inc.
PO Box 1178
yya.rur� Corona. CA92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
21 20I
! c
0 0
,5
6 I c
o
0 0
0 0
0 7
s
( =
c
c
a
s
To1m
so
o
w
GRAND TOTALS
100
a; MINAGAR $ ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 27/2026 City Council Agenda
rls- k
«— 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS ENFORCED
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Survey
Mir
Vehicle, Smveyed
TOT
Sp..d
i E8
we
EacUroun..l
Weslbuun.l
11 P
A
C
E
'
'
'
Location: Oak Glen Road
Between: Cherry Croft Drive - CIN Limits
Weather: Clear
Date: S121i26
Time
FRon1: 300
Time
To: 3:25
Existing
Speed Limit: 50 NIPH
65 6r
1 c
1 0 1
65 64
63 62
61 60
59 58XXX
51 56
55 54
53 52
51 5o
49 48
47 46
45 44
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
1 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 t5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 K
0 1
3 X X
x
X
X
X
1 3
3 1
1 1
1 X X X X
X X X X X
xx
x
x X x
X X
X
x x x x
X x x x
x x x x x
X X
x
5 11
6 7
5 53
52 51
! 2
c
so
1=
2 as
AS
+
i 2
xxxx
X X-
X X
X
X X X X X
x
x x x
X X
XXxx
Ixx
5 5
4 5
7 17
16 1 2
1+
45 5
2 5
XXx
XX X X
X.X.
X X X
XXxxX
X
x
x %
x %
8 5
3 1
1 2
---.—..._----------
Eastbound Westbound Corlibined Statistics
% Over Pace: 4`0 16% 14%
% In Pace: 62% 6(% 63%
% under Pace: - 18%— 23%
Averacle Speed: 47 MPH 49 MPH 48 MPH
Pace Speed: 45 - 5.4 MPH 44 - 53 MPH 44 - 53 MPH
F
2 xxx
X x
xx
X
5 3
0 0
0 1
0 35
0 0
0 3a
33 0
0 0
-
0 0
0 0
0 32 c
31 30
25 0
a
- —
0 0
0 0
0 15th Percentile I Critical S )eed: 40 MPH 42 MPH 41 MPH 26 j c
27 0
o
1 0
_
50th Percentile I Critical Speed: 47 MPH 48 MPH 48 MPH
26 0
25 0
24 0
I o
0 0.-
85th Percentile 1 Critical Speed: 53 FAPH 54 MPH 53 MPH - ---- --
---- -
1 -----
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
23 0
22 0
0 Radar Survey Conducted By:
Counts Unlimited. Inc.
PO Box 1178
re�rur� Corona. CA92880
T 551-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
z, 1 0
20 0
0 o
i5 I r
6 `
0 0
0 0
0 a
u
s
ta„
o
GRAND TOTALS
100
qrINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
,026 City Council Agenda
MR
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
City of Yucaipa
Radar'Speed Survey
ran
velocles surveyed
70*
5,.d I
Es I
wa
Eastbound
westbound
cen
P
A
c
Location: Oak Glen Road
Between: Bryant Street - Cherry Croft Drive
Weather: Clear
Date: 5:21/26
Time
From: 240
Time
To: 3�00
Existing
Speed Limit: 50 MPH
ss
6a
C
o
e1
01 65
64 63
62 61
60 59
58 57
56 55
54 53
52 51
50 49
48 47
46 45
44 43
42 41
40 39
38 37
36 35
34 33
32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 0
0 0
0 0
0 63
62 —61
G
0 G
o 1
c
G
60 53
56 o
0 G
o
0 G
0 0
0 0
0 57 1
56 1
C
i
o
C
55 •c
-
o
1 X
X X
X X
X
X
X X X
X
X
1 t
4 3
3 c
1 52
51 ,
2 a
1 5o
45 2
1 3
X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X
X X X X
X X X
X X
XX
X
X X
- -
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X X X X
X
_
7 10
6 6
5 4s
47 5
1 3
5 66
45 6
5 1
u
43 3
2 2
1 XX
X
X X X
X X X
X
_
5 3
5 4
3 a2
i e
_e
5 1
E
'
Eastbound Westbound combined Statistics
% Over Pace: 345e 22!a 19%
% In Pace: 56% 60% 57°b
%under Pace: 10% 18% 24°a
Average Speed: 43 MPH 44 MPH 43 MPH
Pace Speed: 36 - 45 MPH 39 - 48 MPH 39 - 48 MPH
X X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X
XXXXXX
X X
X
X X X
X
10 5
_
6 pz
37 a
.
2 1
3e
2 3
35 31
.1
a
0 X
X
x
0 1
2 0
0 33
c
32 31
1 c
1 e
30 c
G
26 26
c
0 e
o
0 0
0 0
0 151h Percentile ! Critical Speed: 3t-, hIPH 38 MPH 37 MPH _
27 26
o
0 o
0 50th Percentile I Critical Speed: 43 MPH 44 MPH 44 MPH 25 24
0 o
0 c
85th Percentile I Critical Speed: 49 MPH 49 MPH 49 1APH -
0 0
0 0
0 23
22 e
I c
G
o
Radar Survey conducted By:
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1175
Corona. CA92880
T951-268-6268 F951-268.6267
21 20
c
c
c
G
1a
a
o
J0110
7 16
c
- G
G
0 50
so
GRAND TOTALS
AM
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 27/2026 City Council Agenda
647
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS ENFORCED
BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAq
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Survey
Vehicles urveyed
SpHd
EB
YO
Eastbound
Westbc.-und .v+
La.anr n: r', Id-&ood Carwon Road
64 u
0 a
Q
a
0 63
C
Between: Bryant Stfee - Holmes Street
62 0
0 62
61 _
C7
0 0
f.0
0 0
60 5-9
Weather: C'ear
s5
0 0
sa
a
0 58
57 'i
_
Date: 5i21f26
s7
011
_.c
-sc
O._
56 !
u
54 53
_
_
Time
From: !a5
a
5 K
c
52 5t
li
=
Time
s,
50 )
1 50
X
I
To: !:3°
48 x x
x X
x
__
_
Existing
k
_
1 A
47 46
X X X
xx
x x
x x x x x
-
Speed Limit: 45 NIPH
K
43 3
3 45
44 X X X i
xxx
C
'
P
Y
4 4
XxXx
x x x x
2 43
7 2
43 42
X X x X Xlx X
XXXxxx
X x
x X x x Xx
6 r2
A
42 0
c
C
- _ __ _ _ __ __._._.—__. _ _ _. .._ .F'.
tl
s
_
5 41
40 X X X x XI
x x _ _
x x x x x
x x x X
10 __...._.......... _.......y. 0 -
E
-_ ..
Ea9tbound Weetbamd f ppthllttd Statistics
` e over Pace: S % 12% _ io
40 a
x x x
x x x X
- _..
35 _2
5 39
38 xxxxx
X X X
i e
?
`, In Pace: Er.-% EA% 7e%
5e
.r
37 37
36 x x x x
xxxx
x x
+
t
: Under Pace: IE% 8% 16%
2c
35 1
35 X X___
X
Sa
2 34
33 32
__
X x 1
X
AveraOe Speed: 4' MPH, 42 MPH 42 MPH
Pace Speed: M. - 47 MPH 37 - 46 P.APH r5 - 47 MPH
33 0
o
32 o
0 31
0 c_
31 30
0 a
30 29
a
a
-
15th Percentile! Critical�ed: 36 MPF! _ 37 MPH _ - _'r1PH__ a
0 28
27 a
0 _5Cgh Percentile' Critical Speed: 42 MPH 42 rIPH 4- MPH - -_
._0
0-
26 25
r22
a
0 55th Percentile Critical Speed: 45 MPH 46 MPH 46 ';!PH _ 0 a
24 23
22 21
20Is
-
!
_
Radar Survey Conducted By:
Counts Unlimited. Inc.
21 20
-
PO Box 1178
17 a
c
17 16
I j
c
0 Costa. CA 92880
1c
0 0
1s
a
a
t5
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268.5257
i0t41
x
5q
GRANO TOTALS 100
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 27I2026 City Council Agenda
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II EVOKED /ply# for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Sur.ey
—
VehldeS Surve,ed
S .cW
EE
'ATI
E.zhwnd
We tb—d
Location: '.ICI 'N Canon OJ
55 0
65 6J
0 64
63 Between: Mesa Grande Drive - Oah Mesa Dave
&
0 62-
J
-0
62 61
_
11 0
0 56
0 0
60 59
Weather: Clear
59 0
C
=
Sa
0 0
58 57
_
Date: 5f21126
S7 __
, 0
R
- -
_K
o -
-
56 55
x
`
SS
0 54
1 54
53 x
x x
x x —
x x
TmYe
From; 1'.35
s3
2 52
0 C
52 51
x x %
Time
5i
c
so
1 50
x
X X
_
To: +.i'•5
48 xxXXx'x
XXXXxx
1_
Existing
Y
C
a
47 i
47 46
x x x x x x x x
xxx X X X X xx
x x x
x x x x x
I:
14 a
A
Speed Limit: 45 MPH
K
35 "s
7 `
>S
44 X%
x x x
<
C
E
u
5 xxx
x x x
e
_.43
rr
7 43
42 xxxx
xxxx
x x x x xxx
xx
11 42
a
'
- - -
if. _.
:-
41 40
x
x
x x x
s
...
Eastbound westbound combined Statistics
-: Over Pace: E"a 10''0 •.t%
Al
1 35
39 38
Xxx
X X x
_ In Pace: N% 7E% T9%
20 27
37 36
X X
x
-
a under Pace: 8 e 1=°•i IMA
S
35 34
34 33
_ i -
_
_
Average Speed: 46 MPH 45 MPH 46 h4FH
33 0
72 ?
-- 0
32 31
Pace Speed: 42 - 51 MPH 41 - 50 MPH 41 - C• MPH
31 0
30 0
0 30
2-9
29 0
0 ..
15ih Percentile r Critical Speed: 42 MPH 41 MPH 4' MPH
28 0
29--.—.---.__-
27 _
27 0
501h PercentileCritical Speed: -1-; MPH 45 MPH 43 %ipH' 21;
0 26
25 0
0 20
0 SSth Percentile Critical Speed: 49 MPH 49 MPH 4c, %IPH 24 23
0 2
22 22
..
Radar Survey Conducted By:
2e
,
c
zD
_
Founts Unlimited. Inc.
—3
-
t9
+e
PO Box 1178
Ia
.T__
17 16
;31 Corona. CA 92880
sc
a
0 is
0 0
15 T 9S1-268-6268 F 951-26M267
7qy
Sa
SO
OlkAND TOTALS 100
(�i':�MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 2712026 City Council Agenda
ME
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase 11 SPfED
ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Survey
MRf
:tPt11C1f5 UNQfFd -'
5 Eb
'A5
Easth—d
YlestWund wl
Locat1011: r':I 'Noo C.anvo7n 0a
Cs
0 c
65 63
6el'.veen: Oak Mesa Dnve - Oak Glen Row
s]
0 0
U
0 0
0 0
62 61
60C
_
Weather: Clear
it
60 a
0 ..
D
53 m
0 59
58 ss
o
0 s7
0 0
57 `
C
Date: 512126
o
0 - sc
56 55
1C
I
X
t
5s
o
1 54
1 0
54 1 53
% _..---P
X X X
---'--
--
X
t
4 Time
Fran: 1:55
]
I
51 X X X X X
XX XX X
iC
Tillie
51 5
5 s0
s
50 x x x x X.-
I
x X%
9 To: 2:20
46 x x x x x
II
x x
A
Existing
s_
=
_ _49
.i
s
n
46 x x x
X X X
x x x x
X X X x XXX
-
i0
c
E
Speed Limit: 45 MPH
K
3 7
•5
s
c
35 34
X X X X X
XXX%xx
4 •
1 X X X X
X
47 2
t
33 42
XX
X x
XX XX
C
_
'
42 2
-
•t--
--
t
41 40
x i
I
_
x
X % %
?
Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics
Over Pace: ='6 5
m
a
:-
39 38
XX
X
X X X
I t
: In Pace: c_r _ 77
7E
]7
1 37
36 X
X _
t
_ i 1
,
Under Pace: 1E% _ 17%
34 7
i
35 .l
a
u
35 3a
..._.._.. _--�-�
--
X X
2 1...
-- - 0
Average Speed: 47 MPH 46 MPH 46. MPH
i•
33 0
m
33 i
0 ]x -
o
-0
32 31
-
i
C
t D
Pace Speed: 44 - 53 PAPH 43 - 5' MPH 43 - " MPH
- _
31 0
a
...30
a
0-
30 29
C
z3
0 0
C
15th Percentile Critical S d: 43 %1Fr 40 P,tPH 41 PAPk
--_----- _-�-_- -
ze
o
0 28
27 I
I
�
C
2 2
0 Percentile Critical Speed: -i-MPH 46 MPH, 4i
_
2. _0
a
..._.
o
26 25
_
0 25
a
0 85th percentile Critical Speed: : 1 1. PF- S t MPH ,1 24 0
0 24
23 C
D
0 -
0 22
2tCounts
I C
Radar Survey Conducted By:
m
o
0 0
20 Unlimited. Inc.
[24
o
o
18 18
CPO
i Do
Box 1178
0 o
n
CCorolla.
CA 92880
0 0
15 C
T 951-258-6268 F 951-268 5267
TOTALS 1100
Tay
w
5{,
GRAND
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 27/2026 City Council Agenda
WE
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE - Phase 11 rTm-fl for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS ENFBY
CE
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA ? Ln!j
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Survey
Vehi6- 9—yed
5p.0
EE
v5
Eastbound
Westb—d 'V4
Locatiow Colorado Street
0 0
65 0
0 64
63 C
Limits: SoL'r of Enoc!) Avenue
63 0
0 92
0 0
62 61
V
0 0
ZF—
—0
—0
60 59
Weather:
0 0
_50_
so
0 0
56 57
Date:
57 0
-54
—H
0 56
55 is
55 0
0_
54 0
0 54
53 Time
From:
53 0
0 52
1 52
51 Time
5 1
50 jr.
50 To:
4--
)
C
49 48
x
Existing
a
11 0
—t 1-0-
47 46
X I
X
I
x x
I
.
Speed Limit: MPH
1 2
45 3
1 15
44 X x x 1
x
1 1
X
x
43 3
r2
1 43
42 X X X
X X XXX
X
x x XXX
x
42 5
6 4-1
--A
--T—
41 40
x X X x
x X X
x
x x x x x
2 P
Eastbound West bou nm d Ccbined Statistics
over Pace:
40 .1
5 35
6 39
38 X X X X X
X X
x x
x x X x x
x a
x x x x x 17
A
C
In Pace:
36 is
37 A
37 36
XXXX
�
X x x x x
x x x
2 E
Under Pace: E%
35 XXXX
X X
x X x x x
33 32
1 Average Speed: 39 -- MPH 2.9 MV H 39 NIP H
Pace Speed: 34 - 43 MPH -'4 - 43 MPH 24 - 43 MPH
x X X
X
32 1
0 11
1 1
31 30
x
30 0
0 0
29 28
a
0 ISM Percentqt_gLial Speck 34 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH
29 27
27 i D
50th Percentile' Critical Speed: 33 MPH 3 1 MPH 33 MPH
N
7 26
25 L
:H
T5TF Peicentile Critical Speed: 4", MPH 42 POPH 42 'APH 24 24
23 23
r,
2-
22 21
jj D
Radat Survey Conducted By:
COLIntS Unlimited, Inc.
21 3
20 it
C.
19 18
PO Box 1178
17 G
17 Corona, CA 92880
16 0
0 T951-268-6268 F951-268-6267
GRAND TOTALS
079MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
27/2026 City Council Agenda
651
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
SPEED
ENFORCED
RADA
BY
R
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Sur,ey
wtw
Vehicles gueyed n+
,
EE
'nE
Eastbound
%Wstb--.d .Ex.
Location: Ora O Street
55 ,
55 0
53 -
Between: 6th 3tr"I - wn Street
53 5+_.
.i
52 51
st
o
sa--
0 0
5o
49 0
Weather: Ce3r
ai
0 0
C
- Y
0 0
48 n
C
e
Datr: ? 106
av
a
0 - -46
0 0
46 45
_ 0
0 as
0 0
u
o
0 43
-
0 C
Time
From: 10 5C
43 3
0 42
3 42
4t
e
C
Time
A,
't
a0
0 40
!
x
I 1
To: 12 11
x x
+
35 t
39 38
X
x x
Existing
x
37 1
i
37 36
x - j
X xX
x x x x
xx
f
-
t�
Speed Limit ter, MPH
3i
3 IS
5 3
35 34
X X X X XIX X x
X x X
P
><
a
7 X X X X
x x x x x
x x ,7
-33
2 5
33 32
XX
X x XX x'
x x x x x
; -
P
A
32 t
C
I
-s -
s
--
a
31 30
x X X x X i
X X X X t ;..-- -.._.
X x X X
x x xx X
6 .. .... _!..E
E
East60w11d Westbound Combined $tlUSUcs
::.Over Pace: ?Oro ?'•4. 7%-
30 ._
5 2!
5 a
29 28
XXxXX
X X X X
xXxX
X X X x x
9 X x 11
: In Pate: 82 0 °496 E3%
27 26
X
x xX
X x
X
2 -
`t Under Pace: 12% E% 10%
x
0 25
x x=
r2-.
i
_.
o
24 23
x
Average Speed: __ MPH _ MFH __ MPH
o
a
22 21
C'
POce Spend: 2e - 3i MFH 26 - 3i hAPH_ 37 MPH
3 --
20 19
D
1!
0 0
0 15th Percentile_ Cntical�d: 2 _MPH ------- 28 _MPH _._ . ..._= IAPH__._.
TO—
o
0 18
17 �
C
0 n
o
0 50th Percentile' Critical Speed: 32 MPH 32 MPH __ mpH 15 t C
Is
;
o
85th Pere Futile Critical Speed: 35 MPH 37 MPH _5 MPH
to
14 13
I
1 u
t
tx
1 12
I
C
Radar Survey Conducted By:
,o
t
to`' 9
o
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
t__
0 0
B
7 10
! i 0
p Corona. -A 92880
7 0
0 C
0 0
6 5
C
0 ajrYr`{
T 451-208-6268 F 951-258-5257
5 0
0 GPAW TOTALS 100
714ai
50 so
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 7/2026 City Council Agenda
652
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II ENFORCED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Sur.'e,
rsw
:'et—les Surveyed r_
ES
Eastbound
Westbv-d .1:.H
Locat'-Al: Uolor aC o Street
55 3a
054
53 Between: 91h Street - 1Cth -tree'0
u
o
dA5
52 51
50 C
Weather: C. ear
31 0
so
0 a3
0 0
4_9
48 K
0 0
47 0
47 C
Date: _�2112'7
K
_
0 _0_
C'
46 45
x
C
-
K
0 1
4 _ n_.
43 ..
x x
C
Time
From: 10:00
a
1 42
At
x X X%
X X
x.
x x x
_
Time
2 a
A0
x
x
To: 10.`4
3 339
38 37
%X X
x x
X X X X
X)(X
x x x x xx
x x x
Existing
Speed Limit: 3°, MPH
2 6
.
3 3
6 36
35 34
xxx
XX
xxxxxx
Xxxxx
- .
P
A
c
[31
2 5
6 5
x x x% XX
X X X x x
I
]
-
s
33 32
XXX
XXXX
xxxxxx
X
e
E
a
1 __._ 1
31 30
X
X X X
z x
% X x
r-
Eastbound Westbound Combirltd Statistics
c Over Pace: ;0"e
]
}
A
2 29
28 xXXX
X
XX
Ic
In Pace: yt:6 ec% 71%
1 0
3 27
26 xxx
X
I
Under Pace: 14%
1 25
X
2A
23 X x
C
Average Speed: Z4 MPH PE. MPH 35 MPH
[23
22 21_
D
Pace Speed: 9 - 33 MPH 30 - 39 MPH 30 - 39 MPH
)
C
0 0
20 19
18 0
0 C
C_
15th Perctnuk' Critical Speed: _ �_� _MPH :; __MPH 0 MPH -
It
'a
0 3
0 17
0 50tb Percentile, Critical Speed: 34 MPH 36 MPH 35 -APH _17
Is
15 0
C
Is
)
e
85th Percentile, Critical Speed: 39 h",PH 40 MPH, 40_ MPH TA
14 13
1}
12 s
12 11
D
°
Radar Survey Condtx_ted By:
„
0 0
10 Counts Unlimited. Inc.
PCB Box 1178
0 0
7 Corona. CA 92880
5 )
0 5
D
T 951-258-6268 F 951-27M267
Tarr
sc
so
GRAND TOTALS 100
1; MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 712026 City Council Agenda
- 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II f for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
SPEED
ENFORCED
BY
RADAR
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Survey
--
vd'id- S""Yed
T3T
su•+a 1+a
5s
❑onubound
Sc'u[hUwmd
1e1.
P
A
C
E
Location: I .1 T Street
Between: Avenue E - Oak Glen Road
Weather: Clear
Date: rv21/26
Time
From: 930
Time
To: 10-00
Existing
Speed Limit: 35 FAPH
o
o
55 54
53 52
51 49
48 47
46 45
44 43
42 41
40 39
38 37
36 35
34 33
32 31
30 29
1 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 le
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 0
0 0
0 0
0 L
o
o
o
a50
o
x
x x
-
0 0
0 0
a
o
16 D
D
a
15 1
,:
7 x x
x
x -X
x
-
x
x x
x x x
x x x
J
t
4 4
3 -
2 :5
XXX.X
X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X X X X
Xxx
xx
x x x x x
X
X%
X XX
-
xxxxX
X X X X X
x x x
Xxxx
X
9 9
7 6
12 36
37 a
36 35 !
f
-
—
xxx
xxxxxx
X
X X x
6 8
5 1
4 5
S1 o
6 0
1 _
Northbound Southbound Combined Statistics
% Over Pace: 125. 6% 1 1%
% In Pace: 72 % 70% 69%
Under Pace: 16% 24% 20%
Average Speed: 35 MPH 36 MPH 36 MP
Pace Speed: 32 - 41 MPH 33 - 42 MPH 32 - 41 MPH
10 as
2 xx
X X X
x
X
xXxx
X x X
X
6 6
1 2
0 1e
27 2
l
0 26
15 I
1 i
0 v
23 c
L
o
a
0 0
0 0
0 u 1
21 6
o
20 c
1s
o
o
0 0
0 0
0 15th Percentile / Critical S teed: 30 MPH 29 MPH 29 MPH 16 0
17 o
0 0
50th Percentile / Critical Speed: 35 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH
16 a
rs a
11 a
o
o
o
85th Percentile I Critical Speed: 39 MPH 41 MPH 40 MPH
— --- . — - -- — ---
0 0
0 0
0 13 a
11 0
o
o
Radar Survey conducted By:
Counts Unlimited. Inc.
PO Box 1178
$ n� Corona. CA 92880
T 951-268-6268 F 951-268-6267
n e
+a I c
o
a
s l e
a a
D
o
0 0
0 0
0 6 1 0
0 0
5 e
Total sa
sa
GRAND TOTALS
100
MINAGAR $ ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 2712026 City Council Agenda
RI i
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS ERroREED
BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
City of Yucaipa
Radar Speed Survey
Yin
Vehldc, Sul': cjtd
Sped 1
EB
We
Ea5lbnunA
Wf,tb.j d
'
P
A
c
E
Location: Venue
Between: Yucaipa Boulevard - 16th Street
Weather. Clear
Date: 5i21i26
Time
Front: 14:00
Time
To: 9:30
Existing
Speed Limit: 35 MPH
55 54
c
o
o
a
55 54
53 52
50 49
48 47
46 45
44 43
42 41
40 39
36 37
36 35
34 33
32 31
30 29
29 27
1 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 5
01)
53 s2
510
o
o
o
o
0 0
0 0
to I
o
0 4T I
4t
0 o
o
45 34
a
o
o
x
X X
X
x x x
x
x
0 1
3 _
3 43 I
42 o
o
1 1
3 41
to
+
2 1
35 3t
5 a
2 X X X X X
Xx X X
X X X
XX
X X X X
X
X X
XX
x X X x
X X X
X X X
XxXxXx
7 8
6 5
10 37
30 3
2 35
24 4
3 4
5 XXX
X X X X X
XX XX X
X X x
X X X X
-
XXXXX
XXXx
XXXX
X
X X X X X
a
10 11
4 33
32 t
7 a
a
—
3+
3o
3 a
+
s
-
Eastbound Westbound Combined Statistics
°% Over Pace: 6% 12`6 9°e
% In Pace: 62% 74% 785.
% Under Pace: 12% 14% 13%
Average Speed: 34 MPH 34 MPH 34 MPH
Pace Speed: 30 - 39 MPH 30 - 39 MPH 30 - 39 MPH
2t
at
1 a
2 X X
X
X X
x x
x
x
X x
4 t
1 3
27 26
0 i2
25 24
2 +
c
o
X
X
t
1 0
0 0
23 22
o
o
1 0
21 20
o
I 0
o
o
15 It
v
1 o
1 c
o
o
o
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 G
15th Percentile I Critical Speed: 30 MPH 30 MPH 30 I,1PH 50111 Percentile 1 Critical Speed 33 MPH 34 MPH 33 MPH
is
+5
o
o
0 0
85th Percentile / Critical S @d: 39 MPH _ 39 _ MPH _ _ 39 MPH +4
+3
a
o
o
o
Radar Survey Conducted By:
Counts Unlimited. Inc.
PO Box 1178
cjji°NsrCorona. CA 92880
T 951-268-62G8 F 951-268-6267
11 11
o
o
0 o
+o
o
E
0 0
O6
0 0
"3o
GRAND TOTALS
100
91 � MINAGAR $ ASSOCIATES, INC.
07 27/2026 City Council Agenda
655
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
ENFDACED
/Srirjr for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
j" AADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA. CA
Appendix E,
24-Hour Machine Counts (ADT) Traffic Volume Data
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/Z7/2026 City Council Agenda
656
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II ENFORLEO for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RAOAfl
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Counts Unlimited, Inc. Page 1
Cityof'fucaipa PU Box 1178
13th Street Corona, CA 92878
6. Avenue E - 0A Glen Road (951) 268-6268 YUC061
24 Hour Directional 'loiume Count email: c0untSCcountsunllnlited.cofll Site Code: 231-26511 Date Start 5119,26
start 5/19126 Northbound Hour Totals `_•ounbound Hour Totals Combined'otals T'— T,— EA—i— eIamry.n 11-- -' ft.— M-- Lfy -In Mnmirn Af+ mm Mnminn ».ftamwn 12:00
3 17
_
9 11:15
1 12
0 15
12:30
2 s
0 12:45
1 iD
7 47
_
12 4
45 11
01:00
0 9
13 01:15
1 16
t
9 01:30
0 6
1 13
01:45
1 17
2 48
3 9
6 44
10 +
02:00
0 14
0 e
02:15
1 18
0 12
02:30
0 14
0 22
02:45
0 20
1 66
0 15
0 57
1 03:D0
^_
30 1
32 03:15
1 48
0 19
03:30
0 39
1 66
03:45
0 28
3 145
2 54
4 171
7 1e.
04:00
2 34
4 20
04:15
1 20
420
04:30
4 32
5 16
04:45
0 34
7 120
4 13
17 24
189
05:00
1 15
9 17
05:15
0 22
4 16
05:30
4 25
6 17
0545
3 30
13 92
6 20
2 42
164
D5:Do
5 27
10 26
06:15
8 22
11 18
06:30
10 20
10 15
06:45
8 12
31 81
1D
14 41
72 154
07:00
23 9
15 25
07:15
34 14
21 26
07:30
37 8
14 23
07:45
48 14
142
45 25
10 75
e•
217
129
D8:DD
70 14
47 16
08:15
24 13
44 18
08:30
16 12
24 8
08 45
16 6
126
47 14
7 129
49 255
96 09:06
16 7
10 9
09:15
9 5
F.
6 09:30
10 6
6 e
09:45
14 4
49 __
6 6
32 27
61 49
10:00
14 5
10 7
10:15
18 4
i0
'
10:30
10 5
8 _
10:45
11 3
53 17
12 2
93 31
11:00
7 6
1°
1114
12 2
10 1
11:45
18 0
49 101
12 21
53 61
102
16 I omi
40J
!-iu 401 i 4
Combined
t22'•
1223
Total
AM Peal.
07 15
-
ol.
189
-
P.H.F.
0.675
PM Peal.
03:15
,I,ol.
-
149
P.H.F.
0.776
Percentaq
39.5%
60.5°%
ADTIAADT
ADT 2.366
AADT 2.16C
U 4J� 111 111 7IJ I'll
1143 1143 2366
07:45 - - -
140 -
0.745
03:00
171
0.w
37.6% 62.2%
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
657
— 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE— Phase II SPEED i r)Cr�
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS Rr
FNFDRCED
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
U 1• d I Pace I
City Of ruc3]Pa
Avenue E
91 1 uca•Pa Boulevard - 1 6th Street
24 Hour Directional '.'olume Count
Cui
ounts n nte . nC.
PO Box 1178
Corona. CA 52878
(951) 268-6268
email counts@a,countsuniimited.com
.WC002
Site Code: 231-26511
Date Start. 511912E
Start 5l14;26 Easttxund Hour Totals 'Nestlxund Hour Totals Combined Totals Tines T— A4.min uftnm LA— -ft— PA-- Lft— tUtr —n-ftmm�n 1.lnminn -`Wrr,nn
12.X
1 35
1 16
12:15
4 31
4 23
12:30
1 19
4 19
12:45
1 21
7 1 Cie.
_
16 11
-
01:00
1 29
9 15
01:15
125
3 15
0130
0 26
_
14 01.45
0 29
3 109
2 20
16 -
17 02:00
0 26
1 20
02:15
2 34
4 29
02:30
0 33
_
_
02:45
1 31
124
0 7
1=!
i0 -_
03:00
2 24
54 03:15
3 28
1 40
03:30
0 46
0 40
03:45
1 31
129
4 26
C,
1E0
14 --
04:00
4 31
_
34 04:15
6 31
-8
04:30
12 E
42 04:45
27 28
49 115
_
34 12
13?
61 _E6
05:00
2 33
9 25
05:15
11 29
_
'_ 1
05:30
15 36
9 30
05:45
20 22
4-
12G
-
21 30
_-
78 -1
06:00
11 48
7 22
06 15
14 20
13 13
06:?-0
16 23
26 1^
06:45
24 2
65 114
20 14
56 EI
131
07:00
12 20
19 14
07:15
14 19
11 23
07:30
24 17
36 13
07:45
22 22
72 7E
32 6
109-
08:00
28 24
28 9
08:15•
24 14
32 12
08:30
17 20
26 12
08:45
11 20
_=
78 25
10 111
09:00
9 15
16 9
09:15
14 10
12 12
09:30
15 8
16 7
09 a5
15 5
=_
38 20
2 E»
117 EE.
10:00
15 13
17 4
10:15
20 13
17 10:30
15 16
1 10:45
20 5
70 36
18 3
EE
1I
138 47
11:00
12 6
10 3
11:15
16 3
"-
1 11:30
34 6
2G
1 11:45
'4
2 1
17 27
4 1 84
9 1 170 26 1
Total
542
1067 E�= lut/
Combined
16019
1609
Total
AM Peak
07:30
Vol.
98 P.H.F.
0.875
PM Peak
03:30
':'ol.
139
P.H.F.
0.755
Percenzag
33.7%
66.3%
4DT'AADT
ADT 3.059
AA.DT 3,059
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
bt�b tc4
1450
07:30
1_8
0.869
03:00
1e0
0.741
40.4% 59.6%
"t
11-0
1751
1450
3059
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
ENFORCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS 8Y
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RaoaR
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
C ay 0' 1 uC:rPa PO Box 1178
Bryant Street Corona, CA 92878
6; Date Avenue - 1 uca.J ird (951) 26P,-13268 "UC003
24 Hour Directionci .2clj i Count email counts@countsunllmlted coal Site Code: 231-26511 Date Start 5!19126
Start 511412E Northbound ^our Tctals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals T.— TL 94—i— Lft. v.n 111 m,r.n -4--, Lft. .n Ik Ot ,n, _`fnrn.v.n KA—i— ARornr✓vn 12:V�
4 7"
(
12:15
2 01
48 12:30
6 64
_
yf
12:45
2 70
14 _.e
3 96
17 s85
31 ^48
01:00
D
.4
`_
104
01:30
89 _
76 0145
1 i15
_
366
0 111
10 3e3
13 751
02:00
_
100
94 02:15
6 tit
0 42
02:30
2 103
_
152
0245
5 102
5 !E
3 150
4.c
21 :04
03:00
3 48
4 126
03:15
_
104
_
e6
03:30
4 88
123
03 s5
4 93
13 = =
4 136
12 37?
04:00
2 102
8 124
04:15
4 95
10 108
04:30
_
114
14 104
04 45
4 110
12 42i
16 118
4c
4r._
'30
000
05:00
6 116
14 125
05:1 _`•
14 115
14 124
05:30
16 118
19 102
05:45
26 99
62 448
36 96
5?
.1
i45
897
06:00
26 94
28 94
06:15
26 74
40 102
06:30
42 75
42 74
06:45
84 79
178
322
68 84
178
354
356
E76
07:00
122
64 78
100
07:15
117
36 111
78 07:30
122
60 147
45 07:45.
146
40 507
200
131
87 467
H4
974
SEE
08:00
98 58
82 7'
08:15
66 37
82 50
08:30
70 48
66 08:45
78 28
312
171
73 56
323
230
635
40;
09:00
57 18
E4
16 09:15
71 25
__
36 04:30
52 26
66 32
09:45
45 22
225
70 22
267
1 Owl
492
197
10:00
48 8
76 16
10:15
75 10
78 20
10:30
56 16
5-4
14 10:45
61 8
240
-
5t-
14 2EE
EE
506
106
11:00
63 7
66 Q1
11:15
85 8
99 0
11:30
74 7
14 11:45
70 1"
3$4
?
646
72 Iota,
t6r,7
31Jtl IiJo _io:
_U_
j17D �U?I jtd- __+u, O:1C�i
Combined
5037
5037
=
E-826 10863
Total
AM Peak
07:00
-
07:15
-
'iol.
507
47!
-
P.H.F.
0.868
0.801
PM Peak
-
04:45
-
02:15
`iol.
-
459
-
520
P.H.F
0.972
0.855
Percentag
37.3 %
62.7 %
34.9%
65. 1%
ADT,'AADT
ADT 10.663
AADT 10,863
0MINAGAR &. ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
659
-= 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II ENrORCEO for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
City of 'Yucaipa
Gak Glen Road
6? Cherry Croft Drive -'Nest City Limits
24 Hour Directional volume Count
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
email counts@countsunlimited com
Pacc I
i IJC005
Site Code: 231-265'. 1
Dale Start: 5119.�26
Start 5 19t2': Eastbound Hour Totals vies;bound Hour Totals Combined Totals Tm- Ti Mnm inn _hfmnrir Mrvn Aff-n '.inm-nn Mr Mm n Mnrnina Affemnnn Mnmina Afternoon 12:CC
1 12
7. _
16 12 15
1 11
0 11
12:30
0 19
0 16
12:45
3 13
5 0
15 2
58 7
113
01:00
0 9
0 1 1
01:15
0 16
0 01:30
0 10
0 19
WAS
0 1.8
0 52.
0 15
E--
0 107
02:00
0 7
0 20
02:15
1 19
0 13
02:30
1 16
0 16
0235
1 15
3 57
0 11
0 117
03:00
0 10
1 20
03:15
0 12
0 15
03:30
0 11
0 24
0345
0 20
0 c_3
1 _
_
111
04:00
0 12
8 7
04:15
0 n'
0 I3
04:30
0 12
1 1E
04:45
0 20
0 SO
10 v
10 8
05:00
0 13
3 I'
05:is
3 13
5 -
05:30
1 16
2 I '
0546
_
14 6
56 8
=
o
24 06:00
_
6 7
06:15
5 12
7 c
0630
10 16
7 06:45
10 19
27 53
6 _
=
54 10_
07:00
4 7
7 07:15
6 6
17 07:30
8 13
15 0745
5 12
23 38
17 9
5F
08:00
14 10
14 6
08:15
8 11
11 a
08:30
9 13
11 9
Oct 45
14 9
45 43
14 5
K
09:00
10 9
13 09:15
16 5
16 09:30
16 7
09:45
4 151
23 16
7 47
15. 93
:E
10: DO
13 6
7 10:15
22 0
11 1
10:-M
7 2
17 1045
12 3
54 it
16 51
-
105
1„
11:00
12 3
17 11:15
16 3
10 1
11:30
a
0 17
0 11:45
14 1
51 7
17 C.
E1
1 112
-
Total
2155
4 4 y _'115 4a"i
5_4
44ti 3_4 ,-. D
Combined
764
764
773
7 73 1537
Total
AM Peak
09-30
- -
07:15
- -
lol.
60 63
P.H.F.
0.682
0.926
PM Peak
04:45
-
0245.
Vol.
62 -
70 P.H.F.
0-775
0.729
Percentag
34.7 k
65.3%
41.9`10
58.1%
e
ADT/AADT
ADT 1.537
AADT 1,537
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
11E
" 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Counts Unlimited, Inc. Pa.;
City of 9ucalpa PO Box 1178
Oak Glen Road Corona, CA 92878
8! Bryant Street - Cherry Croft Dn.e (951) 268-6268 Y 00004 24 Hour Directional ': olume Count Site Code: 231-26511 [email protected]
Date Start 5! 13126
Start `d19,=E East.':•curd Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Con:nedTo:als ..E. IIt -.t-- .fs�.. AI.......... ^.ft. —. Ran—nI -44. N_Ilnm. -L f--- R. ;n ,') :.ft- 12:CC
1 32
4 44
12:15
2 47
4 12:30
3 49
1 12
12:45
2 30
8 158
1 41
10 151
18 309
01:00
1 27
0 34
01:15
0 37
2 9
01:30
0 36
0 45•
01:45
0 36
1 1:.r
0 44
_
152
3 288
02:00
1 44
0 4
02:15
1 58
1 41
02:30
1 53
1 36
02:45
1 51
4 206•
1 36
3 154
7 360
03:00
0 52
4 50
03.15 0
42 0
42 03:30
_
50 1
54 03:45
0 60
2 2C14
4 24
17C
11 374
04:00
0 43
11 30
04:15
1 47
8 36
04:30
0 46
`_
32 04:45
0 43
1 179
7 30
_
128
32 307
05:00
3 59
12 36
05:15
4 52
14 37
05:30
3 50
14 05:45
7 46
17 207
17 30
-
125
74 332
06:00
9 31
25 36
06:15
6 51
29 40
06:30
16 37
40 32
06:45
22 52
_3
171
40 19
13-
129
187
300
07:00
14 34
37 20
07:15
22 24
57 21
07:30
15 3'
63 16
07:45
32 33
83 123
42 199
79 282
102
08:00
40 37
43 14
08:15
25 25
40 _
08:30
30 33
42 14
08:45
36 28
131
23 30
11 155
60 2.56
183
09:00
24 26
40 7
09:15
39 19
39 6
09:30
31 22
32 13
09:45
34 10
126
77 36
7 147
33 275
110
10:00
26 16
27 4
10:15
37 5
25 5
10:30
17 10
32 10
10:45
31 5
111
36 41
8 125
27 236
63 11:00
28 13
36 1
11:15
32 6
37 11: 30
32 4
3.6 1
11,45
38 6
i30
29 38
1 147
S.
277
34 Total
Combined
Total
AM Peak
Vol.
P.H.F.
PM Peak
'-'a-
P.H.F
Percentag
e
A DT!AA DT
bb9 7bi'a
08:00
131
0.819
bby Iba,z.
231 c
02: 15-
214 -
0.922
28.9% 71.1%
ADT 4 550 kADT 4,550
lull
1�IJ 1u 17 I -I
2232
07:15
205
0.613
02:45
-
182
0.843
45 7%
5.s.3%
IOW �00
4550
r; MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
661
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
ENFORCED
RY
flADAR
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
City of Yucaipa
PO Box 1 178
Wild -wood Canyon Road
Corona, CA 92878
Br Bryant Street - Holmes Street
(951) 268-6268
UCOOE
24 Hour Directional '.'olume Count
[email protected] Stle code: 231 26511
Dare
Start 511911-6
start 511912E Easti cund
`sour Totals d.'estbound Hour Totals Combined Totals
T•...a -.s \An....r— n4----
{.Are—, A*.-- KA-- uf1A %A— tf1-- AAf.--,
Lftprt n
12:00
0 50
4 5O
12:15
4 --4
12:30
_
55 _
F_1
12:45
1 49
-
20b
3 48
14 209
21 417
01:00
_
36 _
EO
01 15
4!
1 56
01:30
0 52
3 53
01:45.
0 55
5 1 .9
3 EO
_
22 14
=18
02100
0 51
2 ED
02:15
0 64
_
c4
0230
0 5.0
_
_ _
0245
0 63
3 ___
D
E4
-
255
6 4aq
03:00
0 57
_
58 03:15
_
51+
_
56 03:30
0 60
3 E_
0345
1 87
3 _ _
6 E6
15 244
18 507
04:00
4 72
9 54
04:15
0 65
10 44
04:30
_
84 i 2
59 04:45
2 6.3
8 289
E.
78 _
2°5
47 524
05:00
_
70 14
60 05:15
0 58
23 70
05:30
6 50
27 68
Oo:45
16 59
24 _=
31 06:00
14 70
_
06:15
8 62
5z
-0
06:30
14 59
64 40
06:45
22 53
249
63 3E.
211
1E1
269
-10
07:00
42 44
94 40
07:15
46 58
105
40 07:30
34 56
112
32 07:45
44 42
_
_00
116
34 417
6 08:00
48 58
70 28
08:15
44 5o
72 26
08:30
45 26
50 12
08:45.
52 24
= _
: =
E4
14 2c':
°?
445
09:00
40 29
50 10
09:15
30 18
'0
16 09:30
46 28
=0
16 09:45
39 24
155
94 56
12 20E
10:00
34 14
50 16
10:15
32 9
a7
6 10:30
33 8
49 9
10:4;
44 4
143
35 58
8 21-
_
__7
11:00
31 6
56 12
11:15
33 4
50 11:30
42 5
52 5
11'45
41 ;47
21 49
4 207
_
354
S0
Total
905
217E 905
:1I6 1b99
1'+_b 1h`Jb 141- o13U4 4lui
Combined
3081
3081
3624
3624 6705
Total
AM Peak
08:00
- -
- 07:00
- -
Vol.
189
427
-
P.H.F.
0.909
0.920
PM Peak
-
03:45
-
04:45
1/01.
308
-
276
P.H.F.
0 885
0.88E
Percentag
29.4%
70.6%
469%
53.1%
e
aDT1aADT
ADT 6 705
AADT 6,705
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
662
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED � ound Hour Totals V.es'Lour,d Hour Totals Combined Totals T..,.a T•u A��..,, i-- r_4-- .+frv.,,-.-•., -,Aron Lf?-- M'—nn GftPm n Monona Afternoon 1_:CrO
3 45
0 39
12:15
2 45
0 42
12:30
1 42
3 40
12:45
'-
4t
I 7t.
0 42
1E3
11 _'41
01:00
3 --
0 40
01:15
3 9
0 49
01:30
0 4
1 46
0145
0 42
0 44
1 179
7 329
02:00
0 42
1 44
02:15
3 58
1 55
02:30
1 41
1 52
02:45
0 62
4 'C3
1 40
191
8 354
03:00
0 63
0 46
03:15
1 46
1 43
03:30
0 61
-
50 03:45
-
69 __
5 37
8 176
11 115
04:00
1 70
-
44 04:15
6 51
7 26
04:30
3 74
8 36
04:45
5 56
15 251
10 65
27 173
42 124
05:00
3 54
9 38
05:15
1 56
18 43
05:30
7 38
14 44
05:45
12 42
23 190
20 35
61 19-0
34 350
06:00
12 76
--
28 06:15
10 47
312
40 06:30
22 55
41 23
06:45
26 35
70 213
53 25
148
116
218
329
07:00
28 38
88 38
07:15
46 38
92 26
0730
39 37
80 17
07:45
46 36
159
149
80 21
340
102
499
251
08:00
38 48
46 19
08:15
42 44
46 18
08:30
43 24
47 11
08:45
45 22
46 e
189
360
1=4
09:00
44 22
32 10
09:15
25 20
42 1C
09:30
30 15
39 8
09:45
34 i7
i33
74 36
11 =.
`
284
119
10:00
31 14
36 1 i
10: 15
30 a
44 10:30
25 n
46 10:45
40 A
_
?=
40 7
1E6
:e
292
r•
11:00
27 =
-
11:15
34 -
34 4
11:30
36 4E.
1 11 5
i=
G
_
113
1'
276
qc
Total
031
1G40J1 1'4C
I:qi
iyu_ I. i IY'JL -U_- _- i
Combined
269f•
2695
2643
o oG
2643 5J_ _
Total
AM Peak
08:15
07:00
-
•iol.
177
140
-
P.H.F.
0.922
0.924
PM Peak
-
03:45
-
01:45
1.,01.
-
264
-
195
P.H_F.
0.892
0.8m
Percent39
316%
68.4%
47.0%
53.0%
e
ADTIAADT
ADT 5.339
AADT 5.339
t': MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
663
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II EXrOR0E0 for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RAOAfl
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
City of fucapa PO BOX 1178
d4ildwood Canyon Road Corona, CA 92878
6+ Oak Mesa Dn'.e - Oak Glen Road (051 ) 26$ F21iP, YUC008 24 Hour Directional '�lolume Count pall. [email protected] site Code: 231--6511 Dale start 5!19126
start 5/19126 Eastbound Hour Totals 'Nes:bound Hour Totals Combined Totals I.- a—..., nwa..,....., l..... Iw-...,,..,. u...., ewe AAr. Aft. in AAnrn,n Aft- 1 200
1 31
0 __
12:15
2 27
-
5 12 30
0 39
i
35 12:45
_
27 5
124
0 25
3 107
8 231
01:00
1 19
i
19 01:15
1 24
0 35
01:30
0 28
0 25
01:45
0 35
2 0
32 1
121
3 227
02:00
1 29
1 44
02:15
2 35
0 38
02:30
0 28
1 41
02:45
0 50
3 142
0 23
2 146
5 256
03:00
0 40
40 03:15
0 40
33 03:30
0 49
33 03:45
2 45
2 17.1
1 28
4 134
6 3C6
04:00
1 43
34 04:15
4 40
4 21
04:30
3 49
5 37
04:45
4 31
12 ' 1. -
5 54
15•
146
27 3C'=
05:00
3 37
7 _
05:15
2 33
8 36
05:30
7 28
5 0545.
11 35
23 133
7 _
27 117
50 250
06:00
8 38
14 _ _
08:15
10 27
15 26
06:30
20 37
28 11
06:45
12 21
50 12=
38 32
91 145
214
07:00
23 27
68 2'
07:15
42 25
60 16
07:30
32 21
77 18
07:45
31 24
128
-
45 12
2 - _
69 378
f.36
08:00
32 31
40 15
08:15
30 27
27 10
08:30
37 12
37 13
08:45
31 15
1310
6S
22 -
126
44 256
129
09:00
26 16
31 11
09:15
17 7
20 10
09:30
18 8
36 7
09:45
25 5
86 31'
24 F
ill
197
70 10:00
21 7
23 c
10:15
24 6
20 10:30
26 10:45
24 j
95 _=
24 5
1D8
17 203
42 11:00
22 4
11 11:15
21 4
20 _
11:30
20 8
28 11:45
30 2
93 28
98 9
191
27 16t31
ID -Id
1I1_A
ConiNned
1Bc•q_
1855
Total
AM Peal:
07 15
'V.
137
-
P.H.F
0.615
PM Peak
-
02:45
:N.
-
179
P.H.F.
0.895
Percentag
33.9%
66.1%
e
ADT,'AADT
ADT 3.730
AADT 3.730
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
1675 1875 3730
07:00 -
2L0
0.8 i 2
01:45
155
0.881
44 8% 55.2%
>r 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II ENFORCED for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RADRR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Counts Unlimited, Inc. Page 1
City of r uca pa PO Box 1 178
Colorado Street Corona, CA 92878
S/ Enoch Avenue (951) 268-6268 Yucol1
24 Hour Directional volume Count Site Code: 231-26511
email counts@countsunNmited com
Date Start. 5!20126
Start 5r20126 Northbound Hour Totals Sou:hixund Hour Totals Com ?med Totals a A.....: - nwd.,......, .A--- Lf— 14Lft— RA-- Lftcm m
12.00 _
25 0
14 12:15
2 12
1 10
12:30
_
18 0
15 12:45
0 18
6 7'_.
0 17
1 56
7 129
01:00
1 1
4 _
01:15
0 19
0 1 i
01:30
1 14
0 16
01:45
4 26
6 6:
1 34
1;_
89 11
171
02:00
0 36
0 30
02:15
1 22
1 16
02:30
0 _
--
02:45
0 26
1D
0 29
_
99 3
205
03:00
1 30
1 25
03:15
0 22
1 22
03:30
0 28
0 29
03:45
3 54
4 1'_.4
0 26
-
102
6236
04:00
2 21
2 24
04:15
0 25
_
12 04:30
0 1.5
0 20
04:35
2 30
4 19
75 10
169
05:00
2 26
0 --4
05:15
0 25
-
05:30
4 _ 2
0 _
0545
8 16
4 E-9
E.
22.°
79 --
1cE.
06:00
6 16
5 10
06:15
a
10 9
17 06 30
14 17
14 1E
06:45
17 14
45 =.7
17 12
_c
cc
90 112
07:00
25 17
314
11 07:15
34 17
48 07-30
35 10
68 11
07:45
22 116
_
53 10
2_
41 319
93 08:00
18 7
66 08:15
21 11
--
08:30
24 5
13 08:45
16 13
79 21b
16 °
117
2-
196
61 09:00
10 17
13 09:15
15 13
14 09:30
8 8
10 1
09:45
17 7
50 45
10 3
-.
1=
97 59
10:00
8 6
12 10:15
12 5
20 4
10:30
16 16
10:45
16 2
52 15
21 3
=
11 121
26 11:00
14 1
21 11:15
20 2
8 '-
1 L ao
22 2
14 1
1 L45
10 1
66 6
_
_
9 129
15 Total
44J
1t313 443 1btp
JOO
-_Z. 1 —11
CombinedTotal
1232
1232
1223
1223 2455
AM Peak
0700
-
07:15
- - -
, 01.
116
-
235
-
P.H.F.
0 829
0.864
PM Peak
-
0 3. 00
-
02 45
11101.
-
134
-
105
P.N.F.
0.620
0.875
Percentag
36 p,;
64 0°_
46 4%
53.6%
e
ADT/AADT
ACT 2 455
-CT _.455
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
665
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II SPEED
ENEDRCED
for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA RADAR
Counts Unlimited, Inc. Pagel
City o YUCaipa PO Box 1 178
Colorado Street Corona, CA 92878
Bi 8th Street - 9tn Street (951) 288-6268 r uc010
24 Hour Directional Volume Count email: [email protected] Site Code: 231-26511 Date Start 5120!26
Start 5!20;2£ Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals n wo.., �i,.......,, aa.,,..,.�. AA.....•nn ;wsm.,nn 9_4 of-omnnn IJn Lft. n 12:00
3 17
0 12:15
0 5
0 13
12:30
0 16
_
15 12:45
1 14
4 52
0 20
_
--
6 109
01:00
0 8
i
10 01:15
0 12
0 12
01:30
1 a
0 10
01:45
1 18
2 47
0 14
1 -_
0200
0 12
C.
20 02:15
1 14
0 16
02:30
1 19
1 18
02:45
1 15
3 60
0 15
1 69
4 _
03:00
0 10
1 19
03:15
1 17
1 20
03:30
0 22
1 20
03:45
2 42
3 100
0 16
3 75
6 17==
04:00
0 20
3 22
04:15
0 16
4 12
04:30
0 16
4 8
04:45
1 20
72 3
10 14
52 15 1=�
05:00
0 20
3 12
05:15
0 19
6 6.
05:30
2 16
4 12
05:45.
5 13
-
_
6 10
t 9
42 26
06:00
_
23 7
12 06:15
6 18
1 12
06:30
7 1:
20 12
06:45
9 17
24 70
12 9
50 45
74 115
07:00
12 14
20 5
07:15
8 14
36 11
07:30
7 10
59 13
07:45
18 11
45 49
54 11
169
40 214 59
08:00
9 7
52 10
08:15
15 10
24 4
08:30
23 a
16 `
08:45
13 -
EA
31 10
6 102
09:00
6 11
13 4
09:15
4 4
16 4
09:30
7 11
10 3
09:45
12 =-
37 9
3 45
la
<< 5t
10:00
3 3
8 `
10:15
7 C4
12 3
10:30
7 -
14 0
10:45
12 4
=4
19 1 i
1 45
-, -_
11:00
8 9
4 11:15
11 10
11130
20 '0
1 Total
258
t.i -_j h1a
_Ui
---
C'onlbined
877
877
990
Total
AM Peak
07:45
-
07:15
Vol.
65 201
P.H.F.
0.707
0.852
PM Peak
-
03:15
-
03:15
'lal.
-
101
-
76 P.H.F
0.601
0.88k
Percentaa
29.4°
70.6 fo
51256
4e.6 i%
ADTI:V,DT
ADT 1.867
AADT 1,867
0 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
990 1567
2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase 11 SPEED - ENFOACEO
/p/po�"" for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS RADAR
CITY OF YUCAIPA, CA
Counts Unlimited. Inc. P3- 1
City of T'UC31p3 PC) 60 117 g 0000
Colorado =:rest Coruna. CA _- Sto Code __-25.116
8i 9th Street - 10th Street Phone: 951 266-621P Date `_.tart: 5f27126 1_4 Haur Directional %'olume Count email: Countsgcountsunlim [eo.com Start Ed27�2E Eastbound Hour Totals Nestbound Hour Totals Combined Totals 12:D0
4 =
CI
7 12:15
0 9
0 10
12:30
_
12 i
E
1245
1 a
-
=
1 10
_
9 71
01:D0
0 0
0115
1 0
01:30
1 01:45
0 2
2E.
02:00
_
1 0
E
02:1S
0 15
C.
16 0 2: 30
1 10
i
7 02:45
1 9
50 13
03'X
0 17
0 14
03:15
0 1-1
_
11 03:30
0 10
0 12
03 45
0 26
C.
70 4
10 47
tt?
04:00
0 19
13 04:15
0 19
-
9 04:30
1 14
1 12
04:45
1 20
_
72 _
13 4C
i z11=
05.D0
1 15
05:15
1 19
6 10
05:30
3 19
E.
10 05 45
2 2
7 75
7 6
2E
35 110
06:00
5 17
11 13
06:15
2 15
14 4
06:30
2 15
17 17
D6:45
4 14
13 61
14 10
E;E
44 07:00
6 11
7 07:15
6 8
21 4
07:30
11 11
25 °
WAS
9 6
32 37
24 e
°°
27 ll=
_
08:DD
6 3
25 08:15
8 9
15 4
08:30
9 6
13 1
D8:45
6 6
29 24
10 5
E1
2 P3
1A
09:00
4 8
9 7
09:15
6 7
14 1
09:30
12 4
6 0
09:45
5 2
27 21
11 C
10:00
8 7
10 0
10:15
9 1
13 3
10:30
8 5
9 1
10:45
12 0
37 i3
14 3
4E
_0
11:D0
7 ^
8 _
11:15
4 3
9 0
11:30
3 1
6 1
11,45
5 6
19 12
5 0
28'47
Total
179
499 ir9
Combined
E'' 8
67 Total
AM Peak
10 09
-
`: 01.
37 -
P.H.F.
0.771
PM Peak
-
03,45
,a
-
78 P.H.F.
0,750
Percentag
26.4 %
73.6%
e
ADTIAADT
ADT 1.386
A;-.DT 1,366
708 706 t3`
07:15 - -
0.923
- 02:15
50 0.781
52.3% 47.7`.%0
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
667
velo
,;� - 2026 CITYWIDE ENGINEERING S TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE — Phase II WOKE for SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS y"
CITY OF YUGAIPA, CA ""QAfl
Appendix G
Speed Gun Calibration Certification
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER 0MIINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
Item No. 25
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Landon Kern, Assistant City Engineer (—1,L
Austin Mills, Assistant Engineer �Gl- A--
SUBJECT: Draft FY26/27 Pavement Management Program
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Review and approve the Draft FY26/27 Pavement Management Program; and
2. Approve the recommended pavement maintenance and rehabilitation projects for FY26/27; or
3. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Pavement Management Program (PMP) was originally approved by the City Council in 1998.
It has since been updated on an annual basis and "recalibrated" through street asphalt testing and analysis every five years in 2003, 2008, 2013, 2018 and the most recent update completed in 2023.
The recalibration process is done in order to provide an updated Citywide analysis of the current street network asphalt pavement conditions and has historically been the primary resource used as the basis for prioritizing the streets to be maintained or rehabilitated each year. Results of the 2023 analysis show that the City has a current average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 58, with the national average for cities being 60 to 65. The analysis provides recommendations for street segment maintenance and/or asphalt rehabilitation based on available budget and maximizing the City's overall average PCI. The amount of funding allocated annually to the PMP directly impacts the City's overall average PCI.
The following graphic depicts the City's current average PCI, national average PCI and the projected average PCI at the end of the current five-year cycle (2028):
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 669
PCI
100
85 70 V
- - - - Good - - - -- I— National Average: 60-65
v - - - - - - - - - - - - City's Current PCI: 58
— — — — -Faar — — — — — Projected FY29/30 PCI: 55
50 Marginal
40 25
U
The following table provides information on potential funding scenarios and their resulting impacts on the City's overall average PCI. The table includes three (3) annual budget scenarios for each year of a five-year cycle aimed to achieve a target PCI at the end of that five-year cycle, and the additional funding needed for each scenario.
Additional Annual Funding
Average PCI in FY29/30
Annual PMP Budget Needed
Needed to Meet Target PCI in
FY29/30
55 (Fair Condition)
$4,300,000
Reduced PCI
(current average annual
$0
budget)
58 (Fair Condition)
$5,600,000
$1,300,000
PCI Remains Unchanged
61 (Good Condition)
PCI within National
$7,500,000
$3,200,000
Average range 60-65
As shown in the table above, the current average annual funding allocation of $4,300,000 results in a projected reduction in overall average PCI from 58 to 55. Additional funding in the amount of $1,300,000 per year would be necessary to maintain the overall average PCI of 58. For the City's overall average PCI to be 61 and within the national average, additional funding in the amount of $3,200,000 is needed. A minimum of an additional $1,300,000 per year is needed to maintain or improve the overall average PCI of 58.
One of the ten goals adopted by the City Council in 2023 was to "Take a more inclusive and aggressive approach to road maintenance". To accomplish this goal, additional equipment, staff and resources were authorized by the City Council to address potholes and asphalt failures as part of the City's Public Works operations. In addition, staff logged and included input provided by residents related to asphalt street conditions within the City during the process of developing the proposed FY26/27 PMP.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 670
Utilizing the results of the 2023 analysis and incorporating the City Council's direction of a more inclusive and aggressive approach, a five-year plan of prioritized streets to be maintained and rehabilitated was prepared by staff and approved by the City Council in 2024. The proposed FY26/27 PMP is year three of the five-year cycle identified in the City Council approved 2023 analysis.
Staff is recommending the following maintenance and rehabilitation methods for the FY26/27 PMP.
0 Microsurface (Estimated Cost $0.55 - $0.70 per Square Foot) The application of a crack seal epoxy followed by a 3/8-inch thick layer of an asphalt mixture that seals the asphalt surface across the entire street while leaving the existing asphalt pavement below in place. This "surface treatment" method is recommended for streets that have small, shallow cracks, and will protect and seal the asphalt from water penetration to extend the life of the pavement while providing a rideability and aesthetic enhancement.
• 2" Overlay_(Cap) (Estimated Cost $1.50 - $1.70 per Square Foot) Placement of 2 inches of new asphalt over the entire roadway surface (Overlay). This method is recommended where the existing asphalt structural base is in good condition, or was recently constructed, and a thicker asphalt section is required to extend the life of the street. This method is proposed to be primarily used on County Line Road. • Edge Mill and Overlay (Estimated Cost $2.20 - $2.45 per Square Foot) The removal or milling of the top 1 to 2 inches of the existing asphalt approximately 4 to 6 feet wide, along the outer edges of a street (Edge Mill), followed by the placement of a
1.5-inch thick layer of new asphalt over the entire street surface (Overlay). This method is recommended where a new layer of asphalt pavement can repair larger/deeper cracks and seal the street from water penetration while providing a new thicker stronger asphalt section.
• Full Width Mill and Overlay (Estimated Cost $2.75 - $3.25 per Square Foot) The removal or milling of the top 1 to 2 inches of the existing asphalt of the entire street, followed by the placement of a 2 to 3-inch layer of new asphalt over the entire street surface (Overlay). This method is recommended where a thicker layer of new asphalt pavement can repair streets with more significant cracking and raveling providing for a thicker and better structural asphalt section and a new street surface. • Full Removal and Rehabilitation (Estimated Cost $4.00 - $5.00 per Square Foot) The removal of the entire existing asphalt pavement as well as a portion of the existing soil beneath the roadway. After removal, asphalt grindings are blended into the existing soil and compacted to form a new stronger structural base for the new asphalt above it. This method is recommended when the street is not repairable by other methods and this process results in a new paved street.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 671
The Draft FY26/27 PMP includes these recommended methods by street segment and is being presented for the City Council's consideration.
Proposed Funding for the FY26/27 PMP includes:
• Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds (RMRA) In 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (RMRP) to address deferred maintenance on State and local streets resulting in these state gas tax funds being allocated to cities and counties in California. • Measure I funds
Measure I funding comes from half -cent sales tax collected throughout San Bernardino County for transportation improvements including road maintenance and rehabilitation. • Highway User Tax Account (HUTA Gas Tax) funds
HUTA Gas Tax is the state of California's gas tax revenue. This tax is collected by the state from the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel and distributed to cities and counties for transportation improvements and road maintenance purposes. • InteragencyAgreements
Funding provided to the city by other agencies as part of City Council approved paving agreement funding commitments.
• General Fund
In previous years, annual funding for the PMP included approximately $880,000 in unrestricted (General Fund) funds. Over the last three fiscal years General Fund money has not been allocated to the PMP.
Funding for the current five-year cycle includes funds from the accumulated balance of Measure I funds, which were not programmed in previous fiscal years. The table below includes the proposed funding for the FY26/27 PMP:
Proposed FY26/27 Funding Source
Proposed
FY26/27 Funding
General Fund (unrestricted)
$997,742
RMRA
1,542,936
Measure I
1,804,221
HUTA Gas Tax
100,000
Inter -Agency Paving Agreements(l)
1001000
Total
$4,544,899
(1) Includes potential Inter -Agency Paving Agreement with the City of Calimesa for County Line Road 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 672
The proposed expenditures for the FY26/27 PMP include:
PMP Sub -Program
Proposed Amount
2026/2027
Street/Pavement Rehabilitation Program
$3,824,899
2026/2027
Surface Treatment Program
320,000
2026/2027
Patching/Pothole Repair Program
150,000
2026/2027
Concrete Program
80,000
2026/2027
Under Street Drain System Program
10,000
2026/2027
Striping Program
40,000
2026/2027
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
120,000
Total
$4,544,899
FISCAL IMPACT:
The funding identified above is included in the proposed FY26/27 Capital Improvement Program Budget for the FY26/27 PMP. As a result, there is no additional fiscal impact.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Pavement Maintenance and Street Rehabilitation Projects for FY26/27 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 673
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 674
ESTIMATED COST $170,000
2HEIGHTS ROA�
AV NU
STIMATED COST $265,000 IFESTIMATED COST $145
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
ESTIMATED COST $290,C
CEDAI
=E�eF= v
�j E� �CC
�IYUCAIP BLVD O�E�E�C
TIMATED COST $185,000®®�
ID
N N m
V~1 L L L C I1I1I�^Vv�-JyI�
n
AVENUEE
PZ N
Q N
Q
0 0 �
U a
z
(ESTIMATED COST S375.0001
FY26/27 PROPOSED STREET
SEGMENTS FOR 2026/2027
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WILDW0 CAN
a
STIMATED COST $480,000 ESTIMATED COST $270,000
Li 11r I ILJ" uhEn
iO,OOO VENUE H U �C D�
jw
-�
E7
]CCROAD
lay
COUNTY LINE
MATED COST $220,000
STIMATED COST $205,000*
2026/2027 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
Estimated Total Cost: $3,825,000
2026/2027 SURFACE TREATMENT
Estimated Total Cost: $320,000
675
2026/2027 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND
2026/2027 MICROSURFACE PROGRAM
PULVERIZE 8-9", REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF 34" MATRIAL, FURNISH AND PLACE 4" — Arterial/Collector Streets
Segment
From
To
Fremont Street
Carter Street
Fir Avenue
FULL WIDTH MILL AND OVERLAY — Arterial/Collector Streets Segment
From
To
Calimesa Boulevard
Oak Glen Road
Wildwood Canyon Road
County Line Road
Bryant Street
Holmes Street
Wildwood Canyon Road
3`d Street
4"' Street
5"' Street
County Line Road
Avenue H
12"' Street
Avenue E
Kentucky Street
17"' Street
Yucaipa Boulevard
Dunlap Boulevard
Douglass Street
County Line Road
Avenue H
Fremont Street
County Line Road
Avenue H
PLACE 2" ASPHALT CAP — Arterial/Collector Streets
Segment
From
To
Yucaipa Boulevard
3`d Street
4"' Street
Wildwood Canyon Road
Douglass Street
Holmes Street
Wildwood Canyon Road
Mesa Grande Drive
Canyon Drive
4' Street
Peach Tree Circle
Cedar Avenue (South)
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 676
PLACE 2" ASPHALT CAP — Local Streets
Segment
From
To
Cedar Avenue
3`d Street
Peach Tree Road
PLACE 2" ASPHALT CAP — Public Parking Lots*
Segment
From
To
7"' Street Parking Lot
Pool Parkside Lane)
7"' Street Parking Lot
Basketball Courts (Carson Lane)
* Not eligible for RMRA funding
Microsurface — Arterial/Collector Streets
Segment
From
To
Chapman Heights Road
Sand Canyon Road
10"' Street
Microsurface — Local Streets
Segment
From
To
Schafer Ranch Road
Bryant Street
East End
L nd Court
L nfall Street
North End
Grant Avenue
Wildwood Canyon Road
North End
Ironwood Drive
Oak Mesa Drive
County Limit
Beverly Court
Leah Lane
East End
Deborah Court
Leah Lane
East End
Jennifer Lane
Elaine Way
North End
Santa Maria Street
Douglass Street
San Lucas Drive
Santa Rosa Drive
Douglass Street
San Lucas Drive
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 677
CITY OF
_J
STAFF REPORT
Item No, 26
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Cou
FROM: Dr. Sean M. Moore CityManager)
PREPARED BY: Fermin Preciado, Director of Dent Services/City Engineer Landon Kern, Assistant EngineerW h, L_ VL
Peter Kann, Director of Community Development Ak
SUBJECT: State of California Regional Stormwater Regulation Update ww
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Receive an update regarding recent updates to the State of California's regional stormwater regulations; or
2. Provide further direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is a State of California regulatory agency responsible for protecting, preserving and restoring water quality in Southern California's Santa Ana River Watershed. The Santa Ana River Watershed covers portions of Orange County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County.
The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit is a joint permit issued by the RWQCB to the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD), and the sixteen (16) incorporated cities in the Santa Ana River Watershed within San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District is the Principal Permittee, whose primary responsibilities include administration of the overall stormwater program in conjunction with the cities, and act as the liaison with the (RWQCB) staff.
SBCFCD and the 16 cities within San Bernardino County are "Co-Penmittees" and responsible for implementing individual program elements in their individual jurisdictions and to financially support their individual efforts as well as financially supporting the county -wide program. The MS4 Permit (Permit) is regulated and provisions enforced by the RWQCB for the State of California. While the Permit expired in 2015, its term was administratively extended by the RWQCB until a new updated Permit is issued.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 678
In 2018, the RWQCB indicated that a new updated permit would be developed as a regional permit, instead of a permit solely for San Bernardino County. This new regional permit would incorporate approximately 60 public agencies across Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Since the release of the initial draft of the new permit in 2021, local agencies have been working closely with RWQCB staff to review and discuss the proposed changes, requirements, and anticipated fiscal considerations affecting all public agencies involved. Much of the discussions have been focused on the anticipated higher costs for the public agencies.
The new permit includes several significant changes that could substantially increase costs for cities, counties, and flood control agencies. Proposed new requirements could include additional efforts and increased costs for planning studies, inspections, monitoring, reporting, staff training, public outreach efforts, and construction -related fees. The costs of these additional efforts will be the responsibility of each public agency. Cities are also concerned that some existing compliance programs that have been implemented at the city level to improve water quality may no longer be recognized under the new permit framework. To address these concerns, representatives from the three counties have formed a collaborative working group to negotiate revisions with the RWQCB and seek more practical and cost- effective approaches to meeting the State of California's water quality goals. The proposed new permit is being referred to as an "un-funded mandate", since cities do not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are estimated to support the new permit's provisions and requirements each fiscal year.
At this time, no adoption schedule has been established for the new permit, and discussions between the RWQCB and local agencies continue. Through these coordination efforts, local agencies continue to emphasize that the new permit should aim to improve water quality in a more practical manner and consider that the requirements remain achievable and financially sustainable for public agencies.
There have also been discussions between the cities, counties and flood control districts to seek legal action against the State for what are considered drastic changes in the new permit. Since the City of Yucaipa is a co-permittee with San Bernardino County, the County Attorney's office has been actively involved throughout these discussions.
Additional information will be provided during the presentation provided by staff and a representative from SBCFCD regarding the ongoing coordination and the anticipated adoption schedule for the new permit.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The new permit is proposed to include several significant changes that would substantially increase costs for the City of Yucaipa. The proposed FY26/27 Budget includes approximately $300,000 in funding from the General Fund to address the requirements of the current permit. With the proposed updates, the annual costs to address these new regulations could potentially increase significantly and cost the City of Yucaipa $600,000 to $700,000 per year.
Attachments:
1. San Bernardino County information for updates to stormwater regulations. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 679
ATTACHMENT 1
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 680
AAL
WHERE WATER
MEETS COMMUNITY
Summary Update — May 2026
NPDES MS4 Permit Renewal
Tentative Order No. R8-2026-0034
This Summary is provided to update Permittee Executive Managements on the MS4 Permit renewal.
As of this summary, the Tentative Order was released by the Regional Board for public review and comment on May 5, 2026 (2026 TO). There is a 45-day public comment period ending on June 19, 2026.
This 2026 TO is the "second draft" to the original TO released by the Regional Board on Mar 5, 2024 (2024 TO).
Background
Summary Updates of October 2022, March 2024, and April 2024 are attached to this document for convenience.
Additionally, in Fall 2024, the District commissioned Beacon Economics to analyze the economic impact of the 2024 TO on San Bernardino County and the valley Cities. A Fact Sheet was developed to highlight the major economic impacts to our County. The Fact Sheet and the Beacon Report are also attached for your information.
Tentative Order (TO) — The first tentative order was released by the Regional Board on March 5, 2024 (2024 TO), with an extended public comment period of 120 days, ending July 3, 2024. Written comments were submitted by the Tri-County Group (San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Orange County) on July 311. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District) submitted comments focused on County -specific concerns, separate from the Tri-County Group.
The 2026 TO was released May 5, 2026, with a 45-day comment period only for revisions made to the 2024 TO. The Tri-County group received a red -lined version of the 2026 TO, ensuring a more streamlined review. The Regional Board did not release a "Response to Comments" with the 2026 TO and the District does not know when the document will be released to the public. The "Response to Comments" are the Regional Board's responses to public comments received on the 2024 TO.
In January 2026, in preparation of the release of the 2026 TO, the District's Expert Counsel issued a Public Records Act letter (PRA) to the Regional Board to produce the entire administrative record for the 2026 TO. Regional Board staff provided a majority of these documents at this time and expect the PRA to be completed in the near future.
Public Workshops/Hearing
As of this Summary Update, the Regional Board will conduct a Public Hearing to consider adoption of the 2026 TO at their July 24, 2026, board meeting in Orange.
It is possible that the Public Hearing may continue to the Regional Board's September 11, 2026, meeting in Irvine. Regional Board members and staff will be present to receive testimony regarding the 2026 TO.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 681
MS4 Permit Renewal — Tentative Order
May 5, 2026
MS4 Regional Permit — Timeline to Adoption
•Tentative Order •End of 120-day -Public Workshop
Released comment period •Reional Board directs
(extended from staff to continue
• Day 60-day) working with Permittees
comment period on TO
•Written comments *Public Hearing to
due consider adoption
•End of 45-day I of 2026 TO
comment period
Next Steps
92026 TO released
•45-day public
comment period
•TENTATIVE: Possible
continuation of Public
Hearing to consider
adoption of 2026 TO.
1. District staff have alerted city NPDES representatives regarding public release of the 2026 TO.
The District has and will continue to schedule meetings with the San Bernardino County Permittees to review the 2026 TO and develop county -specific comments.
2. District staff are analyzing the 2026 TO and identifying any continuing or new issues with the proposed requirements.
3. District and County NPDES representatives will continue to work with the Tri-County Group (San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Orange County) and bring forward San Bernardino County Permittees' comments to the group, and subsequently the Regional Board, before the end of the comment period.
4. The Permittees, District, and County (collectively, "the Program") will be utilizing the assistance of O'Reilly Public Relations (OPR) to coordinate the Program's message between Expert Counsel and City/County leadership for update meetings and to prepare for the July 24, 2026, Public Hearing.
5. District NPDES representatives will offer assistance to our city NPDES representatives as they meet with respective Executive Managements and/or Elected regarding the 2026 TO.
Recommendation
District NPDES staff request Executive Management logistic and networking support to coordinate messaging and scheduling the Elected at Regional Board and other local government meetings (i.e., SBCTA/city council committee meetings, workshops, or work sessions, etc.) to provide testimony on behalf of the County.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 682
21 SAN GEFwr;DIN0 C010ITY S i DRMWATER PROGRAM
WHERE WATER
MEETS COMMUNITY
Summary Update
NPDES MS4 Permit Renewal
Staff Working Proposal
This Summary is being provided to update Permittees' executive management on the current MS4 Permit renewal. As of this summary, there is no definite timeline for the adoption of a new MS4 Permit.
Background
In January 2010, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (2010 MS4 Permit) for stormwater discharges from areas in unincorporated San Bernardino County and from the Cities of Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa. The District was designated as the Principal Permittee under the MS4 Permit. The District represents the co-permittees to implement area -wide programs required by the MS4 Permit. The Implementation Agreement (Agreement 11-545) funds this work. The 2010 MS4 Permit expired in January 2015, and was administratively extended by the Regional Board.
In late 2018, the Regional Board indicated that the next MS4 permit will be a regional permit, naming all 60 permittees in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The Regional Board had been developing the regional MS4 permit since late 2018.
Release of Staff Working Proposal
On December 24, 2021, the Regional Board released a Staff Working Proposal (SWP) of a regional permit to the 60 permittees of San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Orange County (Permittees). Subsequently, the Regional Board publicly released the SWP on January 25, 2022, and held a public workshop on February 4, 2022.
The Regional Board solicited feedback on the SWP from the public; the Principal Permittees provided initial written feedback on March 10, 2022. The initial feedback letter proposed a discussion schedule between Regional Board staff and the Permittees, focusing on specific sections of the SWP. The Regional Board Staff was amenable to this discussion schedule and the Permittees have been meeting with Regional Board since April 2022. The initial feedback letter is attached; it outlines the Permittees' initial concerns with the SWP that were used as discussion points for the meetings with Regional Board staff.
Timeline: SWP Release
•SWP release
*Public Workshop
Notice
*Written
Feedback
deadline
Big Bear Lake . Chino . Chino Hills. Colton . Fontana . Grand Terrace . Highland . Loma Linda . Montclair* Ontario . Rancho Cucamonga 8�l a%%Zb26R&CoUSRl jenr�rtl�i,o . San Bernardino County . San Bernardino County Flood Control District . Upland . Y41
MS4 Permit Renewal — Staff Working Proposal
October 2022
The SWP is not a complete "permit" document and omits the Fact Sheet (Attachment D), which documents the Regional Board's rationale to justify SWP requirements. The SWP is not the tentative draft permit. Thus, the initial feedback solicited by the Regional Board is not a formal public comment letter and the Regional Board will not be providing a formal response to feedback received.
Tri-County Group
The Principal Permittees of each county — San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and County of Orange — formed the "Tri-County Group" to collaborate and coordinate information and concerns between the Permittees and Regional Board staff. The Tri-County Group includes each county's respective legal counsels, who have been meeting with Regional Board counsel to discuss SWP legal issues identified by the Permittees.
Proposed Changes outlined in SWP
While the Permittees wait for the Fact Sheet (SWP Attachment D), the early discussions with Regional Board staff have been providing the Permittees the Regional Board's rationale behind new proposed requirements, structure, and current program modifications outlined in the SWP. As a result of these discussions, a smaller Focus Group of the Tri-County Group are developing proposed changes to the SWP in red -lines of the SWP.
The Permittees anticipate that the Regional Board will include the following proposed changes/additions in the SWP. These may require Permittees to develop new, or update existing, programs, plans, studies, perform additional inspections and reporting, retrofit and/or install new facilities, etc. to comply with the permit requirements, increasing the cost of compliance.
Overall Significant Changes resulting in increased costs of compliance: Cost of compliance is estimated to significantly increase without indication of a source of additional funding if the tentative permit:
o Does not recognize and/or reference multiple pathways of compliance, or the existing plans, studies, reports, and programs of Permittees to satisfy the permit requirements (i.e. TMDL documents/resolutions, Basin Plan Amendments, Comprehensive Bacteria Reduction Plans, WQMP Technical Guidance Document, regional task force or coalition efforts, etc.); o Triggers new measures or programs that will require hiring additional staffing, contract staff, and/or consultants to implement the permit requirements and to maintain the required compliance activities throughout the life of the permit; o Does not propose and/or identify any funding mechanisms for stormwater for the implementation of the permit or the required compliance activities through the life of the permit; o Requires a new stakeholder process (public review/comment) be implemented for programs or processes that previously did not require stakeholder input; and o Expands the scope of training or requires Permittees be responsible for annual training of outside entities, including Permittees' contractors and consultants. • Significant Changes in Specific Sections:
o Potential Significant TMDL Compliance Change: Continued use, or updates to the Permittees' Comprehensive Bacteria Reduction Plans (CBRP), and the BMP-based compliance method proposed and established with the 2010 MS4 Permit, is now questionable.
The Permittees implementation of the CBRP has significantly improved water quality to date, and Permittees hope to be able to negotiate revisions to the SWP that allow continued use of the CBRP.
o New: SWP implementation of Trash Amendments via Track 1 or Track 2 (determined by each Agency in 2017) will require full compliance by December 2, 2030. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
5175526.3
•
1 � �
MS4 Permit Renewal — Staff Working Proposal
October 2022
o New: The SWP includes development and implementation of a Watershed Management Plan (WMP) with a Reasonable Assurance Analysis to verify that water quality goals can be met as proposed in the WMP. Failure to meet milestones identified in the WMP are permit violations. o Significant Change to Development/Redevelopment: Road WQMP will need to be revised from current program of length -based ('/4 mile min.) to area -based (5,000 sf min.) of new or improved road. Anticipated increased costs to Permittees. o Revised: Updates to the WQMP Technical Guidance Document (TGD) will no longer require approval from the Regional Board Executive Officer. This can potentially lead to a non -uniform TGD between the Permittees' agencies, increasing the Permittees' potential for permit violations and administrative civil liabilities.
o Significant Change to Municipal Construction Fees: Permittees will be required to start paying annual Construction General Permit fees for municipal construction projects >1 acre.
Anticipated increased costs to Permittees.
o Significant Change to Inspections: The SWP increases inspection for commercial and industrial facilities and increases reporting frequencies and requirements. Anticipated increased costs to Permittees.
o Significant Change to Public Education metrics: The SWP requires Permittees to conduct statistically significant annual surveys with unidentified parameters. Anticipated increased costs to Permittees.
o Significant Change to Water Quality Monitoring: The SWP requires a costly causal assessment to be conducted to determine cause of an water quality exceedance. Anticipated increased costs to Permittees.
Next Steps
Public Staff Workshop — The Regional Board hosted a public staff workshop on August 2, 2022, at the Riverside Main Library. The workshop allowed the Permittees to hear and discuss SWP comments with other stakeholders and the Regional Board. No decision on the SWP was made at this workshop.
The Permittees share a common goal with the Regional Board to improve water quality and impacts from stormwater. The Permittees strive to ensure permit implementation remains sensible to our respective agencies' operations. Agency NPDES coordinators and the District's NPDES section will continue to update you and greatly appreciate your support, especially during any future testimony before the Regional Board.
Timeline: Next Steps
•22 1 ==1111 Sept. 2022 Oct.
•TMDL-specific •Tri-County Group, •Submit redlines to
discussion - San Permittees Regional Board
Bernardino & complete SWP I •10/21-Board mtg.,
Riverside Counties redlines Linformation only
*Discuss redlines
with Regional
Board
•Tentative Draft
Permit
•Public Comment
Period
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
5175526.3
61856 e
Summary Update — March 1, 2024
`` `_. _. 4 '`" '` ' NPDES MS4 Permit Renewal
MEETS WHERE COMMUNITY WATER "- Staff Working p Pro osal/Tentative Order This Summary is being provided to update Permittees' Executive Management on the current MS4 Permit renewal, including staff perspective of the Regional Board's public workshops to disadvantaged and tribal communities. This update includes a recommendation to present a Permit Update and Regional Board's Outreach to the Permittees' Executive Management.
Background The Summary Update of October 2022 is attached to this document for convenience.
Tentative Order (TO) — The TO was released today, March 1, 2024, by the Regional Board. A Public Workshop is being planned for March 15, 2024, in Anaheim to introduce the Tentative Order to the Santa Ana Regional Board Members. The workshop will be held at the City of Anaheim, and available via video and teleconference.
Public Workshops for Disadvantaged and Tribal Communities The Regional Board hosted evening public workshops to solicit feedback on the Staff Working Proposal (SWP) from disadvantaged and tribal communities. These workshops were held:
May 10, 2023
San Bernardino Family YMCA
May 16, 2023
Virtual (via Zoom)
May 17, 2023
Moreno Valley Recreation and Conference Center
May 18, 2023
Memorial Hall, Huntington Beach
Regional Board staff's non -technical presentation included a background of stormwater permitting and a broad overview of the SWP, summarizing a few of the required programs that the County and Cities would be expected to implement in the next permit term. The presentation and other workshop documents are included with this update for perusal. The presentation also included the timeline for future drafts, comment periods, focused public workshop, and adoption of the MS4 permit. This timeline is depicted at the end of this update.
Agency Perspective
During these workshops, Regional Board Staff emphasized their goal to obtain perspectives from disadvantaged and tribal communities. County and City NPDES staff do not believe the Regional Board achieved this goal. Attendance by the general public at the in -person workshops were dismal, ranging from none (San Bernardino and Moreno Valley) to three (Huntington Beach); Regional Board staff accounted for the majority of attendance. There were 32 attendees at the virtual workshop; while at least 3 were from environmental groups, it is unknown if residents of disadvantaged or tribal communities were present.
At the San Bernardino workshop, City and County NPDES staff (5 in attendance) were able to share some resident viewpoints with Regional Board staff through the course of the workshop presentation.
While NPDES staff were able to provide public feedback to the Regional Board, the perspectives from the disadvantaged communities are best relayed by our City and County leadership. 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 686
MS4 Permit Renewal — Staff Working Proposal
March 1, 2024
Next Steps
1. The District and County NPDES representatives have alerted city NPDES representatives of the Tentative Order's release. The Co-Permittees will be meeting in closed session on March 6, 2024, to coordinate reviews and discuss the Tentative Order.
2. The District and County NPDES representatives will be convening with the Riverside and Orange County NPDES representatives (Tri-County Group) on March 12, 2024, to strategize and coordinate reviews of the Tentative Order, and prepare for initial public comments at the March 15, 2024, Regional Board meeting in Anaheim.
3. Presentation to City and County Managers, Elected — NPDES requests to provide a presentation to inform Managers/Electeds of the potential impacts of Tentative Order.
Additionally, due to the limited public notification of the May 2023 workshops (10-day lead time), County NPDES staff approached Jayne Joy, the Regional Board's Executive Officer, regarding the Regional Board's willingness to present to city/county leadership. Ms. Joy agreed and will work with County NPDES staff to schedule the presentation. A copy of the Regional Board's presentation is attached to this Summary.
Recommendation
The Permittees request an agenda item at a SBCTA CCMTAC or Board of Directors meeting in April for both the permit update and Regional Board outreach. NPDES representatives believe that the feedback from our City and County leadership will provide the Regional Board with the true perspectives and priorities of our residents.
MS4 Regional Permit — Timeline to Adoption
•Workshops for
Disadvantaged & Tribal
Communities
•2nd Draft - Tentative
Order (tentative)
•60 day (min) limited
public comment period
*Tentative Order released
•60 day (minimum) public
comment period
-Public Workshop
-End of 60 day comment
period
The Permittees share a common goal with the Regional Board to improve water quality and impacts from stormwater. The Permittees strive to ensure permit implementation remains sensible to our respective agencies' operations. Agency NPDES coordinators and the District's NPDES section will continue to update you and greatly appreciate your support, especially during any future testimony before the Regional Board.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 687
MS4 Permit Renewal — Tentative Order
April 2024
Summary Update — April 2024
NPDES MS4 Permit Renewal
Tentative Order
This Summary is being provided to update Permittees' executive management on the current MS4 Permit renewal. As of this summary, the Tentative Order (TO) was released by the Regional Board on March 5, 2024. Public Comment period was extended to a total of 120 days and ends on July 3, 2024.
Background
The Summary Update of October 2022 is attached to this document for convenience.
The Summary of the Public Workshop on March 151h, 2024, is attached to this document.
Public Workshops
The Regional Board will use the upcoming board meetings to have public workshops for the Regional Board members and the public, regarding the TO. Regional Board staff will be going through each section of the TO to summarize the permit to board members for further knowledge of the permit requirements. These board meetings will be held on:
May 3, 2024
City of Newport Beach
June 14, 2024
Orange County Water District
July 26, 2024
City of Orange
September 13, 2024
City of Cypress
October 25, 2024
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
MS4 Regional Permit — Timeline to Adoption
i •Workshopsfor
1 Disadvantaged & Tribal
Communities
•2nd Draft - Tentative Order
(tentative)
•60 day (min) limited public
comment period
•Tentative Order
released
•60 day (min) public
comment period
•Public Workshop
*Regional MS4
Permit adoption
July 3, 024
•End of 120-day comment
period (extended from 60
days)
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda
5175526.3
MS4 Permit Renewal — Tentative Order
April 2024
Next Steps
1. The District and County NPDES representatives have alerted city NPDES representatives of the Tentative Order's release. The Permittees are meeting to review the TO and provide comments to the District.
2. District and County NPDES representatives will continue to work with the Tri-County group (San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and Orange County), and bring submit the comments from the Permittees to the Regional Board before the end of the comment period.
Additionally, District NPDES representatives would like to offer our assistance to our city NPDES representatives to assist in meeting with your city management/electeds regarding the TO and the important changes contained within.
Recommendation
The Permittees request an agenda item at a SBCTA CCMTAC or Board of Directors meeting on May 2, 2024 for the permit update City Managers. NPDES representatives believe that the feedback from our City and County leadership will provide the Regional Board with the true perspectives and priorities of our residents.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 689
5175526.3 21
A BEACON ECONOMICS
Cost Impact Analysis of MS4 Tentative
Order for San Bernardino County
September 2024
© 2024 All rights reserved. Beacon Economics LI_C.
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 690
Executive Summary
In this report, Beacon Economics estimates the explicit and implicit costs associated with the proposed Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (referred to as Tentative Order (TO)) for the local government agencies in San Bernardino County under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. These Permittees (cities, the county, and the Flood Control District) have been regulated since 1990 under a series of MS4 permits that set forth regulations on how stormwater runoff from urbanized areas is to be monitored and managed.
We find that most new costs ($billions) will be associated with:
Attaining water quality objectives for stormwater, which will effectively require the urban landscape to be constructed in accordance with a Watershed Management Plan (WMP).
Further new costs ($millions) will be incurred in relation to a ratcheting up of existing mandatory mitigation measures, including:
(1) Increasing the frequency of inspections for businesses and construction sites, particularly since general industrial permit holders and all food and drink establishments are now required to undergo annual inspections. (2) Installing, maintaining and monitoring trash and litter capture devices on most street drain inlets. While installation and maintenance have been mandated by the state's trash policy, the requirement for monitoring is a new addition.
(3) Requiring incorporation of features for water quality protection (referred to as Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
requirement) into a much broader universe of qualifying public and private development and redevelopment projects.
Over the next 20 years, these changes will cost San Bernardino County nearly $10.8 billion. This estimate does not include all possible costs or unintended consequences that could arise from the change in MS4 permitting requirements. 07/026 City Council Agenda 2
BEACON ECONOMICS 691
San Bernardino County 20-Yr Cost Estimates (2024 $)
Numeric Limits Compliance/WMP
$
10,219,563,415.05
Develop ment/Re-Dev.
$
552,204,672.74
Comm. Inspection
$
13,321,247.92
Trash
$
6,560,000.00
Ind. Inspection
$
1,947,649.80
Total Costs
$
10,793,596,985.51
• NUMERIC LIMITS COMPLIANCE, WMP DEVELOPMENT, AND COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE We estimate median capital costs of approximately $7.52 billion and annual O&M costs of $135 million for San Bernardino. Over 20 years, it will cost San Bernardino approximately $10.2 billion to develop and maintain a WMP. • DEVELOPMENT AND RE -DEVELOPMENT Installation of ADA ramps exceeding 5,000 square feet will now trigger a WQMP, which will create delays and constrain city budgets. Due to changes in requirements forwhen a development triggers a WQMP could increase the construction cost of single-family homes by up to $25,000 per home. Assuming the exact same conditions for all single-family home developments in the county, this equates to increased single-family housing costs of $27.6 million across the county. Over 20 years, the aggregate increase in housing costs across the county would be $552.2 million.
Rising constructions costs are particularly problematic as residential construction has decreased substantially over the last 45 years. Low housing supply in the face of a growing population leads to rising home prices. • COMMERCIAL INSPECTIONS Commercial inspection costs are expected to rise by over $13.3 million over the next 20 years in San Bernardino due to more frequent inspections of Low Priority facilities and food and drink establishments. All but one of the agencies that will be disproportionately impacted encompass disadvantaged communities. Of these four, Ontario will likely be impacted most, followed by Chino and Colton.
• TRASH COMPLIANCE Over the next 20 years, it will cost over $6.5 million for San Bernardino to comply with the new monitoring requirements for trash. • INDUSTRIAL INSPECTIONS The changes presented in the TO will increase industrial inspection costs by approximately $1.9 million over the next 20 years. 07/a 0 City Council Agenda 3
11 BEACON ECONOMICS 692
All the agencies that will be disproportionately impacted encompass disadvantaged communities. Of these four, Fontana and Ontario will likely be impacted most.
In addition to explicit costs, Beacon Economics considers the implicit costs or opportunity costs that will likely be incurred by San Bernardino County in meetingthe proposed requirements. These costs include those associated with increased tax rates and redirected county funds. The financial implications of the TO raise concerns about resource allocation in counties already facing serious socioeconomic challenges.
Redirecting funds to meet TO requirements could undermine ongoing efforts to support disadvantaged communities, risking the deepening of existing economic hardships.
Cost
Share
%
Capital
($M)
1-Yr
0&M
($M)
20-Yr
0&M
($M)
General
Fund
($M)
Share of
General Fund Budget
Capital
1-Yr
0&M
Capital/5+i-
Yr 0&M
Estimated Median Cost (WMP)
$7,522
$135
$2,698
Grand Terrace
1.66%
$125
$2
$45
$7.86
1588.5%
28.5%
346.2%
Highland
3.63%
$273
$5
$98
$23.85
1144.9%
20.5%
249.5%
Yucaipa
4.19%
$315
$6
$113
$28.81
1093.9%
19.6%
238.4%
Chino Hills
5.23%
$393
$7
$141
$55.27
711.8%
12.8%
155.1%
Loma Linda
2.31%
$174
$3
$62
$26.71
650.4%
11.7%
141.7%
Rancho Cucamonga
8.37%
$630
$11
$226
$117.83
534.3%
9.6%
116.4%
County of San
Bernardino
13.51%
$1,016
$18
$364
$193.00
526.5%
9.4%
114.7%
Upland
4.15%
$312
$6
$112
$61.30
509.2%
9.1%
111.0%
Big Bear Lake
1.63%
$123
$2
$44
$24.26
505.5%
9.1%
110.2%
Fontana
9.51%
$715
$13
$257
$149.08
479.8%
8.6%
104.6%
Montclair
2.45%
$184
$3
$66
$39.36
468.2%
8.4%
102.0%
Colton
3.45%
$259
$5
$93
$65.94
393.5%
7.1%
85.8%
San Bernardino
10.53%
$792
$14
$284
$224.81
352.3%
6.3%
76.8%
Chino
4.95%
$372
$7
$134
$112.30
331.5%
5.9%
72.3%
Redlands
5.10%
$384
$7
$138
$115.73
331.5%
5.9%
72.2%
Rialto
5.34%
$402
$7
$144
$129.29
310.7%
5.6%
67.7%
Ontario
9.00%
$677
$12
$243
$428.87
157.8%
2.8%
34.4%
SB County Flood
1 5.00%
1 $376
$7
$135
-
-
-
Average
6%
$418
$7
$150
$106.13
594%
11%
129%
Median
5%
$374
1 $7
$134
$65.94
1 505%
1 9%
110%
SuCiECONOMIC FACTORS AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES The
county's socioeconomic vulnerabilities are profound, with 33% of its population living in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs). Nine agencies in the county have poverty rates above the state average.
Six of these nine are within the Santa Ana region, including San Bernardino (18%), Ontario (13%), Rialto (15%), Montclair (10%), Highland (16%), and Colton (15%). 07/a- 026 City Council Agenda 4
A BEACON ECONOMICS 693
Considering the stormwater program cost shares assigned to each agency in San Bernardino County, we find that the estimated Numeric Limits Compliance/WMP (capital spread out over five years plus one year's O&M) would equate, at best, to a third, and at worst, three -and -a -half times an agency's general fund budget. This means if agencies attempt to payfortheir fair shares of the numeric limit compliance/regional WMP development in five years, in most cases, theywill have no general funds left over for other public expenditures (legal services, libraries, parks and recreation, potice, public works, etc.). • CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS San Bernardino County faces severe financial challenges under the TO, with most cities experiencing capital costs exceeding 300% of their general funds. Particularly, Grand Terrace, Highland, and Yucaipa are highlighted as cities where one year's O&M costs alone consume a large share of their general funds. The potential financial demands associated with the TO could present these cities with difficult decisions between regulatory compliance and maintaining essential public services and infrastructure.
Cities with poverty rates above the 12% state average would need to contribute substantially to WMP costs, indicating that economic vulnerability is prevalent in areas financially burdened by TO requirements.
IMPACTS ON AQUATIC LIFE While the goal of the TO is to increase the water quality, the impact on local aquatic life may be negative, and may conflict with conservation efforts by the MWD. The San Bernardino MWD is leading a large-scale habitat conservation plan, including multiple tributary restoration projects along the Santa Ana River. Currently, these tributaries have flows and are important habitats for aquatic species such as the western pond turtle, Santa Ana sucker, and Arroyo chub, some of which are federally threatened. a � • i ` l
Photo credit: Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife; Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority; Zack Abbey.
A significant concern of the TO is the potential impact of the new prohibitions on these local aquatic species.
07/026 City Council Agenda 5
04 BEACON ECONOMICS 694
Introduction
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) is a state government agency responsible for protecting and improving water quality within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which spans portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange counties in Southern California.
Stormwater from the Santa Ana River Watershed flows through a network of channels and eventually drains into the Pacific Ocean, via the Santa Ana River. The Municipal Stormwater Program of the Santa Ana Water Board regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed. As per the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) section 402(p), stormwater permits are required for discharges from an MS4 that serves a population of 100,000 or more.
MS4 permits in the Santa Ana River Watershed have been issued since the 1990s and have been renewed four times since their initial issuance. Until now, the Santa Ana Water Board has regulated portions of the Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties located within the Santa Ana Region through separate Phase 1 MS4 permits for each county. These permits expired but were administratively extended and so, remain in effect.
Currently, a Tentative Order (TO) has been drafted for a fifth iteration, where for the first time, the separate permits would transition to a single Regional MS4 permit covering those portions of the Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties (including their cities and flood districts) located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Water Board.
In addition to consolidation of the three counties' MS4 permits into a single regional permit, the TO addresses administrative details, discharge prohibitions —including those related to non-stormwater runoff' and trash —and outlines specific requirements for managing new developments to reduce pollution and hydrological impacts. It also contains provisions for detecting and eliminating illicit discharges, as well as public education initiatives and training programs to ensure compliance. ' The TO includes a list of authorized non-stormwater discharges. These authorized discharges include air conditioning copilansate, fire hydrant flushing, non-commercial vehicle washing, among other exempt discharges.
A BEACON ECONOMICS
6 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 695
Most notably the TO includes responsibilities for Perm ittees to:
(1) Engage in an iterative process for continual improvements in all their programs, to achieve compliance with Effluent Limits and Receiving Water Limitations, including numeric Effluent Limits based on Waste Load Allocations (WLAs). (2) Adopt a system of performance metrics prescribed by the draft permit to objectively measure the performance of their control measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs).
While the primary goal of the TO is to strengthen BMPs and pollutant control measures in pursuit of better water quality (as established in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin) an objective analysis of the costs is necessary to meet federal and state requirements.' In this report, Beacon Economic estimates the costs for San Bernardino County Permittees associated with the more stringent MS4 permitting requirements as set forth in the TO.
2 Federal law mandates that "social, economic, and environmental consequences of proposed decisions shall be clearly stgAad in [informational materials]." (40 C.F.R. § 25.4(b)(2).) State law mandates evaluation of all "impacts of the AtVA&W1piLu(5tw&erlclu�lity impacts. (Wat. Code, § 13149.2, subd. (b)(2).) 7 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 696
Part I. Explicit Costs
As a first step, Beacon Economics estimates the expected explicit costs to be expended with the new requirements. Explicit costs are those directly associated with outlays of money, includingthose incurred once and those incurred on an ongoing basis.
The TO is based on the federal standards for MS4s established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 402(p)(3)(B), which require MS4s to "reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable [MEP]." MEP is the highest level of effectiveness that can be achieved employing whatever BMPs are technically feasible (i.e., those that are likelyto be effective) and are not cost prohibitive.3 The TO also references State Water Resources Control Board precedential orders directing that MS4 permits in California require the eventual attainment of water quality standards.
The MEP standard applies to a series of provisions in the TO referred to as the minimum control measures (40 CFR, section 122.26 (d)(2)(iv)). These measures include, among others, discharge elimination and remediation, runoff monitoring and reporting, conducting program effectiveness assessments, conducting municipal inspections, and public education.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN COSTS
As part of the new permitting requirements, Permittee counties will likely need to adopt Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) or similar plans attempting compliance with the numeric limits in the TO. For the purposes of this section, numeric limits compliance measures and WMPs are synonymous.
To estimate the capital cost of developing these plans, as well as the associated annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs, cost estimates were extrapolated from WMP groups as presented in the 2021 Los Angeles Water Board Study.' These costs are incurred by implementing a systemwide combination of parcel -scale water quality controls, street 3 State Water Resources Control Board Office of Chief Counsel February 11, 1993 Memorandum, "Definition of Maximum Ex�iwt Practicable."
4h / i /
a
8 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 697
drainage retrofits (often referred to as "Green Streets") and regional stormwater capture facilities.
Table 1. Permittees' Projected Cost Estimates for EWMP Full Implementation (Millions of Dollars, 2019$)5
EWMP Group
Capital
(Low)
Capital
(High)
Annual
0&M
(Low)
Annual
0&M
(High)
Total20-Yr
Cost (Low)
Total20-Yr
Cost (High)
Ballona Creek
$2,892.12
$2,892.12
$82.55
$82.55
$4,543.09
$4,543.09
Dominguez Channel
$1,340.65
$1,340.65
$15.39
$15.39
$1,648.41
$1,648.45
Malibu Creek
$201.54
$201.54
$3.86
$3.86
$278.71
$278.71
Marina Del Rey
$368.12
$368.12
$2.39
$2.39
$415.91
$415.91
North Santa Monica Bay
$34.51
$34.51
$1.15
$1.15
$57.55
$57.55
Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities
$90.00
$129.50
$1.34
$1.52
$116.80
$159.90
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River
NR
NR
NR
NR
$121.80
$121.80
Santa Monica Bay J2 & J3
$660.02
$660.02
$4.82
$4.82
$756.38
$756.38
South Bay Beach Cities
$46.13
$95.48
$2.15
$3.33
$89.04
$162.00
Upper LA River
$6,541.98
$6,541.98
$123.38
$123.88
$9,009.65
$9,009.65
Upper San Gabriel River
$1,216.34
$1,216.34
$44.31
$44.31
$2,102.59
$2,102.59
Upper Santa Clara River
$669.12
$669.12
NR
NR
$669.12
$669.12
Total
$19,809.06
$19,925.11
Source: Los Angeles Water Board Analysis.
Table 2. Estimated WMP Capital and O&M Costs for San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative Land Area (Millions of Dollars, 2019,$) EWMP Group
Land (in Acres)
San
Bernardino
Land Ratios
San Bernardino County Costs
Total20-Yr
Cost (Low)
Total20-Yr
Cost (High)
Ballona Creek
81,677
4.22 $19,176.88
$19,176.88
Dominguez Channel
50,857
6.78 $11,174.85
$11,175.12
Malibu Creek
32,992
10.45 $2,912.52
$2,912.84
Marina Del Rey
1,409
244.69
$101,768.58
$101,771.02
North Santa Monica Bay
1,056
326.48
$18,789.13
$18,776.07
Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities
14,464
23.84 $2,784.07
$3,811.41
Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River
20,416
16.89 $2,056.85
$2,056.85
Santa Monica Bay J2 & J3
34,362
10.03 $7,589.04
$7,589.44
South Bay Beach Cities
15,217
22.66 $2,017.35
$3,672.19
Upper LA River
309,757
1.11 $10,027.94
$10,038.99
Upper San Gabriel River
79,185
4.35 $9,154.55
$9,154.33
Upper Santa Clara River
199,811
1.73 $1,154.54
$1,154.54
Average
70100.24
56.10 $15,717.19
$15,940.81
Median
33677.00
10.24 $8,371.89
Source: Analysis by Beacon Economics.
5 Cost estimates are based on Permittees' EWMP estimates as presented under "Method 2" of the LA Water Board Study. a Lpad ratios were calculated using the included lands as reported in each watershed's annual reports.
BEACON ECONOMICS
9 07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 698
Table 3. Median WMP Capital and O&M Costs for San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative Land Area, (Millions of Dollars, 2024$)
San Bernardino County
2019$
Present Value
(2024$)
Capital, Median
$6,161.71
$7,521.60
0&M (20-Yr), Median
$2,210.18
$2,697.96
Total Cost, Median
$8,371.89
$10,219.56
Source: Analysis by Beacon Economics.
Table 4. Average WMP Capital and O&M Costs for San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative I -and Area, (Millions of Dollars, 2024A) San Bernardino County
2019$
Present Value
(2024$)
Capital, Average
$12,565.65
$15,338.89
0&M (20-Yr), Average
$3,263.03
$3,983.18
Total Cost, Average
$15,829
$19,322.46
Source: Analysis by Beacon Economics.
CAPITAL COSTS In terms of averages, the estimated capital cost for San Bernardino County is $15.34 billion in today's dollars. However, these averages may include outlier data points, such as the cost of the Marina Del Rey WMP.
In terms of medians, the estimated capital cost for San Bernardino County is approximately $7.5 billion in today's dollars.
O&M CO!7, The average O&M costs for San Bernardino County equal $3.98 billion in today's dollars. These values equate to approximately $200 million for San Bernardino per year. Again, these averages may include outlier data points, such as the costs of the Marina Del Rey WMP. It is more reasonable to consider median costs instead. The estimated median O&M costs for San Bernardino County equal $2.7 billion over the next 20 years. This corresponds to annual O&M costs of around $134 million.
TOTAL. V1MP (70.STS Over the next 20 years, it will cost San Bernardino County an average of $19.3 billion to cover the capital and annual O&M costs of developing a WMP. As for the median, over the next 20 years, it will cost San Bernardino County an estimated $10.2 billion in median capital and annual O&M costs to develop a WMP. 07/4Z02 City Council Agenda 10
ON BEACON ECONOMICS 699
Table 5. Estimated WMP Capital and O&M Costs for Agencies within San Bernardino County, Extrapolated by Relative Land Area, (Millions of Dollars, 2024$) San Bernardino County Proposed WIMP
Agency
Land Area
(Acres)
Population
Cost
Share
Costs (in Millions, 2024$)
Capital
0&M
(Annual)
0&M (20-
Yr)
Total (20-
Yr)
Big Bear Lake
4074.24
4914
1.63%
$122.60
$2.20
$43.98
$166.58
Chino
14835.2
93137
4.95%
$372.32
$6.68
$133.55
$505.87
Chino Hills
21176.45
77058
5.23%
$393.38
$7.06
$141.10
$534.48
Colton
9469.38
53154
3.45%
$259.50
$4.65
$93.08
$352.57
Fontana
27432.45
213851
9.51%
$715.30
$12.83
$256.58
$971.88
Grand Terrace
2255.04
12814
1.66%
$124.86
$2.24
$44.79
$169.64
Highland
10562.11
55984
3.63%
$273.03
$4.90
$97.94
$370.97
Loma Linda
5487.62
25228
2.31%
$173.75
$3.12
$62.32
$236.07
Montclair
3520.64
37494
2.45%
$184.28
$3.31
$66.10
$250.38
Ontario
31339.71
180717
9.00%
$676.94
$12.14
$242.82
$919.76
Rancho
Cucamonga
26851.71
173545
8.37%
$629.56
$11.29
$225.82
$855.38
Redlands
21201.09
71972
5.10%
$383.60
$6.88
$137.60
$521.20
Rialto
15144.06
102985
5.34%
$401.65
$7.20
$144.07
$545.72
San Bernardino
35303.55
223230
10.53%
$792.02
$14.20
$284.10
$1,076.12
Upland
9782.02
78376
4.15%
$312.15
$5.60
$111.97
$424.11
Yucaipa
16847.42
53991
4.19%
$315.15
$5.65
$113.04
$428.20
County of SB
89484.03
137778
13.51%
$1,016.17
$18.22
$364.50
$1,380.66
District
-
-
5.00%
$376.08
$6.74
$134.90
$510.98
Total
344,766.72
1596228
1000/b
$7,521.60
$134.90
$2,697.96
$10,219.56
Source: San Bernardino Stormwater Management Program Budget and Cost Sharing Allocation for FY 2024- 2025. Analysis by Beacon Economics.
07/0 City Council Agenda 11
A t3EACON ECONOMICS 700
Figure 1. Estimated WMP Capital and 20-Year O&M Costs for SBC Agencies (Millions of Dollars, 2024$)
$1,400.00
$1, 200.00
$1,000.00
$800.00
$600.00
$400.00
$200.00
0.00 111111
-j z
m
O0 0 _
l7 J � U
■ Capital Costs
1111111
U - S Q
a U U w =
O&M Costs (20-Yr)
11111
Z
Q
0 m m
= 0
L
N 1-n
Source: San Bernardino Stormwater Management Program Budget and Cost Sharing Allocation for FY 2024- 2025. Analysis by Beacon Economics.
TRASH COMPLIANCE COSTS
According to the TO, Permittees must choose between two options for trash management:
1) Track 1 requires the installation of Full Capture Devices (FCDs) to control trash larger than 5mm in size from priority, designated and equivalent land uses. 2) Track 2 requires the installation of a combination of trash capture systems that achieve equivalency of Full Capture Systems.
Permittees made theirtrack selection several years ago based on requirements setforth in the state's trash policy adopted bythe State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 2015.' The state's version of Track 1 trash compliance does not include a requirement for monitoring.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/documentation.htmt A BEACON ECONOMICS 12
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 701
Instead, the state's trash policy requires the installation, operation, and maintenance of full capture systems. The trash control requirements set forth in the TO may not be in -line with the state board's trash reduction requirements. To require Track 1 agencies to monitor their full capture systems is unreasonable, as agencies had not anticipated this new requirement when making their track selection and changing a trash management system once it is up and running is costly.
Each Track 1 Permittee in San Bernardino will incur expenses related to the following tasks:
a. Initial Assessment — Develop an On -Land Visual Trash Assessments (OVTA) plan and estimate trash generation rates from non -protected full capture systems. b. Monitoring Efforts — Estimate trash generation rate reduction and conduct inspections.
c. Increased Annual Reporting Efforts — GIS map updates, annual report templates, and coordination with O&M.
An initial assessment is expected to cost a flat fee of $30,000. Monitoring efforts are expected to cost each Track 1 Permittee $15,000 annually and increased annual reporting efforts are expected to cost each Permittee $4,000 annually in additional expenses.' For the county's Track 1 Permittees,'these three tasks will cost a combined $4.92 million over the next 20 years.
ADDITIONAL INSPECTION COSTS
Each Permittee must have an effective inspection program for industrial, commercial, and construction sites to minimize or reduce the pollutant discharge into MS4s. The TO specifies inspection frequencies for different priority sites:
• High Priority: Inspected once a year.
• Medium Priority: Inspected once every two years.
• Low Priority: Inspected once every five years.
Permittees can, however, propose alternative inspection schedules. a Based on consultation with stormwater program expert within Riverside County.
BEACON ECONOMICS 13
07/27/2026 City Council Agenda 702
INDUSTRIAL INSPECTION COSTS
The current permit has the same schedule of inspections as specified in the TO for High and Medium Priority sites. However, the current permit requires that Low Priority sites be inspected once every permit term. Permit terms can last longer than five years; the current term has extended to 14 years. The TO specifies that Low Priority sites be inspected once every five years. The new industrial inspection specifications will impact agencies' Low Priority industrial facilities.