HomeMy WebLinkAboutEtiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage AM
MI.
M.
Aim
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ETIWANDA AREA MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE
woe
iSjil
Submitted To:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
9320 -B Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
a' Submitted By:
"`" BSI CONSULTANTS, INC.
1415 E. 17th Street
Santa Ana, California 92701
im
OCTOBER 1988
AA
Aft
AW
Iw
sw
ao TABLE OF CONTENTS
iom
• Page
*■ I. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS I -1
AMP Summary I -1
Recommendations I -8
041 II. INTRODUCTION II -1
'm Purpose II -1
Facility Definitions II -1
Background 11 -2
III. REGIONAL MAINLINE SYSTEM III -1
Criteria III -1
Description III -1
Regional Mainline Drainage Concepts 111 -2
m "` Cost Estimates 111 -3
Regional Mainline Drainage Facility Cost
Distribution III -9
Benefit Areas Within the Jurisdictional Areas III -14
IV. SECONDARY REGIONAL SYSTEM IV -1
.w
Criteria IV -1
,.. Description IV -i
Cost Estimates IV -2
*► Secondary Regional Facility Cost Distribution IV -4
V. MASTER PLAN SYSTEM V -1
rr
Criteria V -1
*+ Hydrology V -1
Hydraulics V -2
m"' Cost Estimates V -2
Master Plan Drainage Facility Cost Distribution V -3
VI. LOCAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM VI -1
Criteria VI -1
Design Standards and Procedures VI -5
'" Local Drainage Systems for Existing Developments VI -11
VII. INTERIM DRAINAGE FACILITIES VII -1
Description VII -1
Interim Regional Facilities VII -1
Interim Master Plan Facilities VII -4
Financing of Interim Master Plan Facilities VII -7
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES VIII -1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
APPENDIX A REGIONAL MAINLINE AND SECONDARY REGIONAL
FACILITIES
APPENDIX B MASTER PLAN FACILITIES
APPENDIX C LOCAL FACILITIES
APPENDIX D INTERIM FACILITIES
List of Tables
Table No. Title Page
III -1 Summary of Cost Estimates for the Day -
Lower Etiwanda Creek System, Current
Facilities Plan III -4
III -2 Summary of Cost Estimates for the Upper
Etiwanda -San Sevaine Creek System,
Current Facilities Plan III -5
III -3 Summary of Cost Estimates for the Day -
Etiwanda Creek System, Original
Facilities Plan III -6
�,. III -4 Summary of Cost Estimates for the San
Sevaine Creek System, Original Facilities
Plan III -7
III -5 Unit Costs for Channel Reaches III -8
III -6 Original Regional Mainline Facilities
Plan Cost Distribution III -10
III -7 Current Regional Mainline Facilities
Plan Cost Distribution III -10
III -8 Additional Lower Etiwanda Area Master
Plan Facility Cost Estimates III -12
III -9 Regional Mainline Facility Fair Share
Cost Distribution III -13
III -10 Regional Mainline Facility Fair Share
Cost Distribution Per Net Acre III -14
III -11 Jurisdictional Areas within Day, Etiwanda
and San Sevaine Basins III -15
.0w
""° ii
arr
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
Table No. Title Page
IV -1 Summary of Cost Estimates for Secondary
Regional Facilities IV -3
IV -2 Secondary Regional Facility Cost
Distribution IV -4
�ww
V -1 Summary of Cost Estimates Etiwanda Area
Master Plan Facilities V -2
V -2 Master Plan Facility Cost Distribution V -3
VII -1 Interim Regional Detention Basins VII -3
VII -2 Interim Master Plan Peak Flow Reduction
Facilities VII -6
B -1 Storm Drain Unit Prices
B -2 Master Plan Facility Cost Estimate
Drainage Area XIV (Upper Etiwanda)
B -3 Master Plan Facility Cost Estimates
Drainage Area XV (San Sevaine)
B -4 Master Plan Facility Cost Estimates
Drainage Area XVI (Lower Etiwanda)
C -1 Cost Estimates for Blue Gum Drive Storm
Drain
C -2 Cost Estimates for Catalpa Storm Drain
C -3 Cost Estimates for Pecan Avenue Storm Drain
C -4 Cost Estimates for So. Pecan Avenue Storm Drain
List of Figures
Figure No. Title Page
I -1 Study Area I -2
I -2 Regional Mainline Facilities I -3
I -3 Ultimate Master Plan Facilities I -4
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
Figure No. Title Page
I -4 Regional Mainline Facilities Drainage
Areas I -6
I -5 Secondary Regional Facilities Benefit
V- Areas 1 -7
VI -1 Minimum Non - Flooded Roadway Width
Requirements VI -2
,► VI -2 Flooded Roadway To Top of Curb or Edge
of Pavement Requirements VI -3
VI -3 Flooded Roadway To Right -of -Way Line
Requirements VI -4
A -1 Regional Mainline Facilities and Secondary
Regional Facilities
B -1 Ultimate Master Plan Facilities
B -2 Land Use and Soils Map
B -3
thru
B -5 Hydrology Maps
B -3a Watershed Area XIV, Upper Etiwanda, Lines XIV -1
to XIV -9
B -3b Watershed Area XIV, Upper Eitwanda, Lines XIV -10
to XIV -24
B -3c Watershed Area XIV, Upper Etiwanda, Lines XIV -25
to XIV -40
B -4 Watershed Area XV, San Sevaine
B -5 Watershed Area XVI, Lower Etiwanda
.., B -6
air thru
B -23 Master Plan Facility Profiles
C -1 Blue Gum Drive Storm Drain, Plan
C -2 Blue Gum Drive Storm Drain, Profile
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
Figure No. Title
of
.wM
C -3 Catalpa Avenue Storm Drain, Plan
Orr
C -4 Catalpa Avenue Storm Drain, Profile
C -5 Pecan Avenue Storm Drain, Plan
C -6 Pecan Avenue Storm Drain, Profile
C -7 So. Pecan Avenue Storm Drain, Plan
C -8 So. Pecan Avenue Storm Drain, Profile
D -1 Interim Regional and Master Plan Facilities
v
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage provides an
investigation of four (4) types of drainage facilities needed
to control surface runoff and protect property within the
Study Area. The Study Area which is shown on Figure I -1
covers the Etiwanda Area and the City of Rancho Cucamonga
sphere of influence which are tributary to the Etiwanda and
San Sevaine systems.
�,. The facilities investigated are:
1. Regional Mainline
2. Secondary Regional
3. City Master Plan
4. Local
Each of these facility classifications has been identified
within this report.
The Regional Mainline facilities shown on Figure I -2 were
sized during the preparation of "Report on the Day, Etiwanda
and San Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan ", dated March
1983, by Bill Mann and Associates for San Bernardino County
�• Flood Control District.
The Secondary Regional facilities are shown on Figure 1 -2.
Ale
Victoria Basin, which is the only existing secondary regional
facility was sized to provide flood peak attenuation for its
tributary area flows. The Henderson and Wardman Channels,
which are Secondary Regional facilities have been sized as
part of the proposed development work. The ultimate Hawker -
Crawford Channel was sized for cost estimating purposes
during the preparation of this Master Plan of Drainage. The
Upper Etiwanda Interceptor Channel will collect debris laden
runoff from its tributary area and convey it to the Etiwanda
Debris Basin.
The Master Plan facilities have been sized to collect and
convey the surface runoff resulting from a 100 -year frequency
storm. The recommended ultimate Master Plan facilities are
shown on Figure I -3.
I -1
qmp
Amg
Ma
Ai
4.
MI
lie
11•1 ru r•Kno■aa....ai roonsw■••• NN 7 , •=7
AIN
INK
4
Z
m. 24TH o... NIL :l �-- —
ast > M ��` W '
SUMMIT QM �
FOOTHILL FW Y. ,,
AVE. WW
HIGHLAND j W I . > \ \a
.. S. R. R,I .
1' - CC .c _ . a
BASE UNE V2 I 0
RANCHO CHURCH 5 1 ST . . ■, A�+1'
t O FLINT �i A
FOOTHILL BLVD. o �
.. ARROW I I I I 1rOU\\�
A ' AT &SF w WM.
> ��
6 TH. =
Ar,i---___ ..
I `w.,;
4TH. 71 ST. 1
- - - - -- -- =- - I - - --
4. w O N T ARC3 i'
SAN BERNARDINO FWY.
... I
4
N.T.S.
,.r
4
. C ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ETIWANDA AREA
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE FIGURE
I -1
-- LOCATION MAP
I -2
*ft
•
AMU
MI _
.
- _
ea*
- ' a
- • .
MO
„.,
.all
1 ' '
•
1 0 V
- ••••••
• - • •
ala
Aar
WA
- rANDI saw
MD DM • •Ii il k
,, OEMS Wm
spitaaal
! lama OnOuPOS - \ .
• •
Cam. • 1 V
•Tai
: FT
• ,
----
-- - I ••••-_,- 0
. L eeee.
7 •••• II \
• 1111 aware_
nen •
0..
I i ' Wr' tan CAN•rato_.
LAWS_ .• T}
Da WEISZ C .• 'IS,t i rya .......„......„: ::•__________OIA WEL
almuleOs
I - Tiva 1. A:
1.
Ave 1
..•• 'V i l'.
• •
.111E
_ NE
ele
• ' ' ' ...• %
• ' .',1\ _.•
. .0
r •.• lasaaa
•• N
i
alia
.. •• _
2 e TAW WE UK
of 1 4
WW4 ... ••
ILAAC c IjcAACMG III r 1
4 '
«rat «
■ , •1
le" i Ei 1----- _ ,....--._
,,„. . 1. •.....,
- - -=----::-*--
•
•
•
•••k - •
. •
-- • .• •
•
-,- • 4
• , r
. - -t-
•••• • .
• ' • I' • •
.t.••••:.
=maps arm • Ea .. .
• i . _ - . - _ .. 4'1 ., 1 14 7 T;• • •
- -
*IMO 1 1 '-'___ - _
• ' - • 1 ... ...,_ L
. ,.- ,
_ - --
t
OW li • - I, .1\1 BERNARDINO ' Co ' r ; . - .
-..--,
a .
NA
.... 1 ..... - ... 0 . r.
• r , a S ,.
1
il
' '
1 i
0 11, •- -...___ ___,__ _,...-- li ' .-.., '' '- ' l i ' ' = t' --= - -..= . - '-'- -
• t _ ... 10 , =__ • _ . ' ,
. ..., LP
• - ..• • 1 _
_
I : ......- ••••■•••••
•
,,,,- ,
V _ ...
- 1 I P
1 , _ , ..._
AG _
/
L
ON rAri JO
/ 4 ,,,.. • •
mi.
0,1
AMC 1 soca ge, . Ni___ i.. 1 . J-1—
3 ;
AI
OREvetan il .0 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
•••• '''• — .: ....1... ' ETIWANDA AREA
— .. MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE
LEGEND C, _ • r -, ) ,, r , \ HA ,.•• ,,.
••• - T.--.'"- REGIONAL MAINLINE FACILIfin
ORAVIAGE BOUNDARY AND SECONDARY REGIONAL FACILITIES
CORPORATE IGUNOAVY
REGIONAL Malaga MUTT _
AN 1 Qs CONSULTANTS INC
PROPOSED SECONDARY MOW& .......e... 'he
MUTT .............-........... .e............. ..........a.
Alwams•
M am
alli I FIGURE 1-2
*4 1-'3
let
At"
L- /7 . I.? '-).,- l' ''''', ‹...'77 ' t " .. ' '; - .:.,Ne(if. '' . ,-.F :-" \-Th '; ‘ , 1 / ■__ . " ,-- - 7 ;'' k" ''''k ' - '''% : A.,:'■''.. ,, it‘_- '' .`-
VON Sik /:■'' --- ‘:,.J .._1 'I-- ' -' ' I , ''' - '''' , , \il l' '' .. - > ■-•%-',,_..-- ... ‘' \n ' - -, t " , '-' , -..
-- -:>.-_,',-, J '.'" 4.., , . :-'-' Z '-' , ' ' '. ; " ''' S ', '„ ;'t•, ;-41. .!'t ,,-.7 -;',ir : -.1 . ,-:', . , :::-t - L ,, • , ----, --- 7. - - - ,
,....),,,,„,_,,,,:„:__
4111
: ' .. \..- or", ,- -. 7 - - -- : , ''.,--;,, Illr... •••1":"... ,i & ': :,),/i .. ') .„..„:_:/.....-:-!-- ,,, , s:...,.....
, :Tic, : r i , , =!,,, -,,_, !
. , .
IV '\ ,) -- Z. 2 „. -- \ -- - 1 "-" , -1-., - , ; - \_,... - ... , ,;_.L.:: :
1
-- _,', - -., ; ..-k.P.1.■ V. ': . : - .- '-.- p ...:-.
_ 35 ", : . '1 r, ' , 1 , -(,,,--",... 4 , o. - - ,:•;:.- . : :,„I
y -- - - ,
% ‘f7 '-' „ v 7 °4.4 - • - - ,,,_/'------! I----• ,"v, -. ,
, • ! -- _ ._'...::.:- lx• 4 ,. ‘1 ;- _ 1_, i t*„,'......, - - • ' ;--,-- _ ...- t , -.. '-'-, ---- • / : . •••, • .- _r1 -- ....
vIVII
'-....... - ..• '7'... '":-,_.,_ „ 1 ve
'C'''''' V - .. - 'Awl- .1 4r. / N • %= ••--' - .__ . .; '• ----- • - .1, , ' --__' _ --•. .- .., - . ' 1 , • /. .."= ‘,... """m ft
.„„ . , r . ..;t ------ -- - . I -
. .
_ _ I ----' - Vs ' '' " ...E....a' _ ' •
le.. : I - -- V
/ N. : 9•112•01•10
. 00.1.1 --1 • i,:,,_ /ir
- - - - I- :":"..--- - - i
WS
I , ' I ag., A%,„ .t : _ ! , b , iii In. NAM Z
_
r - s ' .......,....... • , 66-2 2 ,--- :----------- , 23
I. %
__t_xf Marl I or- el - ',I/. i lkk. I rxr•- I 1C.KT
- • .- , z 5A s-
---- 1 - 1 --------- --- ''. _ -x 1,7"1:: r XV
4111 „......--•___,.N.-
,,,, .. t
133"
: . - ‘\---- si• --- 69;
1 m.- ,1 ' - L. ---' • i .7. i iir- • 1 - - _ 1 :\ 57 '0
...
:-•
-------' . ____..,'
• 1 • IMVOIL/I CRAVe003 1 .
MI
• XIV ' / - ,
• -.o -:-- - - f _ -
MVO ,..2,.._-...,j 0 . _ 7 20. 57 OW . 48. 61 i . : • --'\ '
_ !27 22
›...... __.-L- ...;-: = ,t, - 1 .,,,- . i 1 24 : 0:::: ct i ,
f riara . 130 1 XIV- 21_ 0 1 . ii _ , .... • ." ....0.7,- .. :., .....
,
1. - :: 61 . 17 ' - 12 ..... 010" 0° 1
!. st''
.
• - 1 '
- - . it. -- _ cr 100 . I 1 XIV- I 7 "...7\_1'
63. 1.51 1 0 • ...-._,
00111
• .. •
- ..... ;`=-..-■ I -. ''
-,71- . 1.4. - -iY.40(-•-,---.- - --,--. -L- EV s
:.j. . 5,---.. ....... .•■■• -... / . ;•L - ^ 7 ---'-'-.'' - '. ' '...
i l :S12 ,--./- • ;7. i , ,SI . .• • 9'
" 6. • iii . 7 , CIL
.----' .. . ..
_r" . • -„- ,,,. .-: :,;.. z - 1.5 ... '-- I:: - . \-------\
a,' • =7' I ' .. . , .4POPT
311 , . - , • - . ___-
.. i E ..,_,-/-' ' 4;. *.■ ' 1 . _
1 ' r t. : : :' i - --- -- V.7"." .'.'•
- - .:.•
.0.• -, ---•,t1
/
al 32
- _ .:
• S' ' FFI yom • 4 34
-
•
57. 136' I/ ,, . •
I ■.__,
-
32 '''''. : '-'-==' 33 P4 \ ' : /i- .,,Y 11 , . - 35 -"--,
II L. ■
. _. .
.,.. 'LA. :I" .I.t ill i ,..-,.,-,_ ' , -.......1.1.
gr., .
.1E11 . . .
117 r-,L,_• 2..... 4... ; -_,. izr 4. ,..._
Et,.1.4, --/,/ E ,. a *
■
mi• Spr I ■. z
Ad N
AA. i I ,..g • : ; . 0 -
li 1
- so' 6 . - L s - - sc....i .0.-.4 •
-11,:, ..PI --•- - ---..
a ..
.,,. ---__ `,.••„,.-.., I . .
'. •••C.•
.___„/ . : i -.7 -, -, I •
• , _ _ 'i• . , - I' , I T4
• 410V-311 96 I -
NNE FONTNA i• : , . - 41
ti - ... .:-/ \ s '[-. ' -- , * : „ - _ ... --_ •
, • :::::, .,...,: ,•. ,•• : ._, ..1
'''''',. • ,.. . •• ,,, __•':: to - • ' . ! . , ..; ,.., t• . ..,-:-.' 7 , - ,
-,ms ------ ....
/. rr.,... - 7.: :. . 1 „ / "'".: :: . . t : .. -' =19 L 4
... i iiilli i ." . .14: : • ... ••: .,- :- ''... : ;-: r.' '"-'. '
,Asi .! ' ' • r.: • - i - : . ',• . i •.: • • '-' • 1 , 'L • ; -_„....
-
. '. , • •• ." ' ' : ' : ,. :C . "*-:::. --
. , ':: • .' ": I' :- *: ' i -' . - :: - • --! . • m -------'
. 1 i • . • ;• : ; . 10 , ; ." ..• • i - , - '1 '.1:. • . '..::i LI! : • *: - • 1 ....1::::. _ ....4_,...
-
ma _ ....- •:: : - ... . • •::: ...; : ' i P - 1 7 ' •: -: ' ..:... : : '', cr.
... •;:. . -.1., -- -.--,:: ,:,, .N..., :T• „ L
La • : : -, - i.• • .L--. , • -L. -- '''''"' i ."r •
I • rt,E44 .
. . IXVI , - . . . 6. _ • Kam:l . .1
Li t_ . _ .. ,. •
_
i: 7 .: ,,
... . • •• - P .1 - i . iir - )1 : i _ .- - ..."- -1 ,..
., _ .,- „- -,
.. 1 .:,, 14 ...,L. ,
t011 ". -4. ---/-
..,..,.. :-- --- _ -- -.R. x -
- :',4 ''•_iirt. .L..., ,,.. ,./f ...-.• io.-; ' ‘ ,- "1"
..... ....
_ .
1 ,', ., •
" ,i • :2
..;-:;.:47 ...., L I, 1' i, i..t:t.., ::: • =---1.,--4-
t 1 I
- I - -- L. _,I - ' . ' . db: 1 '-'----
..., '
- .
f
.
Eil 17 •••• 11 :;14-.■i %lc: • .......„ ':----,
. 1 67 • 9 7 - . 16 ••, r ....AM..- .. ...*4157.1.1.. . •
-- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
t . i II' I I •
ETIINANDA AREA
0.. '
„ I•' . . 7 ttliVf30' LEGEND
-- MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE
1 , E
1 : INE1-71 - 7- ' 'e
1 , , .....■■ MOVER RAN MILO, MN Wit • ULTIMATE MASTER PLAN FACILITIES
NO . I . moo, MK)! MOOT
. ! i 9 , s . 8°' •ANR: -.i.
i 1
• I h - :-':'
OSI CONSULTANTS. INC.
ON \ YO 1_•• ' - . •
,..-- .. ' b am • worm 15) ...............,-. sem.../*• ......ages
d NE1011 In)
[wm__-_411 roe"
2 ME ILOPE
TO I -10
ARO I FIGURE 1 ,
1 .. 4 .
5101
Local drainage facilities have been sized to serve four
existing developed areas within the study area. The criteria
and procedures for determining the Local drainage facilities
for future developments are included in this report.
Cost estimates have been prepared for each facility with a
distribution of cost to areas benefitting from these
"� facilities.
The detailed cost estimates and the distribution of costs for
the Regional Mainline facilities are shown in Tables III -1
through III -10. The recommended ultimate Regional Mainline
facility cost distribution is as follows:
REGIONAL MAINLINE FACILITY COST DISTRIBUTION
Drainage Area Cost per Net Acre
($/AC)
Upper Etiwanda 7,200
San Sevaine 1,800
Lower Etiwanda 0
The Upper Etiwanda and San Sevaine drainage areas are shown
on Figure I -4.
The Secondary Regional facility cost estimates and
distribution of costs are shown in Tables IV -1 and IV -2. The
recommended Secondary Regional facility cost distribution is
summarized below:
SECONDARY REGIONAL FACILITY COST DISTRIBUTION
Drainage Area Cost per Net Acre
($ /AC)
Victoria 330
Henderson /Wardman 6,000
Hawker- Crawford 3,450
Upper Etiwanda Interceptor 1,925
The Upper Etiwanda Interceptor Channel, the Victoria Basin,
Henderson / Wardman System and Hawker- Crawford system benefit
areas are shown on Figure I -5.
The cost estimates for the Master Plan facilities are shown
in Tables B -2 through B -4 in Appendix B and the distribution
of cost to the benefitting areas are detailed in Tables V -1
and V -2. The Master Plan facility cost distribution is
summarized as follows:
I -5
WO 441 � - t%a-,• a.'r.e _ ; _. F- l „ , h - - -• ..[ r - " trt; 1 i+ _ - _
y. • _,-. ate .
s.--- - F wi= •. s ic . _ .. '; ^ L , w. x ■, -.44:-.7,-- - - ' - s - - ! •e_
13 N
WW 4. 4 ; I , Y• • I, V i T I U Y i 1. 1. O R F ,•
•
�, ` 't ''1
\ \ \ \ \\\
Fs
WO ' \\ \ ; ; \ \\ \ :\\ . ' a",� • ' r iii! IIIII
.* .~'_ ' \ \\ \\\\ \\,46,_, \ • ii iii � �iii I j� 1, swum
\\ \\ \\ • i1 111114511i111/1
I III
\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\\ ,_ iii!IIII,„ pf
I' • \\ \ \ \\ \` \\ \\ \\ , !! ij II
■
• I . \ \\ q \ \\ \ \ . 0
. \\\\‘‘\ or
.2. L
•; 1 1Cd6 CUC- \MC)NCA \ \ \'\ \ \ � ;Iiill!IE-,
•
MO 1111111111; 44144 1 II 4
•
1 1111111111 III1IIIHI1OOOOIIIIllhIIIi
-.
•
:: s _ 1 I� III I1!IIr �
04401 I gar i,B I I
WM
v ii i !i J II i i i I � �� 1 I"
- � ; , "• -- - � • - _ III 11 i i1il iilill ���i � _ ,' 1
ice _J •• , - y� I. ` 1 � *10 111 !111!11!11 /jiii141 " .�111111:211111. 1
U,17.L41U y • • • •
•
111111 g 111111i 111111111 I 1
dES •
Sftil r marl
41111 . 111 1,
NE MN- ••.wu
MABTER PLAN • - IhF� R �` CITY OF RANCHO ARE AMONGA
r� II r! i ETIWAN O F DRAINAGE
AREA
O
`; REGIONAL MAINLINE FACLJTE9
_ 11111101/1112 •°•OY^ Ii : �� DRAINAGE AREAS
........ MOM= SOIWr 1�Yl I I • • : ..•. A. - • � 1� r � - i CONSULTANTS. INC.
taw. [/Ilro. au•t WW1
Ali ® .NI ' =WNW n
I MUM 1-4
v41 I -6
MO
•w
511• r ._
•
y
4•. z •
r .
els, • -• -•••
-R •
t _
` - Natio :1 Fore- t '
fr Bo
■
— -- /' /
<\ \
r . •moo ao.. ,.,..• \\ \ •
w. ••. .0. a emu . \\\\v
•00000005.,:' \ \\\\ \\N
� "ti 000 ` `- � L • .„ • \ \ \ \ \ \\ \`
000 00000000. a • "° 1. `� - \ \ \ \ , y \
! ,00000000000. 0 -• • • ( \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
• • .i+ I.•• s \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
.- ,• ----- :..�i : o00000000000t;.• - - . :--1 \ \\ \\
/ • •000000000000T1•L•'�� ,, • Lj 1 \ -' / \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
•
••• • S o00000000o000 �• ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \♦
\
•.. .... • •000000000000• 1 „,,... . ,. • . - • a � -}F
; 0000000000•.. - • - 1):"..• - ` ^�\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\
�• 0000000000•... ` ..e, _;; , :t \ \A \'. !••, \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\
• 00000000000000 • _ t.• • _ \
.--
! •' 0 00000000•.1.•1.0. "S : a,,5t4 =• \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \l
•
: - s - [t,. - w -
_� ... • •••
us= oft
MOM _ •"•:
• 5- 1 •
- - - , !If 4 m i rN y , , \ ' - ..
•
A.ANciid CJC\ O'c a�
4I11 Ih1 i{. - iUI 1 •
•
•
�. Nom --- : °' Yr T
CT
l
itO
`;. -r
,. P �,;,;ft _ ",
• •• r
.v ! � � � _ •aw••swo _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 -
AMC) �. I ;
CAT _. 3 s
•
40 ' J t o • •. • 7 ` `
p • -w
MI
14.484 �" 1. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
We ••1. _ •• _ MASTER AREA AN OF DRAINAGE
-
t " -- c"OP1 \NA SECONDARY REGIONAL FACILITES
01•010•C SOUNDARY
5•I1 cowman BOUNDARY
AREAS
BSI «•«••• 11EY1p.•t WIIIUIL =RAY
^O°ED ^••Y 1415.10••1. MOLT'
INC
I EltM•o• wll.CE•IOR cm. roam war • ,a••••••••-•--,
148lf 1 1 velum Inn 1101[.1 ••[A m.�.^ >•�••
lc. ••6 ...I lvoaeax- rwow•• snEw UMW MLA Lim.
_
1N N v y .•Im•-au••ao 5•3700 T •E1cxr IT - J FIGURE 1-5
1 -7
MASTER PLAN FACILITY COST DISTRIBUTION
Drainage Area Cost per Net Acre
($ /AC)
Upper Etiwanda 8,300
San Sevaine 3,100
Lower Etiwanda 11,000
The cost estimates for the four Local facilities sized are
shown in Tables C -1 through C -4 in Appendix C.
Alternate interim drainage facilities, which would
accommodate development prior to the full implementation of
the Regional and Master Plan systems have been determined.
These facilities are shown on Figure D -1 in Appendix D.
Recommendations
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga should adopt this Master
Plan of Drainage. Drainage fees should be established
by ordinance based upon information contained herein.
In establishing drainage fees, 18 percent should be
added to the per net acre costs to cover the
administrative costs.
2. The drainage fees should be adjusted annually by the
Engineering News Record's (ENR) index for Los Angeles
area.
3. The Master Plan of Drainage should be updated from time
to time to reflect changes in land use and /or street
system upon which this Master Plan of drainage was
based.
4. The final design of drainage facilities should consider
- both the interim and ultimate conditions. The should be
based on hydrologic and hydraulic studies reflecting the
`"" site specific street system, grading and land use
information available at the time these facilities will
be needed. Additional facilities which may be requied
for the interim conditions should be constructed at the
developer's expense. Such cost should not be applied
° towards the regional mainline, secondary regional of the
Master Plan fees.
.,. I -
.x.
II. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of the Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage is
to:
1. Identify the interim and ultimate drainage facilities
necessary to serve the Etiwanda Area of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
sphere of influence which is tributary to the Etiwanda
and San Sevaine Creeks.
2. Determine the cost of implementing these facilities.
3. Develop a fair and equitable method of apportioning to
defray the cost of the drainage facilities..
Facility Definitions
1. Regional Mainline Facilities
The Regional Mainline Facilities are:
a. Open channels with 100 -year frequency storm runoff
peak flow of 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or
greater.
b. Debris basins and dams at the upstream end of
Regional Mainline Facilities.
c. Spreading grounds and flood peak attenuation
facilities on or adjacent to regional mainline
channels.
2. Secondary Regional Facilities
The Secondary Regional Facilities are:
a. Open channels with a minimum unbulked 100 -year
frequency storm peak flow of 750 cfs.
b. Flood peak attenuation facilities adjacent to
Regional Mainline facilities.
II -1
wair
c. Interceptor channels collecting debris laden
mountain runoff.
�.. 3. Master Plan Facilities
Master Plan facilities are pipes, box culverts or open
channels sized to convey the runoff from a 100 -year
frequency storm and serve a minimum area of 80 acres.
The general shape of the minimum area is 1/4 -mile in the
east -west direction and 1/2 -mile in the north -south
direction.
The resulting minimum facility is approximately 48 -inch
in diameter. If a Master Plan facility needs to be
extended to a convenient location in a smaller pipe
serving an area less than 80 acres, it is considered to
.� be a Master Plan facility.
4. Local Facilities
Local facilities are all the pipes, box culverts, or
open channels upstream of Master Plan Facilities. These
will be constructed at the total expense of the
developers with no reimbursement or credit from drainage
fees.
Background
The 82- square mile tributary area drained by the Etiwanda and
San Sevaine regional facilities is bounded by the Riverside
County line on the south, the Day Creek System on the west,
the San Gabriel Mountains on the north and Sierra Boulevard
on the east. It covers portions of the Cities of Rancho
Cucamonga, Fontana, Ontario and the unincorporated San
Bernardino County territory. The ultimate drainage system
will include the following:
1. Regional Mainline Facilities:
The Regional Mainline facilities include the Day Creek,
the Etiwanda Creek and the San Sevaine Creek systems.
The Day Creek System is under a phased construction
program. When completed, it will deliver a 100 -year
attenuated peak flow of 10,000 cfs to the Riverside
County line.
II -2
•
The ultimate Day Creek System will include the following
facilities:
a. The Day Creek Debris Basin and Dam
b. The Day Creek Spreading Grounds
c. The Day Creek Basin
d. The Wineville Basin
e. The Riverside Basin
f. The Day Creek Channel between Day Creek Debris Dam
and the Riverside County line.
g. The Lower Etiwanda Channel between the San
Bernardino Freeway and the Wineville Basin.
The Day Creek System receives flows from the areas
westerly of the study area.
The existing Etiwanda Creek System starts at the
Etiwanda Spreading Grounds, and flows southerly to west
of the San Sevaine Basins. Between the San Sevaine
Basins and downstream of Devore Freeway, (I -15) it is a
reinforced concrete composite section channel. The
reach between Devore Freeway and Foothill Boulevard will
soon be under construction to provide a reinforced
concrete composite section channel. Downstream of
Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Creek flows southwesterly
and southerly through the Etiwanda Conservation Basins
and enters the Lower Etiwanda Channel southerly of the
„. San Bernardino Freeway (I -10). It terminates at the Day
Creek System's Wineville Basin.
The Lower Etiwanda Channel was constructed between
Wineville Basin and Airport Drive. It does not have
sufficient capacity to convey all the current tributary
area flows to Wineville Basin.
When funds become available, Etiwanda and San Sevaine
Creeks are proposed to be combined southerly of Foothill
Boulevard to form the combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine
System. This change from the historical flow paths was
selected because of savings in the construction cost of
the regional facilities, and the quantity of flows which
the Riverside County can accept into the San Sevaine
Creek within the Riverside County. Therefore, at the
completion of the regional facilities, the tributary
areas of Etiwanda Creek northerly of Foothill Boulevard
will be contributing flood flows to the combined
Etiwanda -San Sevaine System.
II -3
The ultimate Etiwanda Creek System will include the
following facilities:
1. The Etiwanda Debris Basin and Dam
2. The Etiwanda Spreading Grounds
3. The Etiwanda Channel between the Etiwanda Debris
Dam and Foothill Boulevard.
The existing San Sevaine Creek System starts at the San
Sevaine Spreading Grounds north of 24th Street, flows
through the San Sevaine Basins and outlets to San
Sevaine Creek Channel northerly of Highland Avenue. It
proceeds along Etiwanda Creek to south of Devore Freeway
and enters a wire revetted earthen channel. The reach
between Devore Freeway and Foothill Boulevard will soon
be constructed in a composite section paralleling
Etiwanda Creek. San Sevaine Creek is improved between
Foothill Boulevard and AT &SF Railroad to a level
accommodating the ongoing easterly development along
this reach. It will need to be improved to its ultimate
reinforced concrete trapezoidal section when funds
become available.
The ultimate San Sevaine Creek System will include the
following facilities:
1. The San Sevaine Debris Basin and Dam
2. The San Sevaine Spreading Grounds
3. The San Sevaine Basins and Dam
4. The existing San Sevaine channel between the San
Sevaine Dam and Devore Freeway.
5. The San Sevaine Channel between Devore Freeway and
Foothill Boulevard.
The Combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine System will include
the following facilities:
1. The Combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine Channel between
Foothill Boulevard and the Riverside County Line.
2. The Hickory Basin
3. The Jurupa Basin.
The Combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine System will deliver a
100 -year attenuated peak flow of 12,100 cfs to the
Riverside County Line.
II -4
2. Secondary Regional Facilities:
The ultimate Secondary Regional facilities will include:
a. Victoria Basin
b. The Henderson Channel
c. The Wardman ,Channel
d. The Hawker - Crawford system including the Rich Basin
e. Upper Etiwanda Interceptor Channel.
Victoria Basin is an interim flood peak attenuation
facility for its tributary area. Currently, it is being
constructed to its proposed ultimate size. When the
ultimate Etiwanda and the San Sevaine Regional Mainline
facilities are constructed, this basin will become a
water conservation basin.
The Henderson and Wardman Channels are being designed to
provide some of the necessary drainage facilities in the
portion of the study area northerly of 24th Street,
between the San Sevaine Spreading Grounds and the
Etiwanda Channel.
A 2,200 feet reach of the Hawker - Crawford Channel is
�. concrete lined upstream of the San Sevaine Basin 3.
This reach, which is in a levee condition, will need to
be replaced. A 13,100 feet reach of this channel,
between the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and
the San Sevaine Basin 3, was sized for cost estimating
purposes. The Hawker - Crawford Channel will drain 4,490
acres, of which 3,000 acres is estimated to be
developable. Only 100 acres within the City of Rancho
Cucamonga benefits from the Hawker - Crawford system. The
remainder of the benefit area is within the
jurisdictions of the City of Fontana and the San
Bernardino County. The Hawker - Crawford system includes
the Rich Basin which functions as a percolation basin.
The Upper Etiwanda Interceptor Channel will collect
debris laden runoff from the top of the Upper Etiwanda
Area and convey it to the upstream of the future
Etiwanda Debris Basin and Dam.
The ultimate Secondary Regional facilities are shown on
Figure I -2 and Figure A -1 in Appendix A.
II -5
3. Master Plan System:
The ultimate Master Plan systems recommended in this
report will serve the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its
sphere of influence within the unincorporated San
Bernardino County territory, covering an area of 5,063
acres.
The proposed Master Plan Facilities are illustrated on
Figure I -3 and on Figure B -1 in Appendix B.
aw
at
a
a
•
a
a
a
a
w
a
a
II -6
ft
III. REGIONAL MAINLINE SYSTEM
Ultimate Regional Mainline Facilities Criteria
The ultimate Regional Mainline Facilities for the Day Creek,
Etiwanda Creek, and San Sevaine Creek watersheds were
identified based upon a review of existing planning reports,
discussions with the City of Fontana, the San Bernardino
County and the City of Rancho Cucamonga staff. Field reviews
of the watersheds and the existing drainage facilities were
also conducted. The Regional Mainline Facilities which
extend from the San Gabriel mountains to the Riverside County
line as currently planned are illustrated on Figure I -2 and
on Figure A -1 in Appendix A.
The Regional Mainline Facilities are maintained by the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) or the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, they are:
1. Open channels with 100 -year return frequency storm peak
flow generally in excess of 3,000 cubic feet per second
(cfs) .
2. Debris basins and dams at the upstream end of Regional
Mainline Facilities.
3. Spreading grounds, percolation basins and flood peak
attenuation facilities on or adjacent to Mainline
Regional channels.
Description
"�" The ultimate Regional Mainline Facilities include the Day
Creek System, the Etiwanda Creek System, the San Sevaine
Creek System and the Combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine System.
The components of each of these systems are listed below:
1. The Day Creek System
a. The Day Creek Debris Basin and Dam
b. The Day Creek Spreading Grounds
c. The Day Creek Basin
d. The Wineville Basin
e. The Riverside Basin
f. The Day Creek Channel between the Day Creek Debris
Dam and the Riverside County Line.
g. The Lower Etiwanda Channel between the San
Bernardino Freeway and the Wineville Basin.
III -1
2. The Etiwanda Creek System
a. The Etiwanda Debris Basin and Dam
b. The Etiwanda Spreading Grounds
c. The Etiwanda Channel between the Etiwanda Debris
Dam and Foothill Boulevard
3. The San Sevaine Creek System
a. The San Sevaine Debris Basin and Dam
b. The San Sevaine Spreading Grounds
c. The San Sevaine Basins and Dam
d. The existing San Sevaine Channel between the San
Sevaine Dam and Devore Freeway.
e. The San Sevaine Channel between Devore Freeway and
Foothill Boulevard.
4. The Combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine System
a. The Combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine Channel between
Foothill Boulevard and the Riverside County Line.
b. The Hickory Basin
•
c. The Jurupa Basin.
Regional Mainline Drainage Concepts
The drainage concepts and associated facilities for Day,
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek watersheds have been studied
over a number of years.
The original drainage concept followed the historical paths
of these channels with the Day and Etiwanda Creeks
confluencing at the Wineville Basin and a separate San
Sevaine Creek System.
This concept was changed to combine the Etiwanda Creek
upstream of Foothill Boulevard and the San Sevaine Creek into
one system at Foothill Boulevard. As a result, only Lower
Etiwanda Creek south of Foothill Boulevard flows into the Day
Creek system.
Although not clearly documented, sources involved in the
project over the past eight years indicate that a savings of
approximately $10 million was estimated for the Regional
Mainline Facilities with the combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine
System. The factors contributing to the change in the
concept include the capacity limitations in the 10,000 cfs
4 Day and 12,000 cfs San Sevaine Creeks within the Riverside
County and the limited street and railroad crossing
capacities along the Lower Etiwanda Creek.
4
A III -2
.r
A
"The Day, Etiwanda, and San Sevaine Creek System Drainage
Plan" was prepared in March 1983, by Bill Mann and Associates
for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The
recommendations included in the Bill Mann report form the
basis of the regional drainage planning in the study area.
Several modifications and refinements to that plan have been
made. One modification was to include the San Sevaine
spreading grounds. Another change involved the separation of
flow channels for the Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks between
the Devore Freeway and Foothill Boulevard to accommodate the
existing capacity of San Sevaine Creek south of Foothill
Boulevard.
Cost Estimates
In order to develop a fair and equitable distribution of the
estimated cost of the drainage facilities, two different
plans were evaluated.
The first plan is based on the current facilities plan which
separates the Regional Mainline Facilities into two systems:
1. The Day Creek system with costs shown in Table III -1.
2. The combined Etiwanda -San Sevaine Creek system with
costs shown in Table III -2.
The second plan is based on the original facilities plan
representing the historical path of the Regional Mainline
Facilities. This plan separates the Regional Mainline
Facilities into two different systems:
1. The Day - Etiwanda Creek drainage system with costs shown
in Table III -3.
2. The San Sevaine Creek system with costs shown in Table
III -4.
° The cost estimates for the Day Creek Debris Dam and the Day
Creek Spreading Grounds as well as a portion of the Day Creek
Channel are obtained from actual bid prices provided by San
Bernardino County.
The costs for the various reaches of channel are based on the
quantities obtained from cross - sections provided in "Report
on the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks System Drainage
Plan," dated March 1983, prepared by Bill Mann & Associates
for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Unit
4 costs per foot of each reach developed are shown on Table
III -5.
III -3
TABLE III -1
Summary of Cost Estimates for the
Day -Lower Etiwanda Creek System
Current Facilities Plan
Facility Cost
- 1. The Day Debris Basin $ 5,130,000
2. Day Creek Channel- Debris Basin to Highland 7,276,000
3. Day Creek Channel - Highland to Arrow 4,690,000
4. Day Creek Channel -Arrow to S.B. Fwy 4,873,000
5. Day Creek Channel -S.B. Fwy to Wineville 4,092,000
6. Day Creek Channel - Wineville to Riverside Basin 1,258,000
7. The Day Creek Spreading Grounds 1,699,000
8. The Day Creek Basin 3,007,000
9. The Wineville Basin 3,187,000
10. The Riverside Basin 7,036,000
11. The Lower Etiwanda Channel 2,950,000
TOTAL 1988 PROJECT ESTIMATE (ENR INDEX = 5452) $45,198,000
w..
MOM
III -4
ar TABLE III -2
Summary of Cost Estimates for the
Upper Etiwanda -San Sevaine Creek System
Current Facilities Plan
Facility Cost
1. The San Sevaine Debris Basin and Dam $ 1,949,000
2. The San Sevaine Spreading Grounds 1,881,000
3. The San Sevaine Basins 1 -5 7,473,000
4. The Etiwanda Debris Basin and Dam 4,212,000
5. The Etiwanda Channel- Debris Dam to Summit Ave. 3,330,000
6. The Etiwanda Spreading Grounds 369,000
7. The Etiwanda Channel- Summit Ave. to
Devore Freeway 1,970,000
8. The San Sevaine Channel - Devore Freeway
to Foothill Boulevard 5,874,000
9. The San Sevaine Channel - Foothill Boulevard
to West Fontana Channel 3,670,000
10. The Hickory Basin 693,000
11. The San Sevaine Channel -West Fontana Channel
to San Bern. Fwy 6,482,000
12. The San Sevaine Channel -San Bern. Fwy
to Jurupa Basin 4,800,000
13. The Jurupa Basin 2,147,000
14. The San Sevaine Channel - Jurupa Basin to the
Riverside County Line 4,865,000
TOTAL 1988 PROJECT ESTIMATE (ENR INDEX = 5452) $52,058,000
III -5
•+ TABLE III -3
Summary of Cost Estimates for the
Day - Etiwanda Creek System
Original Facilities Plan
Facility Cost
1. The Day Debris Basin and Dam $ 5,130,000
,.r
2. The Day Creek Channel- Debris Dam to
Highland Avenue 7,276,000
3. The Day Creek Channel - Highland Avenue to
Arrow Route 4,690,000
4. The Day Creek Channel -Arrow Route to S.B. Fwy 4,873,000
5. The Day Creek Channel -S.B. Fwy to Wineville
Basin 4,092,000
6. The Day Creek Channel - Wineville Basin to
Riverside Basin 1,384,000
7. The Day Spreading Grounds 1,699,000
8. The Day Basin 3,007,000
9. The Wineville Basin 3,506,000
10. The Riverside Basin 7,740,000
-■ 11. The Etiwanda Debris Basin and Dam 4,212,000
12. The Etiwanda Spreading Grounds 369,000
13. The Etiwanda Channel- Debris Dam to Summit
Avenue 3,330,000
14. The Etiwanda Channel - Summit Avenue to Devore
Freeway 1,970,000
15. The Etiwanda Channel - Devore Freeway to
Foothill Boulevard 3,960,000
ar
16. The Etiwanda Channel - Foothill Boulevard to
Wineville Basin 15,000,000
TOTAL 1988 PROJECT ESTIMATE (ENR INDEX = 5452) $72,238,000
III -6
TABLE III -4
Summary of Cost Estimates for the
San Sevaine Creek System
Original Facilities Plan
Facility Cost
1. The San Sevaine Debris Basin and Dam $ 1,949,000
2. The San Sevaine Spreading Grounds 4,224,000
3. The San Sevaine Basins 1 -5 7,473,000
4. The San Sevaine Channel - Devore Freeway to
Foothill Boulevard 5,874,000
5. The San Sevaine Channel - Foothill Boulevard to
�., West Fontana Channel 3,303,000
6. The Hickory Basin 693,000
7. The San Sevaine Channel -West Fontana Channel
to S.B. Fwy 5,893,000
8. The San Sevaine Channel -S.B. Fwy to Jurupa
Basin 4,320,000
9. The Jurupa Basin 2,147,000
10. The San Sevaine Channel - Jurupa Basin to the
Riverside County Line 4,379,000
TOTAL 1988 PROJECT ESTIMATE (ENR INDEX = 5452) $40,255,000
air
III -7
®rr
TABLE III -5
Unit Costs for Channel Reaches
Reach Unit Cost
($ /FT.)
Day Creek
Highland to Arrow Route 350
Arrow Route to SB Fwy 365
SB Fwy to Wineville Basin 480
Wineville Basin to Riverside County Line 480
Etiwanda Creek
Debris Basin to Summit Avenue 428
Summit Avenue to Devore Freeway 525
s
San Sevaine Creek
Devore Freeway to Foothill Boulevard 667
Foothill Boulevard to West Fontana Channel 756
West Fontana Channel to SB Fwy 756
SB Fwy to Jurupa Basin 800
Jurupa Basin to the Riverside County Line 695
AIM
oft
III -8
Ago The costs for Etiwanda and San Sevaine Debris Dams provided
in the March 1983 report were updated in the same ratio as
the Day Creek Debris Dam Construction cost to estimated cost
in the March 1983 report.
The Day Creek Basin, Wineville Basin and Riverside Basin
costs provided in the March 1983 report were increased by the
ratio of the current ENR Index (5452) to the November 1982
ENR Index (4533) upon which the original costs estimates were
based.
The cost estimates for the Jurupa Basin and the San Sevaine
Basin and Dam were updated from those provided in the "Loan
Application Report, Proposed San Sevaine Creek Water
O"" Project ", dated February 1987, prepared by Engineering
Science, in association with Bill Mann & Associates.
Regional Mainline Drainage Facility Cost Distribution
In order to develop a fair and equitable distribution of the
cost of the proposed Regional Mainline Facilities to the
areas benefitting from their implementation, cost allocations
have been developed for both the current facilities plan and
the original facilities plan.
1. Original Facilities Plan
This method of cost allocation defines two different and
separate drainage areas:
1) The drainage area of Day Creek and the entire Etiwanda
Creek System combined; and
2) The drainage area of the San Sevaine Creek system.
This cost allocation method is intended to show the spread of
the system costs before the Upper Etiwanda Creek, which has
historically contributed flows to the Day Creek system, was
combined with the San Sevaine Creek system at Foothill
Boulevard. The total Regional Mainline Facility costs, the
gross drainage areas (exclusive of the mountainous terrain),
and the cost allocations are presented on Table III -6.
4a,
III -9
P
{
TABLE III -6
Original Regional Mainline Facilities Plan Cost Distribution
Estimated Area Cost/
.ft Facility (Gross Gross
Drainage Area Cost ($) Acre) Acre
Day - Etiwanda 72,238,000 13,630 $5,300
oft
San Sevaine 40,255,000 26,730 1,506
TOTAL 112,493,000 40,360
2. Current Facilities Plan
This method separates the entire drainage area into two
systems:
oft
a. The Day Creek and the Lower Etiwanda Creek drainage area
south of Foothill Boulevard
b. The Upper Etiwanda Creek Drainage area north of Foothill
Boulevard and the San Sevaine Creek combined into one
system.
Within each of these two systems, the Regional facility costs
have been estimated, totalled and divided by the area within
the drainage area of each system. The Regional Mainline
system cost distribution within each drainage area, based on
the current facilities plan, is shown on Table III -7.
TABLE III -7
Current Regional Mainline Facilities Plan Cost
'" Distribution
Estimated Area Cost/
Facility (Gross Gross
Drainage Area Cost ($) Acres) Acre
Day -Lower Etiwanda 45,198,000 10,240 $4,414
Upper Etiwanda -San
Sevaine 52,058,000 30,120 $1,729
TOTAL 97,256,000 40,360
Based upon a previous analysis, the combining of the Upper
Etiwanda Creek with the San Sevaine Creek created a savings
of approximately $10,000,000 in the cost of the overall
fto
III -10
oft
drainage facilities. Since backup information for this
analysis is not available, the cost of constructing the
original facilities plan was estimated. This estimate
included a rectangular open Etiwanda Creek Channel between
Foothill Boulevard and Wineville Basin as well as street and
railroad crossings. A 10 percent increase in the cost of the
Regional Mainline Facilities between the Wineville Basin and
the Riverside Basin was assumed to account for the larger
facility. The cost of the San Sevaine Creek facilities
downstream of Foothill Boulevard was reduced by 10 percent to
account for some reduction in the size of these facilities.
The cost estimates developed in this manner indicate a
�,. savings of $15,237,000 based on current prices.
With the original facilities plan, the Etiwanda Channel would
have been located through the Lower Etiwanda area. It would
have provided a readily accessible outlet for the properties
in Lower Etiwanda. Because of the change in the regional
facilities plan, a Regional Mainline facility will no longer
be available in Lower Etiwanda. The properties located in
the Lower Etiwanda area will need to construct some
additional Master Plan facilities which would not have been
necessary with the original facilities plan. The additional
Master Plan facilities consist of 72 -inch to 108 -inch
diameter storm drains between Arrow Route and the San
Bernardino Freeway. The estimated cost of these facilities,
detailed in Table III -8, would be spread over 618 gross acres
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and 220 gross acres
within the City of Ontario.
Based on this analysis, the only areas benefitting from the
change in the Regional facilities plan would be the
properties in the Upper Etiwanda area north of Foothill
Boulevard. However, in order to apply the savings to all
areas equitably, the total saving in the Regional Mainline
facilities is reduced by the cost of the additional Master
Plan facilities within the Lower Etiwanda area. The net
saving obtained in this manner is spread over the total area
of 40,360 acres.
The per acre cost of the additional Master Plan facilities
for the Lower Etiwanda area is then deducted from the per
acre Regional Mainline facility cost to determine the fair
share of the Regional Mainline facility per acre costs for
the Lower Etiwanda Area. This same amount is added to the
Master Plan facility cost per acre in the Lower Etiwanda
area.
The resulting Regional Mainline facility fair share cost
distribution is detailed on Table III -9.
III -11
Al
TABLE III -8
Additional Lower Etiwanda Area
Master Plan Facility Cost Estimates
Facility Size Length Total Cost
(in) (Ft) ($)
XVI -2. Arrow Route 72 1,600 476,200
to Whittram
XVI -4. Whittram to 78 600 197,200
AT &SF RR
41+ XVI -6. AT &SF RR to So. • 90 3,450 1,321,450
of 6th Street
XVI -7. So. of 6th Street 96 2,400 958,000
to 4th Street
XVI -11. 4th Street to 108 3,500 1,736,525
4'1 S.B. Fwy
TOTAL $4,689,375
1 ) See Table B -4 in Appendix B
III -12
mg
4 TABLE III -9
Regional Mainline Facility Fair Share Cost Distribution
40
(A) (B) (C)
414 Cost Gross Area Cost Per
Drainage Area /Facility ($) (Acres) Gross Acre
($)
Original Facilities Plan
1 Day - Etiwanda 72,238,000a) 13,630 5,300
2 San Sevaine 40,255,000b) 26,730 1,506
3 Total 112,493,000 40,360
Current Facilities Plan
4 Day -Lower Etiwanda 45,198,000c) 10,240 4,414
5 Upper Etiwanda -San Sevaine 52,058,000d) 30,120 1,729
6 Total 97,256,000 40,360
7 Savings 15,237,000
(3A -6A)
8 Lower Etiwanda
Additional Master Plan
Facility Cost 4,689,375e) 838 5,596
9 Net Savings 10,547,625 40,360 261
(7A -8A)
10 Upper Etiwanda 3,270 5,039 (lc -9c)
0,0 11 San Sevaine 26,730 1,245 (2c -9c)
12 Lower Etiwanda 838 -557 (lc-9c-
8c)
a) See Table III -3
40 b) See Table III -4
c) See Table III -1
d) See Table III -2
e) See Table III -8
The benefit areas used in the above analyses represent the
gross developable areas below the foothills of the San
A Gabriel Mountains. They include the street right -of -way but
exclude the major drainage facilities such as the percolation
basins and spreading grounds.
In order to develop the net acreage over which the cost will
be spread, the land use information provided in the Etiwanda
Specific Plan and the Industrial Area Plan were reviewed.
The results of the review showed that the net area is
approximately 70 percent of the gross area.
Dividing the fair share cost distribution shown in Table III -
9 by 0.70, will result in the cost distribution per net acre
illustrated in Table III -10.
III -13
• TABLE III -10
Regional Mainline Facility
Fair Share Cost Distribution
Per Net Acre
Cost Per Cost Per
+r Drainage Area Gross Acre Net Acre
($ /Acre) ($ /Acre)
Upper Etiwanda 5,039 7,200
San Sevaine 1,245 1,800
Lower Etiwanda 0 0
0 Benefit Areas Within the Jurisdictional Areas
The drainage area of the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks
covers four governmental jurisdictions within the San
Bernardino County. These jurisdictions are the Cities of
Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and Ontario, and the unincorporated
areas of San Bernardino County. Each of the jurisdictions
will be responsible for a portion of the regional drainage
facility costs.
The total area and percentage of area of each jurisdiction
within each of the Day -Lower Etiwanda and the San Sevaine-
Etiwanda systems are provided on Table III -11.
MOM
.4
r
4Mr
III -14
w
TABLE III -11
Jurisdictional Areas
Within Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Basins
Day -Lower Etiwanda
Gross Area
Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percentage
Rancho Cucamonga 4,961 48.4
Ontario 3,826 37.4
San Bernardino County 1,453 14.2
TOTAL 10,240 100.0
Upper Etiwanda -San Sevaine
Gross
Area
Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percentage
Rancho Cucamonga 2,726 9.0
Fontana 16,322 54.2
San Bernardino County 11,072 36.8
TOTAL 30,120 100.0
�.r
■r
A
III -15
ft
IV. SECONDARY REGIONAL SYSTEM
Criteria
The Secondary Regional facilities are those which serve
relatively large areas, drain into Regional Mainline
, facilities and have not previously been identified as
Regional Mainline facilities. The Secondary Regional
facilities will consist of:
a. Open channels with a minimum unbulked 100 -year frequency
storm peak flow of 750 cfs.
.00 b. Flood peak attenuation facilities adjacent to Regional
Mainline Facilities.
c. Interceptor channels collecting debris laden mountain
tom runoff.
d. All maintenance will be provided by San Bernardino
County Flood Control District.
�.. At canyon mouths, if a debris basin is not provided, the
channel would be sized for the appropriate bulking, however,
the 750 cfs shall be the clear water flow.
The Secondary Regional facilities will be designed in
accordance with the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District Standards. All Secondary Regional facilities,
including the necessary right -of -way will be the property of
the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
Description
�• The ultimate drainage system within the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and its sphere of influence will include four
facilities which are considered Secondary Regional
facilities. These facilities are:
,,. 1. Victoria Basin
r 2. Henderson Channel which will extend from the San Sevaine
Spreading Grounds northwesterly to Henderson Canyon
mouth
3. Wardman Channel extending from the Henderson Channel to
the unnamed canyon mouth at the extension Wardman-
Bullock Road
IV -1
wr
rr
4., Hawker - Crawford Channel, including Rich Basin, extending
from San Sevaine Basin 3, northeasterly to the foothills
of the San Gabriel Mountains.
5. Upper Etiwanda Interceptor Channel which intercepts
runoff from the mountains above the U.S. Forest Service
Boundary and conveys the runoff to upstream of the
Etiwanda Debris Dam.
The Hawker - Crawford Channel has a tributary area of 4,492
acres. It serves only 100 acres within the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The remainder of the watershed is within the City
of Fontana and San Bernardino County jurisdictions.
Victoria Basin will function as an interim flood peak
attenuation facility until the ultimate Etiwanda and San
Sevaine Systems are constructed. At that time, Victoria
Basin will become a water conservation basin.
The Secondary Regional facilities are shown on Figure I -2 and
on Figure A -1 in Appendix A.
•
Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of the Secondary Regional facilities are
shown on Table IV -1.
IV -2
TABLE IV-1
Summary of Cost Estimates for
Secondary Regional Facilities
Facility Length Cost /Ft Total Cost Gross Area
(Ft) ($) ($) (Acres)
1. Victoria Basin -- -- 228,000 984
40 2. Henderson Channel
a. San Sevaine Spreading
Grounds to SCE
Easement 2,150 705 1,515,000
b. SCE Easement to
Canyon Mouth 4,500 500 2,250,000
3. Ward man Channel
a. Henderson Channel to
SCE Easement 1,260 350 440,000
b. SCE Easement to
Canyon Mouth 2,400 350 840.000
TOTAL - HENDERSON & WARDMAN CHANNELS 5,045,000 1,200
4. Hawker - Crawford System
AM a. San Sevaine Basin
No. 3 to Summit 3,100 600 1,860,000
b. Summit to Rich Basin 3,000 580 1,740,000
c. Rich Basin - 152,000
d. Rich Basin, Pasterly 7,000 500 3,500,000
~^ TOTAL - HAWKER- CRAWFORD SYSTEM 7,252,000 3,000
40 5. Upper Etiwanda Interception Channel
a. Easterly of Day Creek 2,000 230 460,000
b. Westerly of Future
Etiwanda Debris Basin 4,000 335 1,340,000
TOTAL - UPPER ETIWANDA INTERCEPTOR CHANNEL 1,800,000 1,336
IV -3
m.
IiY
+sw
Secondary Regional Facility Cost Distribution
The costs for secondary regional facilities are distributed
only to the service areas of these facilities. The service
areas include the developable areas tributary to these
facilities as well as the developable areas protected by the
Secondary Regional facilities.
The net acreage over which the cost is spread is determined
to be 70 percent of the gross developable areas, based on a
a* review of the available land use information.
Table IV -2 shows the distribution of the estimated costs to
the areas of benefit.
TABLE IV -2
Secondary Regional Facility
Cost Distribution
Cost Per
Gross Net Net
Service Service Service
Facility Total Cost Area Area Area
($) (Ac) (Ac) ($ /Ac)
1. Victoria Basin 228,000 984 689 330
2. Henderson- Wardman
Channel 5,045,000 1,200 840 6,000
3. Hawker - Crawford
System 7,252,000 3,000 2,100 3,450
4. Upper Etiwanda
Interceptor Channel 1,800,000 1,336 935 1,925
IV -4
V. MASTER PLAN SYSTEM
Criteria
ar The minimum Master Plan drainage facility is sized to drain
runoff from a parcel of land one - quarter mile in the east-
"' west direction and one -half mile in the north -south
direction. A drainage area of this configuration will be 80
acres in size. The intention is that any parcel of land will
.,, be no farther than one -half mile in a north -south direction
nor one - quarter mile in an east -west direction from a Master
Plan facility.
The 100 -year frequency storm runoff from the 80 acre minimum
drainage area with the specified configuration will be
approximately 150 cfs. These conditions lead to a minimum
facility size of approximately 48 inches in diameter. All
other drainage facilities upstream of the Master Plan
facilities would be considered Local facilities.
These definitions are intended to provide an approximate
4 lower limit for the sizes of facilities considered to be
Master Plan facilities. However, if the Master Plan
A facilities needed to be extended to a convenient location in
a smaller pipe serving a drainage area less than 80 acres,
such facilities are considered to be Master Plan facilities.
Hydrology
The hydrologic design criteria used in this report are based
4 o the 1986 edition of the San Bernardino County Flood
Control District Hydrology Manual. All Master Plan
facilities have been sized to convey the 100 -year runoff in
an underground conduit or an open channel.
4 The land use information was obtained from the Etiwanda
Specific Plan and the Industrial Area Plan for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and from the "Master Plan of Drainage for
Etiwanda -West Valley Foothill Area," dated September 1987,
prepared by Williamson & Schmid for San Bernardino County
Flood District. Soil maps were obtained from the San
Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. The best available
* mapping available was the current U.S.G.S. 1:24000 scale
topographic maps.
The land use and soils information utilized in the hydrologic
studies are shown on Figure B -2 in Appendix B.
The proposed Master Plan facilities are shown on Figure I -3
and on Figure B -1 in Appendix B. Detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic data are shown on Figures B -3 through B -5 in
Appendix B for each of the three drainage areas. The profiles
V -1
of the Master Plan facilities are presented on Figures B -6
through B -23. The hydrologic calculations for are included
in Appendix B.
This Master Plan of Drainage separates the Etiwanda area into
three areas:
1) Areas tributary to Upper Etiwanda Creek, north of
Foothill Boulevard, (Area XIV)
"" 2) Areas tributary to Lower Etiwanda Creek, (Area XV),
3) Areas tributary to San Sevaine Creek (Area XVI).
Hydraulics
The hydraulic design criteria used in this report were based
on the 1982 edition of the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District Hydraulic Design Manual.
All Master Plan facilities are designed for the runoff from a
100 -year frequency storm.
Cost Estimates
The cost estimates for the Master Plan facilities are based
on the current unit construction costs (ENR = 5452) shown on
Table B -1. The unit construction costs include the trenching,
pipe, bedding, installation and backfill. The unit cost for
storm drain also includes 6% for engineering, 5% for
inspection and construction management, and 20% for
contingency. This amount for contingency is typical for a
Master Plan level study.
++r
The cost estimate for the three areas of the Master Plan
facilities are summarized on Table V -1:
TABLE V -1
Summary of Cost Estimates
�* Etiwanda Area Master Plan Facilities
Drainage Area Cost
Upper Etiwanda Creek (Area XIV) $18,831,575
San Sevaine (Area XV) 2,566,800
Lower Etiwanda (Area XVI) 1,777,620
TOTAL $23,175,995
1) See Tables III -8 and B -4
The details of the Master Plan facility cost estimates are
included in Tables B -2 through B -4 in Appendix B.
V -2
N.
++ Master Plan Drainage Facility Cost Distribution
The total cost of the Master Plan facilities provided above
4.
excludes the cost of the additional facilities which must be
constructed in the Lower Etiwanda area between Arrow Route
and San Bernardino Freeway due to the change in the regional
drainage concept. The cost estimates for these additional
. Master Plan facilities are shown on Table III -8.
In distributing the Master Plan facility costs to the areas
of benefit, the costs shown in Table V -1 are divided by the
respective gross drainage area:
Drainage Cost
Area Total Cost Gross Area per Gross Area
- ($) (Acres) ($ /Acre)
. Upper Etiwanda $18,831,575 3,245 5,804
(Area XIV)
San Sevaine 2,566,800 1,200 2,139
(Area XV)
`" Lower Etiwanda 1,777,620 838 2,122
(Area XVI)
.,,, For the Lower Etiwanda area, the cost per gross acre for the
additional Master Plan facilities, shown in Table III -9, is
— added to cover the cost of the additional facilities in this
area. Since the net developable area is 70 percent of the
"" gross area, the costs per gross acre are divided by 0.70 to
obtain the costs per net acre.
.. Table V -2 summarizes the distribution of the Master Plan
facility costs:
TABLE V -2
Master Plan Facility Cost Distribution
Additional Total Cost Total Cost
"" Cost Per Cost Per Per Per Gross
Drainage Area Gross Area Gross Area Gross Area Net Area Area
($) ($) ($) ($) (AC)
Upper Etiwanda 5,804 0 5,804 8,300 3,245
4 (Area XIV)
San Sevaine 2,139 0 2,139 3,100 1,200
(Area XV)
Lower Etiwanda 2,122 5,596 7,718 11,000 618
(Area XVI) 5,063
1 ) See Table III -9, 8c.
4.
2) Includes credit indicated in Table III -9, 12c.
V -3
40
•
VI. LOCAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Criteria
As described in previous sections, the Master Plan facilities
generally extend to one -half to one quarter mile of the
upstream end of a drainage area. At the upstream end and
along the length of each Master Plan facility, local drainage
facilities will be constructed by developers. The local
drainage facilities shall be required to safely and
efficiently convey the storm runoff to a Master Plan or a
r Regional facility.
Hydrologic studies will be required for all future
development to determine the necessity of Local drainage
systems in and adjacent to the area proposed for development.
The Local drainage systems shall be designed with the
following minimum criteria:
1. For the minimum non - flooded road width requirements, the
maximum water surface elevations shall be based on a
runoff from a 10 -year frequency storm. The minimum non -
- flooded road width requirements shall apply to local
streets which are functional collectors (1,500 ADT
minimum), designated collectors, secondary and major
arterials including sump conditions (see Figure VI -1).
When this condition cannot be met, a storm drain will be
required. As a minimum, the storm drain will be
designed for a capacity to convey runoff from a 25 -year
frequency storm.
2. For a roadway flooded to the top of the curb or the
paved swale, the maximum water surface elevation shall
be based on runoff from a 25 -year frequency storm for a
roadway on grade and shall be based on runoff from a 50-
year frequency storm for a roadway in a sump condition.
The storm drain from the sump area will have a total
outlet capacity to handle the runoff from a 100 -year
frequency storm. A secondary overflow with capacity to
handle the runoff from a 100 -year frequency storm shall
be provided for all sump areas, assuming that the sump
• outlet is plugged (see Figure VI -2).
This condition will apply to all streets.
3. For a roadway flooded to the right -of -way limits, the
maximum water surface elevation shall be based on runoff
from a 100 -year frequency storm and shall apply to all
cases including streets and highways with slope gradient
or in sump conditions (see Figure VI -3). The elevation
will refer to the lowest right -of -way elevation. A
VI -1
.,. MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE
ELEVATION
der
-• Two Lone Streets, Undivided MIN. A = 10 FEET
Four Or More Lone Streets And MIN. A = 20 FEET
''° Highways, Undivided.
I0' MIN.
MAXIMUM WATER
SURFACE
ts
DIVIDED STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
Maximum water surface elevation shall be based
on runoff from a 10 -year frequency storm and
shall apply to all cases including streets or
highways in sump condition.
IVO
These conditions shall only apply to local
streets which are functional collectors (1,500
ADT. min), and designated Collectors,
A" Secondary and Major Arterials.
CITY OF RANCHO. CUCAMONGA
ETIWANDA AREA
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE FIGURE
'MINIMUM NON - FLOODED ROADWAY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS V }-1
•
VI -2
AT TOP OF CURB
AT TOP OF PAVED SWALE
MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE
w, - - -� _ELEVATION -- �—
A. For roadways with slope gradient, maximum
water surface elevation shall be based on
runoff from a 25 -year frequency storm.
B. For roadways in a sump condition, the
maximum water surface elevation shall be
based on runoff from of a 50 -year
frequency storm. The storm drain and the
secondary overflow facilities shall each
have capacity to convey the runoff from a
100 -year frequency storm.
All habitable structures shall be a
minimum of one foot above the highest
water level assuming that the sump outlet
is plugged.
These conditions shall apply to all streets.
Wes
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ETIWANDA - AREA
AWS MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE FIGURE
FLOODED ROADWAY TO TOP OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT VI-2
REQUIREMENTS
VI -3
..,, /
„ 3 AT ELEVATION OF
RIGHT -OF-WAY LINE
1.0 MIN. 3 et I
MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE 1
ELEVATION
•
•
Maximum water surface elevation shall be based
on runoff from a 100 -year frequency storm and
shall apply to all cases including streets or
highways with a slope gradient or in a sump
condition. The flow velocity in the land-
scaped parkway or median island shall not
exceed 3 feet per second, or the flow shall be
confined to a hard surfaced area including the
sidewalk.
In sump conditions, a secondary overflow to
handle runoff from a 100 -year frequency storm
shall be provided. -
These conditions shall apply to all streets.
CITY OF _RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ETIWANDA AREA
MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE FIGURE
FLOODED ROADWAY TO RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE REQUIREMENTS VI-3
VI- 4
secondary overflow shall be provided to handle the
runoff from a 100 -year frequency storm assuming that the
sump outlet is plugged.
This condition will apply to all streets.
Additionally, the maximum water level shall be a minimum of
ANY one foot below adjacent habitable structures.
4. In any street or highway where the water flow impacts
the landscaped parkway or median islands, the velocity
shall not exceed 3 feet per second (fps). If this
velocity is exceeded, the runoff from a 100 -year
frequency storm shall then be confined to the hard
surfaced areas.
5. In any street or highway, the value of the product of
depth of water at curb times the flow velocity shall not
exceed six (6).
These five criteria will be checked for each design.
Design Standards and Procedures
The design of all local facilities will be done in accordance
with the following standards and procedures.
1. Hydrology
a. Hydrologic calculations will be done in accordance
with the San Bernardino County's 1986 Hydrology
.�. Manual utilizing an intensity slope of 0.6.
b. Design frequencies will be as described under
"Criteria ".
c. Required submittals:
1) Hydrology map on a scale of 1:500 or larger
(e.g. 1:200) showing the entire drainage area
tributary to a Master Plan drainage facility
or a regional drainage facility. It will show
soil groups, land use, drainage area sizes,
catch basins with type and size, connector
pipes, mainline pipes, manholes and junction
structures; runoff from each area, the flows
on each side of the streets, flow intercepted
by catch basins, and flow in pipes.
2) Plan of the proposed road system with grades
and street cross - sections.
3) For hydrology calculations, the initial area
shall be limited to 10 acres with a maximum
flow path of 1,000 feet as long as the time of
VI -5
concentration is less than 15 minutes.
Otherwise, the initial area size and flow path
will be reduced to yield an initial time of
concentration of 15 minutes or less.
Hydrology calculations will be stamped and
signed by a registered civil engineer.
— 2. Hydraulics
a■,, a. General Hydraulic Criteria
- 1) Closed conduits may be designed as flowing
full and may be allowed to flow under pressure
if the hydraulic grade line is sufficiently
below the street surface to intercept catch
basin flows with a minimum of one -half (0.5)
ft. freeboard in the catch basin.
Where debris may be expected, the design flows
will be increased by an appropriate bulking
factor.
b. Water Surface Profile Calculations
1) Control Water Surface Elevation for Pipes on
Mild Slope
For discharging into a flow retarding basin or
a reservoir, the control shall be the highest
reservoir water surface elevation. For pipes
discharging into an open channel, the control
shall,be the design water surface elevation in
the channel as provided by the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District. For pipes
discharging into another conduit, the control
shall be the highest hydraulic grade line
elevation of the conduit immediately upstream
or downstream of the confluence. If the
control elevation is at or below the soffit of
the pipe, the control shall be the soffit
elevation at the point of discharge.
2) Hydraulic Calculations
`w' Hydraulic calculations will be in accordance
with "Los Angeles County Flood Control
District Design Manual, Hydraulic ", dated
March 1982, Section B -2.2 through B -3.1.
Branching of flow in pipe shall not be
-• allowed.
VI -6
c. Design Requirements for Maintenance and Access
1) Manholes
Manholes shall be located at beginning or
ending of curves, pipe size changes, angle
points, junctions and as required for
maintenance.
a) Conduit diameter 30 inches or smaller:
Manholes shall be spaced at intervals of
approximately 300 feet. Where the
proposed pipe is less than 30 inches in
diameter and the horizontal alignment has
numerous bends or angle points, the
manhole spacing shall be reduced to
approximately 200 feet.
b) Pipe diameter larger than 30 inches but
smaller than 45 inches:
Manholes shall be spaced at intervals of
approximately 400 feet.
c) Conduit diameter 45 inches or larger:
Manholes shall be spaced at intervals of
approximately 500 feet.
The spacing requirements shown above apply
regardless of the design velocities. Deviations
from the above criteria shall be subject to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga approval.
2) Location
Manholes shall not be located in street
intersections, especially when one or more
streets are heavily traveled.
In situations where the proposed pipe is to be
aligned both in easement and in street right-
. of-way, manholes shall be located in street
right -of -way, wherever possible.
Manholes shall be located as close to changes
in grade as feasible when the following
conditions exist:
VI -7
a) The upstream pipe has a steeper slope
than the downstream conduit and the
change in grade is greater than 10
percent. Sediment tends to deposit at
the point where the change in grade
occurs.
b) Transitioning to a smaller downstream
pipe due to an abruptly steeper slope
downstream.
3) Design
When the design flow in a pipe flowing full
has a velocity of 20 fps or greater, or is
supercritical in a partially full pipe, the
total horizontal angle of divergence or
convergence between the walls of the manhole
and its center line shall not exceed 5 °45'.
4) Pressure Manholes
Pressure manholes shall not be allowed.
5) Deep Manholes
A manhole shaft safety ledge shall be provided
in all instances when the manhole shaft is 20
feet or greater in depth. Installation shall
be in accordance with the Los Angles County
Flood Control District Standard Drawing No. 2-
`"""' D430.
d. Inlets into Main Line Drains
Lateral pipe entering a main line pipe storm drain
generally shall be connected radially. Lateral
pipe entering a main line box structure shall
conform to the following:
1) The invert of lateral pipe 24 inches or less
in diameter shall be no more than five feet
above the invert of the box structure.
2) The invert of lateral pipe 27 inches or larger
in diameter shall be no more than 18 inches
above the invert of the box structure, with
the exception that catch basin connector pipe
less than 50 feet in length may be no more
than five feet above the invert.
VI -8
•
e. Minimum Pipe Size
The minimum diameter of mainline pipe shall be 24
inches. Minimum diameter of catch basin connector
pipe shall be 18 inches.
In cases where the pipe may carry significant
amounts of debris, the minimum diameter of main
,, line pipe shall be 48 inches. The minimum diameter
main line pipe conveying flows from a debris basin
shall be 48 inches.
° f. Minimum Slope
The minimum slope for main line pipe shall be .001
(.10 percent), unless otherwise approved by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
For storm drains which carry debris, the minimum
pipe slope shall be 0.03 (3 percent).
g. Inlet Structures
An inlet structure shall be provided for storm
drains located in natural channels. The structure
shall generally consist of a headwall, wingwalls to
protect the adjacent banks from erosion, and a
paved inlet apron. The apron slope should be
limited to a maximum of 2:1. Wall heights should
conform to the height of the water upstream of the
inlet, and be adequate to protect both the fill
over the drain and the embankments. Headwall and
wingwall fencing and protection barrier or trash
rack shall be provided to prevent public entry.
The trash rack should be used for inlets 48- inches
(diameter or width) and smaller. For inlets larger
than 48- inches a special designed trash rack may be
required.
If debris is prevalent, barriers consisting of
vertical 3 -inch or 4 -inch diameter steel pipe
spaced at 1/3 the main line diameter or width to a
maximum of 30 inches on centers should be embedded
in concrete immediately upstream of the inlet
apron.
h. Outlet Structures
When a storm drain outlets into a natural channel,
an outlet structure shall be provided which
prevents erosion and property damage. Velocity of
flow at the outlet should agree as close to the
existing channel velocity as possible. Fencing and
a protection barrier shall be provided.
VI -9
When the discharge velocity is low, or subcritical,
the outlet structure shall consist of a headwall,
wingwalls, and an apron. The apron may consist of
a concrete slab, or grouted rock.
When the discharge velocity is high, or
supercritical, the designer shall, in addition,
4m' consider bank protection in the vicinity of the
outlet and an energy dissipator structure.
i. Protection Barriers and Trash Racks
A protection barrier is a means of preventing
access to storm drains. Protection barriers may
consist of large, heavy breakaway gates, single
horizontal bars across catch basin openings, or
chain link fencing around an inlet of an exposed
outlet.
Protection barriers shall be provided wherever
necessary to prevent unauthorized access to storm
drains.
j. Debris Barriers
A debris barrier or deflector is a means of
preventing large debris, such as tree limbs, logs,
boulders and refuse, from entering a storm drain
and plugging the conduit. The debris barrier
should have openings wide enough to allow as much
small debris as possible to pass through and yet
narrow enough to protect the smallest conduit in
the system downstream of the barrier. It shall be
the designer's responsibility to provide a debris
barrier or deflector appropriate to the situation.
k. Other Closed Conduit Criteria
1) Angle of Confluence
In general, the angle of confluence between
main line and lateral shall not exceed 45
degrees and, as an additional requirement,
shall not exceed 30 degrees under any of the
following conditions:
a) Where the flow (Q) in the proposed
lateral exceeds 10 percent of the main
line flow.
b) Where the velocity of flow in the
proposed lateral is 20 fps or greater.
c) Where the size of the proposed lateral is
60 inches or greater.
VI -10
d) Where hydraulic calculations indicate
excessive head losses may occur in the
main line due to the confluence.
Connector pipe may be joined to main line pipe
at angles greater than 45 degrees up to a
maximum of 90 degrees provided none of the
above conditions exist. If, in any specific
situation, one or more of the above conditions
does apply, the angle of confluence for
connector pipes shall not exceed 30 degrees.
Connections shall not be made to main line
pipe which may create conditions of adverse
flow in the connector pipes.
2) The velocity in pipe shall not exceed 38 fps.
For velocities above 20 fps, the minimum cover
over steel in the pipe shall be 1 -1/2 inches.
3) Froude No. shall be less than 0.9 or greater
than 1.2.
1. Required Submittals
1) Plan and profile of the drainage system
including all catch basin and connectors with
hydraulic data.
2) Plot of hydraulic and energy grade lines on
the profile for all flows investigated.
3) Catch basin calculations.
4) Hydraulic calculations for mainline and
connector pipes.
Local Drainage Systems for Existing Developments
Within the study area, there are four (4) developments
without local drainage systems. These developments are
located at:
1. Southeasterly of Summit Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue.
2. Southwesterly of Highland Avenue and East Avenue.
3. Northeasterly of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street.
4. Northerly of Whitram Avenue and Pecan Avenue.
VI -11
'"' Hydrologic studies were conducted for each of these areas to
determine the necessary local drainage systems. The plan and
profiles of these local systems are shown on Figures C -1
through C -8 in Appendix C. The cost estimates for each area
are presented in Tables C -1 through C -4.
The local drainage facilities in these areas will be
constructed when the necessary downstream Master Plan
facilities are in place.
Oft
40
VI -12
unn
VII. INTERIM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Description
The Etiwanda Area and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's sphere
of influence tributary to the Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks
includes approximately 5,060 acres of developable land
easterly of Day Creek. This excludes the existing and
ultimate Regional Flood Control Facilities such as debris
basins, spreading grounds, percolation basins and peak flow
attenuation facilities.
The general slope of the area is north to south. The
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks form the only established
Regional Mainline channels.
Most of the proposed ultimate Master Plan facilities consist
of storm drains and channels which intercept surface runoff
and the Local storm drains and convey them to the Regional
drainage facilities. This is consistent with the planning of
the Regional facilities.
However, until the regional facilities are funded and
constructed, the implementation of the Master Plan facilities
will increase the flood flows in the Regional facilities. A
loan application has been made to the U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation to fund portions of the
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Systems.
Even with the ultimate regional drainage system in place, the
sequence of development and the distance from a regional
facility may make it very costly for some properties to drain
into the regional facilities. Interim drainage facilities
will be temporary drainage improvements which will allow
development prior to the full implementation of the Regional
and Master Plan systems.
Interim Regional Facilities
The proposed ultimate Regional Mainline system is a complex
system. It includes peak flow attenuation facilities,
spreading grounds, debris basins and dams, and miles of
reinforced concrete channels.
VII -1
The ultimate Regional Mainline system will have separate
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Channels north of Foothill
Boulevard. The two channels will be combined at a point
downstream of Foothill Boulevard. The combined channel will
receive all the runoff from the Etiwanda Creek watershed
north of Foothill Boulevard which currently flows to the
Lower Etiwanda Creek.
Developers have entered into agreements with the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District which allows them to
�• develop their properties if they mitigate the impact of their
development on the Regional Mainline system. Such mitigation
includes constructing reaches of the Regional Mainline
channels and providing additional volume in the existing
flood peak attenuation facilities which are not currently at
their ultimate size. "Detention Basin Design Criteria for
San Bernardino County ", which is included in Appendix D
describes the definitions, capacity and outlet sizing and
appurtenances required for detention basins. The general
requirement for temporary basins is to reduce the post-
development peak flow rate from the 2, 10, 25 and 100 -year
frequency storms to 90 percent of the pre - development flows.
The pre - development flows for the 10, 25 and 100 -year events
are calculated using the 5, 10, and 25 -year storms,
respectively.
San Sevaine area is tributary to the San Sevaine Basins. The
increased runoff from development can be mitigated by
incremental excavation of the San Sevaine Basins.
The Victoria area within the Upper Etiwanda Area drains to
the Victoria Basin which is an interim peak reduction
facility. Therefore, this area can be developed prior to the
construction of the ultimate Regional Mainline Facilities.
Opportunities to construct interim Regional Mainline
facilities exist for the Upper Etiwanda and Lower Etiwanda
areas.
Since the existing Etiwanda Creek flows to the Etiwanda
Conservation Basins and the Lower Etiwanda Channel which has
limited capacity, the flows from the areas tributary to the
Etiwanda Creek will need to be attenuated. This can be
accomplished by constructing an interim basin within the
existing Etiwanda Spreading Grounds, or an interim basin
along the existing Etiwanda Creek between Foothill Boulevard
and Arrow Route. A combination of the two basins can also be
implemented.
In order to determine the sizes of such interim Regional
basins, hydrographs resulting from 100 -year frequency storms
for the post - development conditions were developed at two
concentration points: 1) Etiwanda Creek and Summit Avenue;
and 2) Etiwanda Creek and Foothill Boulevard. The peak flows
resulting from 25 -year and 10 -year frequency storms for the
VII -2
a
a
pre - development and post - development conditions were
determined at these two concentration points. Since the
ti. difference between the post- development 100 -year frequency
a storm peak flow and 90 percent of the pre - development 25-
year frequency storm peak flow was the largest, it was used
as the criteria for sizing the basins.
Additionally, a hydrograph resulting from the 25 -year storm
for the pre - development condition was developed at Etiwanda
Creek and 4th Street. The peak flow of this hydrograph is
the maximum flow which can be delivered to the City of
Ontario at full development of the Etiwanda area using
interim Regional detention basins.
Assuming flow -by basins, individual and combined use of these
basins were evaluated for three (3) alternates with outflows
resulting in 90 percent of the peak flow from a 25 -year storm
(5,580 cfs) at 4th Street. Since the post - development peak
flow from a 100 -year storm from the Lower Etiwanda area is
a 1,210 cfs, the maximum outflow southerly of Arrow Route was
limited to 4,370 cfs (5,580 - 1,210). Table VII -1 provides a
summary of these studies.
-
awe
arr
ar
a
VII -3
AO
O O O O
\ N. O f. .—
. CO .0 M `0 M
'O a+ .
C 0 .f J .t
RI 0
ww) 3 U-
44
NI I) W
M
Al Ot
m
• O
C 4-
m V\ 0 0 O
3 E .O 0 '0
E A) J `0 r-
ani 4.. 7 .
W V) M •O N
Meee
aW
CO
" 2 \ -- 0 0 0 0
CO er ■ M \ J
V) V .0 M CO M
440 Q c a+ .
m CO 0 s r- s
3 0
Z •- IA-
0 a+
W
1— N
— — 2 W
1 W 1- \
F- a CO
W Z
A > 0 OC C -
W m IA 0 0 0
W J 1- 3 E .O
— -) . - E CV d d
CO Z a 4+ 7
t 0 W N M '0 '0
H
W
OC
.rlw
Z
OC
W
Z
...a m
a 0 0 0 0
C .0 r. 1.
�Y m a+ M M M
3 O .
•.- 0 .t .T .t _
4.4 LL
— W
M \
m
V
C 4+ IA
-u- m .0 O 0 0
3 E N VI s
•. - E • .t CO M
,i 4+ 7 M .
W CO ,0
i
V\ W
N Q
N a+ v
O C 7
n44 0 i• y
x In 10 C E
Ow- O`- D
— O• O 0 O 0 In
v If.. v m 0
O O 0 CO >
The above results are based on flow -by basins. The basin
volumes listed in Table VII -1 would be increased to provide
for the side -weir limitations. Assuming basin depths of 10
ft. at the Etiwanda /Summit Basin and 5 ft. at the Etiwanda/
Arrow Route Basin, the corresponding minimum areas required
for these three conditions would be:
Minimum Area (AC)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Etiwanda/
Summit Basin 34 0 16
Etiwanda/
Foothill Basin 0 28 2
Alternate 1 has the advantage of being in an existing flood
control right -of -way. Alternates 1 and 3 will also reduce
the flows in the Etiwanda Creek upstream of Foothill
Boulevard. Alternate 3 requires the least storage volume.
With 4,370 cfs maximum outflow from the Etiwanda /Arrow Route
Basin, additional interim peak reduction facilities will be
necessary in Ontario to match the capacity of the Lower
Etiwanda Channel.
If one of these alternates, or a variation, is approved by
the San Bernardino Flood Control District, and implemented,
interim Master Plan basins will not be necessary.
°�" The cost of interim regional facilities will not be applied
toward the Regional facility fees.
Interim Master Plan Facilities
The interim Master Plan facilities will consist of detention
basins sized to reduce the post - development flow from a 100 -
year frequency storm to 90 percent of the pre- development
flow from a 25 -year frequency storm. Outlets will be provided
to drain the detained volume within 24 hours into a Master
Plan or Regional facility.
If downstream Master Plan facilities are not in place, the
flows will be released from the detention basin as nearly
similar to the existing conditions as possible. The
properties in the canyon mouths will need to provide for
collection of runoff and debris from the mountains and
conveyance to the Regional facilities.
The San Sevaine area and the Victoria area are tributary to
existing peak attenuation facilities. Therefore, interim
Master Plan basins will not be necessary to accommodate
development within these areas.
VII -5
Within the Lower Etiwanda area, most of the areas north of
6th Street is either developed or is currently in flood
plain. For the areas south of 6th Street, San Bernardino
County will be mitigating the increased flow with on -site
facilities. If this land becomes surplus property the need
for interim facilities will have to be evaluated. Therefore,
it is impractical to provide interim Master Plan basins
within the Lower Etiwanda Area.
There are numerous possible locations for placing interim
peak flow reduction facilities for the remainder of the study
area. The six (6) locations, shown on Figure D -1 were
selected to provide the maximum benefit to the tributary
areas. With the exception of Basin No. 5, they are located
adjacent to the Regional Mainline facilities. The basin
locations and sizes based on a depth of five (5) feet, are
shown in Table VII -1.
•
VII -6
TABLE VII -2
Interim Master Plan Peak Flow Reduction Facilities
Post
Dev. Pre -Dev.
Tributary Q100 90%
Location Area Inflow _Q25 Volume Area
(Acres) (cfs) (Ac -Ft) (Acres)
Basin No. 1
Upper Etiwanda -
at Line XIV -3 and 380 985 630 6 2
.- Etiwanda Channel
Basin No. 2
Upper Etiwanda -
,.0. at Line XIV -6 and 303 680 400 6 2
Etiwanda Spreading
Grounds
Basin No. 3
Upper Etiwanda -
at Line XIV -9 and 476 1,000 600 9 2
Etiwanda Spreading
Grounds
Basin No. 4
Upper Etiwanda -
at Line XIV -23 and 115 285 160 2 1
Etiwanda Channel
Basin No. 5
Upper Etiwanda -
�, Baseline Road and 490 1,050 610 8 2
East Avenue
Basin No. 6
Upper Etiwanda -
Foothill Boulevard 925 1,890 965 23 5
and East Avenue
With the exception of Basin No. 5, the basins are sized based
on the assumption that runoff from the areas upstream of the
indicated tributary areas are intercepted and conveyed to
Regional facilities.
VII -7
ar
The actual size and location of the interim Master Plan
detention basins will depend on the conditions existing at
the time of construction. These facilities may be
constructed in phases as the tributary area develops. The
phased implementation will be substantiated by the necessary
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. The first developer
will acquire the site necessary for the entire basin
regardless of the phasing.
Financing of Interim Master Plan Facilities
The cost of engineering, right -of- way /easements, construction
and ultimate elimination of interim Master Plan facilities
should be borne by the property owners desiring to construct
such facilities. The interim Master Plan facility costs
would be in addition to the costs associated with the
ultimate Master Plan and Regional facilities. Therefore, the
cost of the interim facilitiies shall not be applied towards
the Master Plan Facility Fees or Regional Facility fees.
The first developer(s) desiring to develop their property
should be required to construct, to the ultimate basin depth,
that portion of the basin required to attenuate the runoff
produced by their development. Additionally, all land and
inlet and outlet structures required of the ultimate basin
configuration should be acquired or constructed. The initial
developer should also be required to deposit with the City
all funds necessary to properly abandon or remove all interim
facilities once the proper Master Plan facilities have been
constructed.
Subsequent developers should be required to enlarge the
interim basin as required by their development and reimburse
the original developer a proportionate amount of the inlet
ofiS and outlet costs and abandonment costs.
After the regional and Master Plan facilities needed to serve
the area are in place, the City would eliminate the basin by
removing the appurtenances, filling the basin, and making the
appropriate connections to the drainage system. The property
can then be developed by the original owner.
ar
VII -8
4111
mfa
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
1. Bill Mann & Associates, Day, Etiwanda & San Sevaine
Creeks System Drainage Plan, March 1983
2. Engineering- Science in Association with Bill Mann &
Associates, Loan Application Report, Proposed San
Sevaine Creek Water Project, February 1987
3. Bill Mann & Associates, Funding Mechanisms for the Day,
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek System Drainage Plan,
March 1983
4. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Etiwanda Area Drainage Plan
and Development Policies, Revised March 25, 1987
5. Bill Mann & Associates, Etiwanda Area Drainage Analysis,
Public and Development Issues, February 7, 1985
6. County of San Bernardino, Hydrology Manual, August 1986
7. City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, February 17, 1981
8. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Etiwanda Specific Plan, July
,,,
1983
wo. 9. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Industrial Area Specific Plan
for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Revised), September
17, 1986
10. Williamson and Schmid Consulting Civil Engineers and
�,. Land Surveyors, Master Plan of Drainage, Etiwanda - West
Valley Foothill Area, September 9, 1987
11. Bill Mann & Associates and Hall & Foreman, Inc.,
Hydrologic Analysis and Modeling of the San Sevaine
Creek Watershed, San Bernardino County, Revised January
1987
12. Bill Mann & Associates, Preliminary Drainage and Flood
Control Facilities Study, Henderson, Morse and San
Sevaine Canyons, Revised January 1987
13. Williamson and Schmid Consulting Civil Engineers and
Land Surveyors, East Etiwanda Creek Flood Impacts,
Proposed Metropolitan Water Districts Power Plant Site,
December 7, 1987
VIII -1
MI
14. Williamson and Schmid, Consulting Civil Engineers and
... Land Surveyors, Victoria Basin Design Analysis, August
6, 1987.
15. Williamson and Schmid, Consulting Civil Engineers and
Land Surveyors, Supplemental Report, Victoria Basin
Design Analysis, August 26, 1987
16. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Design
ar
Manual, Hydraulic, March 1982
mem
air
Ma
Ale
crr
VIII -2
,Y.