Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000/09/27 - Agenda Packet
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel__ Vice Chairman Macias Com. Mannerino__ Com. Stewart Com. Tolstoy I1. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 23, 2000 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY (V-174) - GOODYEAR RUBBER. - A request to vacate an excess right of way located on the west side of Industrial Lane south of Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-032-39. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-33. B. VACATION OF EXCESS STREET EASEMENT (V-175) - CRESTWOOD CORPORATION - A request to vacate excess street easement located south of Banyan Street, east of Archibald Avenue and west of London Avenue - APN: 201-503-50. Related file Tract No. 15963. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00--34 - FORECAST HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay District in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road - APN: 1100-031-08 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071~01 and 02. Related files: Tentative Tract 16105, Variance 00-04, and Tree Removal Permit00-25. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. D. APPEAL OF MODIRCATION TO DEVEL~ REVIEW 96-13 - THE HEIGHT'S AT HAVEN V1EW ESTATES - An appeal of the City Planner's approval of a minor revision to the grading plan of Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single-family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-511-27 to 31 and 1074-621-01 to 35. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16105 - FORECAST HOMES - A residential subdivision of 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay District in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Development Review 00-34, Variance 00-04, and Tree Removal Permit00-25. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. VARIANCE 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES - A request to increase the wall height up to 15 feet for sound attenuation along the western boundary of proposed Tentative Tract 16105 in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Tentative Tract 16105, Development Review 00-34, and Tree Removal Permit 00-25. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02A - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue - APN: 227-351-65. Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment Page 2 ~ 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider Community Plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area - APN: 227-351-65. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for approximately .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2- 4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider community plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and General Plan Amendment 00-02C. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02B - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the land use designation from Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. Related files: Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development Agreement 00-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-03 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Page 3 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the zoning designation from General Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B and Development Agreement 00-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southern California Housing Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project pursuant the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay Distdct (Section 27.020.040 of the Development Code), including deviation from certain development standards, for 48 senior apartment units and one manager unit on a High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) site of 1.3 acres of land at the southwest intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN: 209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B, and Development District Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. N. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-38 MODIFICATION - CLUB MATRIXX - A request to expand the hours of operation for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery Plaza, in the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 208-101-23. O. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 97-04 MODIFICATION - CLUB MATRIXX - A request to modify conditions of approval regarding hours of operation, entertainment uses, and ages of patrons for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery Plaza, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard- APN: 208-101-23. VI. NEW BUSINESS P. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL - WHITE - An appeal of the City Planner's denial of a building permit to re-roof with standing seam metal on a house located at 6875 Pecan Avenue - APN:227-254-02. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Q. USE DETERMINATION 00-01 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to determine that a wedding chapel, reception hall, and banquet facility is a conditionally permitted use under the Church or Private, Non-Commercial Club and Lodge category within the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Page 4 R. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 00-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to initiate an amendment to the Development Code regarding wireless communications facilities. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS S. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS- Oral report X. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. ff items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Lois Schrader, Planning Division Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamanga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 21, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 5 Vicinifv Planning Commission September 27, 2000 r Hillside m ! Banyan 19th/210 p tO ~.j~ Baseline C, E, F J Foothill ~,L,~ Arrow ~ = c c ~, 4th -- ~ = I,J City of Rancho Cucamonga Agenda Items Q and R = CITYWIDE f Etiwanda Specific Plan boundary & Victoria Planned Community CITY HALL N TH E C I T Y OF ~ANC~O CUCAMONGA $ Repo DATE: September 27, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF INDUSTRIAL LANE SOUTH OF FERON BOULEVARD (V-174) - GOODYEAR RUBBER - A request to vacate an excess right-of-way located on the west side of Industrial Lane south of Feron Boulevard - ^PN: 209-032-39. Related File: CUP 97-33 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Goodyear Rubber Company is currently processing CUP 97-33 for the construction of an 18,844 square foot metal building. In conjunction with this processing, Goodyear has requested the vacation of an excess right-of-way that is contiguous to the property. Said excess right-of-way is a portion of a future cul-de-sac, located on the west side of Industrial Lane south of Feron Boulevard and was dedicated to the City for future use on March 14, 1978. However on September 17, 1980, Parcel Map 4511 was recorded dedicating various streets in the vicinity and extending Industrial Lane southerly. As a result, the dedicated portion of the cul-de-sac became unusable. Utility companies, other agencies and various City divisions have been notified of the proposed vacation and were asked for comments. There were no objections to the vacation from any of the groups notified. The vacation is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code because it is in excess of our standard street right-of-way. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY- GOODYEAR RUBBER September 20, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. Respectfully submitted, an ames~~-~%~ Senior Civil Engineer DJ: VVV: Attachments: Vicinity Map Legal Description (Exhibit "A") Plat (Exhibit "B") OITY OF nw_~.. V/CIN/r ~' ~A~ Iq ~c~o cuc~o~a~ A~ E~qGIN~.I~.J~G DIVISION EXHIBIT "A" DEED FOR EASEMENT VACATION Request for vacation of a portion of an easement for street, highway and related purposes in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as Parcel 1 of said easement recorded in Book 9388, Page 1643, of Official Records of said County, lying within the following described property: A portion of the south half of the southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwest comer of said southeast quarter; thence 1495.80 feet south 89~43' 32" east; thence north 0°16' 28" east 180.00 feet; thence north 89~43' 32" west 50.00 feet; thence north 0O16' 28" east 487.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence south 89~43' 32" east 266.20 feet, more or less, to the west line of the land described in deed to Geo. J. Davies and wife, recorded December 10, 1929, in Book 569, Page 74, Official Records of said County; thence south 0°16' 28' west along said west line 182.00 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of land described in deed conveyed to Tony Sciacca recorded January 22, 1925, in Book 879, Page 363 of Deeds of said County; thence north 89043' 32" west 266.20 feet; thence north 0~'16' 28" east to the true point of beginning. ' - £Xt/IBIT "B" THE C I 3' Y OF I~AN CI~O C~3CAMONCA S Repo DA'~: September 27, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Vacation of excess street easement located south of Banyan Street, east of Archibald Avenue and west of London Avenue for Crestwood Corporation, V-175, APN: 201-503-50, related file Tract No. 15963 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Crestwood Corporation has received approval for the development of 13 single family lots located south of Banyan Street, east of Archibald Avenue and west of London Avenue. The southwest comer of London Avenue and Liberty Street was (iedicated with Tract No. 13898 in anticipation of the futura alignment. The proposed development of Tract 15963 has shifted the alignment slightly to the north, thus creating an excess street easemenL The vacation of the excess street easement is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding, through minute action, that the vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, an James ~ Senior Civil Engineer Attachmets: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" Vacation Exhibit ITEM B CITY OF ITF~: k/-/Y-~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrL~ ~//~7-~ ~ - ENGINE. ERING DIV~ON ~ ~IT: "A" ITEM C IS INCLUDED WITH ITEMS E AND F Septcnnbet 27, 2000 THIS IS PAGE 1 OF 34 PAGES. TO: Joe O'Neil · FAX NO: (909)477-2847 FROM: Andrew K. Hat. Il SPECIAL NOTF.,S: IF YOU EXP~CE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN RECEIVINO THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL (949) 798-0500. THE INFOILMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED A_ND CONFIDENTIAL II,[FORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE REX, IEW' AND USE OF TI~ INDMDUAL OR ENTITY NAM~.D ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED R.EClPIENT, YOU ARE HEI~BY NOTII~IED THAT ANY UNALrYHOR~7.~D DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, USE OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Il: YOU HAVE RECEIVED TH1S COMMUNICATION llW ERROR, PLEASE ]MMEDIATELYNOTJ~Y US BY THE TELEPHO'N~. TI-L4aNK YOU. Sep-2?-O0 04:24pm From- T-O14 P.OO2 F-213 Response to the Los Angeles District's Memorandum for the Record, Dated August 4, 2000 Regarding the Exponent, Inc. Evaluation of the. Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity NB10184.000 September 18, 2000 EXponent. l~re Awt?si~ /~ssodate~ 3187 ~ S~ 1~ _'t.~1:9 N.4 61 ~.'~$ O0 $ep-27-00 04:Z4pm From- T-OI4 P.O03 F-213 'I'be f~llovAn~ ere e~ec~fic ~pon~es to ~ ~s A~ ~ ~s of ~' ~) Au~ ~ 2000 M~o~m ~g ~e ~o~t ~ ~fl~ ~l~n ~the D~ Xtora~ ~ ~ &e D~ Cre~ B~n d~ ~ 27, 2~; ~ ~ ~e An~t ~, 2000 ~ ~ of ~e ~'~ m~o~ pi~ ~ CEI~.,HAL COMI~f$ The Distriot's Al~gu~ 1Vlemoramima ~ ~ i$~ ~ ~o~t R~ ~ p~m~ ~ ~ d~fis-hoI~ cons~u~ ofig ov~pp~g. ~e ~c~s Aunt ~~ ~ d~li~E ~ ~e d~ci~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~e d~d~ ~ a s~s pmbl~ ~ ~e fl~d ~n~l ~t~ ~ po~ a ~ ~ pubEc s~. Ad~9~ ~ut ~ of~ 310 ~ ~ ~ 1979; (3) ~e eff~ &~ flow vol~c; (4) ~e D~ ~ o~w ~ ~c ~s ~ d~o~t ~ a more ~ paR~ ~ A~t 3'~ a z~g of ~ ~ ~& Debris volm~ ~ ~d m m of ~e D~ ~ ~ 1 Sep-2?-OO 04:Z4pm From- T-014 P.O04 F-213 ac~-f¢~t. As discussed in our o~igi~! April ~ ~, ~c~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~t ~ not ~ to cv~ w~ ~ p~ u~ W ~ ~ v~ue. U~g ~g ~'s es~, a 10~ ~t ~[ ~e 130 ~-~ ~ de~s M~d~ ~ ~t ~l~e w~ wo~d ~ m ~ 130 ~ of e~s ~ o~et c~el w~ d~i~ ~ ~v~ wa~, ~ot wa~ ~ ~ ~ togc~. ~efo~, M i~ c~ ~fio~ ~ D~ ~ flood ~1 ~ dO~ ~t ~e ~ab~ l~y~ flood ~t~ ~ ~e ~g~ of~o ~on~ ~8 ~o. de~ d~osi~ ~ ~ B~ ~n ~ o~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~u~ w~ ~ of m~ d~. We ~cc ~ ~ ~1~ ~'s w~ ~1~ u~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~i~ in ~ h~ d:b~ ~ Mmg~t A$~cy ~), wM~ ~i~ ~ Nad~ Flood I~m~e ~ floo~g". ~se ~ ~ b~d ~ ~ ~ S~ 6~.1~ (A~ ~) ~ d~be ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~t a fl~ ~ol ~ ~ pm~ l~-ye~ ~ ~ ~ ~2~ ~ ~ve ~ ~. Su~ ~ ~ ~'~ jo~ ~b~ of ha~g a ~gc flood ~ a ~ d~ fl~ ~ ~s~d ~th :fie fl~d ~t ~ a one-~ ~o~bil~ of b~ng ~ in ~y ~ ~ th~ ~ u~ ~ ~rs~ con~ti~ ~ ~ Se~-27-00 04:ZSpm Fro~- T-014 P.005/034 F-ZI3 SFE~'iC COlVlM~H'I~ BY PARA~ Tl~c following provides a paral~.h-by-paral~mph response ~o th~ DL~llioffs Au~Ist Memorandum and tim lV~ R~on. ' P~rs~ranh ~. Tke D/~i~t: T1~ intwducto~ psragraph ooncludes that ~.S~.~.o its c _~.~letio~ the De~ Creek Dobris Basin aud c~el have pt~formed flawlessly in pi~ve~lil~ dowll.~m ~ood a~a~gesy $ep-27-00 04:25pm From- T-014 P.006/034 F-213 ~t's Re~o:ts~: Since 1971, there have bee~ no major floods or ~es in the Deer w~ The basin was contracted in 1982. Thcre have bccB no ~ conditions tha~ would suffxciea~tly test th~ porforamuce of the basin since that Tho history of the Deer Creek Reception L~vee is diaousa~ Response: The ~ ~ do~ ~ ~s ~e p~ ~ of The Dtrtrie~ ~ Dislzict prepared letter~ dated Nove~a~r 2 1999, D~c~rn~r t6 1999, and lwnuary 12 2000, that tt~ ~egr ~ Basin al~ C'~,a,,,,~,l Ixovide greater ~ 100- ~cponent's Rea'pon~.- Thc focus of tho N,xpoll~t Report is ~n ~tc oapa~ of the Creek Debris Basin Tho crm~te outlet channel is cl~ign~cl tn carry watog not dobzis, so th~ basin akme must capture th~ d~bris gelid'arid in a large flood event if th~ channel i~ cxp~ctcd to famotion m~!~bby. In thc blovemb~r 1999 r~por~ pp~mred by the District, ~ ammmt was 292 ecrc-f~et of de'b~ for the 100-ycar event. Although the Disirict's No~lubgr ropon used an updat~l method for d~a,,,;~i~E 100-year debris iow volmne, it did riot provide a similarly upclgted analysis de~lbing how this d~hris wo~d cl~posit i~ thc basi~ Without c~,~'~-E an anall~is of how deblis 611~ lip in file lgtn;xq~ the Distrlc~ cazmot omlclm~ tha~ t~ basin pl~ovlde~ gre~or than lO0-yeaz ~ood protectiov. Dete~'m;.J~ lmw math debxis oan/ii into thc D~r debris basin can only b.e done by measuring rig size of the basi~ The purpose of EXponeilt repolt wag to p~ilmll this mi.~;in_~ stop. Smp-2T-OO 04:26pm From- T-014 P.OOT/034 Coz~t~a: y to the District's in~im~im~ we ~ noi hh-ed to s~ ~c's po~fi~ Wc when ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~t ~ ~ bc ~ ~' N~r 19~ ~ i~e~ is ~ ~ o~ ~h ~ ~ ~o ~ u~ d~fis ~o~fion ~m ~s~d ~ ~e d~ o~ ~ ba~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~d not r~r~ ~e ofi~ d~ ~i~ of ~ deb~ b~ 010 a~) ~ ~cl ~ ~ ~t of ~c ~ ~ ~ not a ~c s~o ~d ~ ~owl~ by ~e ~ ~ ~ ~L 8~ a d~e~ pa~ ~ n~ b~ a ~on of ~y ~y a ~ ~c. ~e ~s' ~a ~ w~ ~ ~c ~ d~o~t ~ ~Md ~e ~ of flow. P~r~_ra~h The D/str/~r Although the entrimehed dn~ ~ ~ fl~ ~ ~ ~ a ~n;~ pot~ ~ ~s ~osi~ ~ o~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ba~ ~t w~ld ~t ~ a mo~ ~f~ · sM~fi~ offl~d inflow ~ ~s ~ ~ b~M., ~ a ~ u~ ~bufi~ of fl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~ ~ v~ ~le. ~ flow, m~ of ~e U~ · ~ fi~ i~ ~y ~ ~ w~c of si~ of ~o deb~ bu~. Sep-2T-QO 04:ZSpm Froo- T-Old P.008/034 F-213 quantitative brcakdown of debr~ clu~ntitie~ is provided. Neither the District n~r address the flint that there is sii~it/cant soil deveJopment on thc fan suffa~ adjaccut to thc incised ~-I~n,~el. It tal~es thour, ancts of yelws flor soil to develot~. If ~hc 1860 flood flowed over cmto the west side of thc fan, there would be no appreciable so/l development that we could okscrve today. Section 6~.13 of ~ ~'~ regulations require flood control faciliti~ to flm_c~en for adverse waier~a~ condigns, not just op~miztic ones_ Thtm the District's discussion ora 100-year debris ¥oltunc ica' a wa~erched ~ted by fire wollld violate regulations. During a large flood, the majority of warn and debris will travel dowa the incised DM Creek Channel and enter tl~ eastern patl of the debrLs basim There is ne historical.evidence to support the assumpfio~ that the inel~¢d Deer Creek channel moves across the fan dining a large flood like a windahield wiper on a car. If thc lrcop~ performance of the Deer Creek debris basin relies ~ra a blooP, age fo~i~ in th~ main chazmel or a psrtio~!~ behavior of Bull Canyon, then thc District nce~ to codify to ~ fl~at this will indeed happen dauin~ the base flood ~v~l: LMles~ md uutil this is done, aud the necessary tee.~u~!c~! docuraeIttation suppor~_g these Ilypotlmaas arc provided, tiao flood control system does no~ m~et the appropriate i~1f' regulations. The District poinls out that ~xlu'bi~ $ o£ tho llxponcm rclx~t chows debris on 6ay west irdct chut~ Howev~, ]by il~aecg;g ff~ site durilag a rai~to~u in laebnlazy 2000 we observed that the water for thi$ ov¢,st,111 com~ fi~m ~ f~l!i~ On the access ro~l h~ the water ta-l~, II does not come frema thc Deer Creek C-~,~el as irr~. lied by tho District and The cun'cn~ basin design is based on the assumption that a $~ielcaut pca-ccntagc debris genoratod in thc De~ Crectt walzz~cd wLI1 exeter the west side of the basin. For any of ~ae reasonablo flood Sc~ari~s that exist, however, only an izaisaificanl ~mount of debris will get to the'west side, and the b,~;~ will overtop before it captures the 100-yesr debris volume. The District andl~_ assenti~lly aclmowledt¢ this. Sep-2?-O0 04:26ps From- T-014 P.009/034 F-213 The Dirtrit~: A constructed levee near lb0 ~,~t~r tank road may privet debris f/om ~erillg the west sid~ of thc basht The design m.t-,~ provision for the un~ertalaty in the localicm and diztribulion off the flood and d~ris i.~low by providing stma§e space for 6cposilion along thc ~ upalxeam leagth of the debri~ basin embanknvmt, not just the eaztem portion. the western embankment Ln reality, if 292 aor~-£eet of debris a'e §mm~Iexl by thc Dear Creek watershed, much o£ it will owrtop th~ ~tllway and ealcr the co~-r~te outlet cN~,,~.! ra~r than d~posilin§ alc~§ 11~ ~ntire upstream l~gltt of th~ debris basha embznlcr0allt ]Paragraph ~. T/~ D/soYet: The current location of thc Deer Cr~k charmcl delivers a ~ portion ~f the flood i~l~CW and sediment lo the ea~er~ aide of thc basin. Considgratkm shollld be glve~ to measures thst foster a more. uaiflmn disi~'bution of flood and sediment inflow the basin. M'~$ ~$~oonsez Agree bul no specific aclion is ~recommended. F. xlOO~e~t's Re. Worse: Mes~tu~ eau be ~ ~o improve Ibc '~pmx'orrutuc~ reliabil~' of the basin but no specitics are providsd. It is clear that the incised Deer Creek channel cad b~ relied 0Il to foous debris' to the east side of th~ bas~ and that the upsh'emn levee could be a problem. It is not clear what is bei4~ propc~ed her~ however. t&ve~ if these modl!~lions are implemented, leclmical evalmdimls would still have t~ be done &o verify thet the bssi~ funclio~s properly and ~h~t lira D~ Cr~ck flood system deserves to be reco~i-e,l on FEM.&'s Rood Insurance Rate Map. P and 9b :/'he Dimict:. The Dis~ic~ performed i~s own survey in ~'y 2000. U~g thc radial delx~ilio~ pax~n and the assump~ic~ f~t the entire basin will be ~all~l, the debris capacity is 298 ~cre-facC Th~ 1993 ~ogography from $~m ~ Coun~ indicates thai the catmmW would be 312 a~e-fe~ f~r th~ zame ~ of ~o~as. Normal mainteaauce allows far the basin to fill up to 25% of e~ b~f.,,o ¢leaa om r~tir~ From- T-014 P.010/034 F-21s M~F~I Respoa. e~,. lqo commit. f~ ~ 312 ~f~ ~ b~ ~ ~ ~c d~ sc~o b~ o~y ~ of · c b~ ~ hold dc~ ~g a ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ si~ifi~y ~ · ~ 310 ~fe~ ~e ~% ~ "a~o~" ~d ~ ~ ~ a ~ e~ of ~e d~hol~g ~a~. ~ ~ld ~ ~c b~ ~ ~ cl~ o~ ~ a ~H~ ~ ~c. Fe ~le, 25% of 298 ~f~ is 74.5 ~f~. ~, 87.5 ~fc~ 062-74.5 = 87.~). ~s ~t of~d~ ~ ~ ~c b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~difi~ 87.5 a~-f~ of ~ w~ch i~ ~o~ a 12-~ do~ fl~ ~ara~ca~h TAe Dis~i~t: Thc E~t ~ ~ ~ ~c de~ d~o~Q~ p~ w~ si~ of~c dc~s b~ ~ ~ indi~t~ by ~'s ~. ~g ~ d~ ~on ~gi~ ~ ~ ~ ado slo~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~m 111.6 ~ ~ I1~.9 ~. ~ ~ n~ a ~i6~ in~. ~ B~o ~ ~d ~ ~g~n of ~e ~b~ ~'s ~a~ ~ F~ 20~, ~d ~ ~so ~lu~ ~ ~ ~ ~ns b~ ~W is o~ Oom 130 ~.~ ~hsn it a~ to, it/ur ~ A d~w aaaly~ of d~oris storage ~ ~m m 139 ~a of~s ~ ~-~t of s~e ~ flo~ ~ go ~ ~ of 162 ~fe~ ~s ~s is b~ ou s 6% ~t sl~e (~cb w~ ~ d~ ~d~d ~ 1979). The b~ Sep-2?-O0 04:2?pm From- T-OM P.011/034 F-2~3 They furth~ state thn~ the &:posit slope will become ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~n~'~ ~onse: ~ 162 ~ ~ ~ ~v~ ~ ~ut a 33-~ ~v~. ~o ba~ w~ sup~ ~ ~ b~lt ~ pro~ ~e ~ ~..,.,.m~ ~ ~ 20~ The D/s~et: The probability ia v~a'y low that raomcnmm would cause deb~ h~,~w~ ~o flow over the spillway without being aff~-A'ed by thc wi_do ba/~ /n-ea avail~b]e fctt depos/tiom MR~'$ aY~tn~#e: The poteatial for momentum ovedlow on tiao De~r Cre~k Debl/a Basin should be co~sidcred. Ea~o,neat's.l~espoa.se: Thc E:qooneot :epo~ provides calculations and the application of accepted criteria i~ order to coxgladc that the Deer Czeek Dgbris basin has a high propensity for momentum ov~low. To avoid momentum overflow, the level pool volume should bo at least 50% of the total storage capacity of th~ bashl. Based oi1 Bxponeara analysis, the level pool voltm~e is 17% of the total eapa~y. Based on the Dtsuict's x~ised a~alysis, tt~ level pool volumo is only 12% of the ~ ospacity, Both 12% and 17% aze si~if;caatly le~ th~ the requited value of 50% so it must be ccracluded that there is a defu~c mom~uimn overtlow potential. The Distfiot'8 August Memo~a~dam do~s not comai~ aay suppo, Gag a~a~sis as a b.sis for the c~molusiea that momeutom overflow ia uot a probkm here. ~ fl/~'c/: The orlgi~al dedg~ a,~m~ption rega~g d~ ~ ~ ~ b~w w~ ~on~l~ ~e D~t's ~U~ p~ ~ ~ve ~g~ ~ b~ 162 ~ =~.d 310 ~f~ d~ ~ ~. ~'f ~o~e: ~ ~at ~ o~-1 ~ ~ w~ -~=~o.~hle but ao c~t ~ ~e ac~ ~ of~e b~im ~an~'s R~on~: B~ oa ~e S~on 65.13 of ~ ~ ~l~fi~s, ~ $op-2T-OO 04:2?pm From- T-014 P.OlZ/O34 F-213 debris ente~ fae '~asin ~ overtol~s thc ~w~y. ~e most The D/.v~/cf. F. Xpo~'$ conclusion that the basin handles less than a 20-year cyst is unxealisfic and ,~,~d_~limate~ the debris s~ capaciOy o£tho basin becanse it use~ a 5% d~o~it alop~ caS. t~ia instoad of a 6% slop~ analyzing how the oonfigurafion of a debris basin a/r'cots the amount of ddozis it ca~ store, other leading flood conlrol agencies in Southern Cal/fomia and FEMA have done so. Because the District decided that it i~ apprc,priato to us= updated tec~m!_.,lue, s to dM~mi.e the amount of debris coyrt/n~ ~Om tile Deer Creek walershed, it is only reasonable that tho Ul~6 staudanl should be appEed to estim~ng thc debris sturage capacity of the existing basin. Dm~.i tho period of 6me that the Disixict thought it was neceasary to ' ' · rct~.vk thdr method of estimating debxis volnme~ (i.¢. replacing the Tatum Method with the Los Angeles District Method), the Los AngeJcs County Depar~nent off capacity based un ob~ezved perform,sn~ of debr/s basins. Th~ District iwovides no explanation as to why thc updated LACDPW stand, ds would not shed additional light o~ the basi~'s expected performance. Antioipaling opposition to this standard, Exponent used both today's ~clard and th~ old st~d~cl to evaluate the debris basin's capacity. In both cases, the capacity of the Dc~r C'~ck debris ba~¢~ is well below the 10G-year volume necessary to m~_k~ the system work. Sep-2?-O0 04:28pm Fr~n- T-814 P.013/034 F-2T:~ b, l~throu h £ ~ D/str/~: The ~l~e ~e ~j~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ M~PW ~ w~ ~ m~ ~afiv~ ~ ~b~ of ~e 105 ~ flood ~ ~ 100-~ de~s ~l~ ~ mow ~ ~an ~e ~e fl~d ~ ~ ~e ~ sho~ ~ do hy~c ~. ~ c~el c~ b~ ~mg. L~ ~b~ ~ ~o fl~ ~m N~ ~ ~stfi~ nor ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~g ~e ~ ~ ou~ ~y ~, f~n~ely, ~ ~ ~e ~ ~I ~ of fleb~ ~s wa~d bc ~p~ely ~ ~f~i, ~i~t ~ ~ ~ ~h 26, 19~0 ~ A~ 21, 1980 ~m ~I~ ~ ~ ~ Di~ ~, ~e~ ~ ~ e~ of ~e ~ ~ c~ (A~ ~. c~ae m~ c~. ~e M~ 26, 1980 ~ ...b. Y~n~obil~ ~Gomo~ ~a~ of ~ - the r~for~ ~l f~ a ~f-m~ ~ac~ ~ Sep-2?-O0 04:ZBpm Fron- T-O14 P.014/034 th~ is done the existing f~d~ral inve,wme~U of about $42,000,000 it susceptible to reputed flood A.9~'i121, 1980 l~'t.~t ...~ ~ ~ ~ (79-80) w~e ~a~ ~ ~, ~ ~, ~ ~Y ~ LSO0 ~hir~ of t~ fl~fl~ o~ the Cuc~o~a ~ ~ th~ ob~ ~ pr~roje~ c~, ~.000 ~ a 7-~r o~, .1980. ~fore, ~s P~ ~ ~ the ~ l~t ~t~ ~ ~ ~h m~ s~ t~ ~ted. ~ ~on of ~ co~e f~. ~ of ~e ~ed co~ ~ t~ ~ ~d ~s~ ~ ~te~ (~ ~cl 2). ~t ~ ~ o~on ~th~ ~ ~ D~ ~ ~e ~ ~l~s and w~ ~ fa~ ~ any ~ er~ion ~ ~ aacompl~h~ ~ t~ P~e ~ c~. ~ cha~, t~ ~ ~t~t the n~ d~. Sep-27-O0 04:28pm From- T-Of4 P.015/094 F-2ia These letle~ illustrate the p~oblems that uncontrolled debris inflows have on concrete recia~,l~r :b~-¢ls in this cnvir~,~e~ and goes so far ss to say dmx even ak safety could be sfre~exL Thgy co,,a, a the lik~!i~od of blocki§es catlserl by ~ amounts of debris, ~e rapid ez'osion of the co~ct~te by flond cl~rL% th~ potc~tial disintegration of thc vh~,~el's structural clements, end the additional de~ ofham~ thai could rezult f,'~i~ s cham~el ovcrllow, colonel Teague's 1980 l~'l~rs also rcinf,,~ the id~ ~,t the~ flood contzol systems are exi~znely dcpmdcut ~n adeq~cly sized d~bris basins. Withonl such b~, the perfonn~mce ofth~ flood cout~ol ~vystem is unreliable. The Distxic~'s August Mcmorandum ami th~ MBI r~port slaie thai Santa paula Creek in Vc~t~a CounV/ired Oumy Creek in Cotc~'ado cm~y clel0r~s adequately and erosion of ~o opl~o.t~d~ to co~oluds that De~ Creek will be pcootem tree m me eve~ debris ba.~ oven, s. Thc vulnerability of the De~ Creek Cl~mme! was again raLsed by Ncrm~ Arno. Chie~ of the Rnginee~g Division of the Corps in a supplement to F*~*~e De~g~ Memor~dum No. ~ da*:ed May :27, ~9~3 (Atta~bmeot 6). This supplement sta~ in l~agrapb. 2.06: Subz~.quent to project vonszru~ion it has bec~me m,~derrt tha~ eras~v~ control accumulating in ~he charmel. De~ze growth of R~ian rattle along the riglu-of-way haz cre~ted an ad~onn~ problem. TAg Jb~ian ttr~tle gro~ in early spring and reache~ rn~turgty ~ the fall montle of Aag~zt and September, The dry plan~ along zhe channd ~re~e~t a stgnff~a~ fre hazard to adjacent communities, many of wh~h have wood ~huAe whingl~ roof~. ,4ddiaonal~/, ~ the ~,;~at of ~a~*.se San~a ~lna ~nd~, ~ of ~ blown i~to the channel, where, along with other accuzr*~b, ted debris, it could e.~ectively decrease dze cha~tze! capacity. The thLs~le problem a~ ~t v~rre~tly pre~entz twt only a $~gn~flcant fire howard, b~ could abo ca~e overtol~ping of the channel wall~ resulting in majar yTood damage~ jcopantlze the func6on of the De~-r Creek Chanuc~ an~ lhat the prc~n~ce of water ia Lnzu~ciant to ,,nnove ~ Both the District ~nd MliI mL.~st'tc the FBMA p~ulatian applicable to tl~ Deer Creek flood control system. In the interest of public safety, ~'BMA has adopted mo~ swingent s,,~a-~ds for are~ subject to "alluvinl fan flqodi~§% I~, as the Di~ict clslms, Deer Creek is an sctive alluvial fan, Section 65.13 applies. This role requh~ the tree of the 100-ye~ flood event col~idering advise watershed conditioDao such as ~re aud debts, without re~a~d ~o the joint probability of ~ advca~ cendilions. The reasc~ is that, if d~ facltifies become blOclced with debfi6, floodwat~ will ~:it thc system and flood adjacent areas. Even though the enfi~e 100~year wai~ disch~ge may not be flowing Sep-2?-O0 04:20p~ Froa- T-O14 P.016/0~4 F-ZI~ ~ cxe. mpt from FEMA's regulalieus, thc Deer Creek debris basin sheuld not be considered sufficicat to m~mt ibc base-flood ~xii~ion in ils curr~t condilion. The D~slrict pmpos~ a~di~orml s~ ~, q,,...Ley o,c amount of cl~nis c~t~ng ~h~ ~ poteal~l cb-',l-el block~$e locaticms, ~',d overflow ,a-ess downsU"~mn of the Dee~ Creek De, b~ basin. This is a reasonable step. HoWever, the City of Rancho Cucamonga a~d FISMA are op~ra~,~o trader the false assumption that there is no prob!-ro wilh t~c · ' De~r Cre~ flood co~Uol system. The Calfforn/a Office of Eme~g~.y Servic~m, the Siam Division o£ Safety of D~m~, ~d tim $~n Beumrdino Counv~ Depsr~m~at of Trlmzporlago~ / Flood Control a~ aware that lh~re is a probl~ but are wziti~ forit to be fully explained- ln.iOrmln~ all ofth~se agenc/es o£the need for ~ ~atl~immal studies is a critical first step because the 0income of such studie~ affects ~ derisions made by T~ D/~rh~- ~xponcat could ~t ~u~ ~c ~ o~' ~ ~e P~ D~ M~d~ No, 6 ~d not ~ ~l's ~s~: ~e d~s b.~-'s ~ ~ ~y l~s ~ 310 ~-f~ how~ ~ ~ ~ ~po~ h ~ ~a ~ it o~s ~e ~llway. it ov~ ~ ~y ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~t ~. H~, ~e ~ ~o~t of ~ ~t ~ ov~ ~ ~o~ of ~e ~ ch=nn~L Si~i6~ o~V Sep-2?-O0 04:29pm From- T-OM P.017/034 F-213 Sep-2?-OO 04:30pm Fram- T-014 P.019/034 F-213 [CO~I~ of Federal Regulations] [~age [[pa~ 342]] O~ ~ 65 of ~s ~h~t~ ~e ~ough=, ~ u~ r~;= ~ the {b) ~e ~lmi~s o~ Sss. ~5.5 reg~"~ ~ ~visi~s base~ on Se~ as a basks ~or effectively elim~ce alluvial ~ suuh mea~=~s. neoes~lly li~ to, =he follow.g: water, ~bris, and s~im~= ~e~nt ~sociat~ wiCh cho fl~ ~ha= has ~ o~-p~cent p~ility o~ being for debris flow and $8p-27-00 04:30pm From- T-014 P.020/034 F-213 (S) ~i~er~g ~al~es ~U assess the effect ~ the p~j~cC on o~r ~ thc ~ ag~ci~s ~C ~ave j~is~i~ ~ fl~ c~t~ol ~ti~es. ~ra~ (c) and (d), W%~ a~li~le- regi~terea p~essi~al ~er, ~so, ce~ as-~t pl~ o~ the Sep-2?-O0 04:31pm From- T-ON P.021/034 F-213 Federal Emergency Management Agen~~1~ ~4 thc conc~lu~ pl~s ~bmlt~ wi~ ~ CLOMR ~t. ~c~ m~jfi~ons ind~ · Sep-ZT-O0 04:$tpm From- T-ON P.OZ~/034 F-2]3 6¥:XEROX 70~ : ~' 6-~ :10:12-~ ; BUITF-ZOLLItR$, iNC.'* 714 2~ 1~01:~ ~/ $ Sep-2?-O0 04:32pm Fr0.- T-OI4 P.024/034 F-21s By:.X~OX 7u;~;~ : 'J' 6-S] :lU:}ORg ; UL:I]T-Z0LLAR$, INC.- 714 9~.~ 140I:~ 4-/ 49 U~ln$ Arroyo ! ~ ~n c~zmplr., th= ~orage volum~ wi0tia.Atroyo I, up~lo~e of thc di.ver.~ton dtl~ ~nd below ~e top of ~hc dike. i= appro~imatdy ~w~ce the total sadlmem ~,{mar~d in the dcs{gn (total scd{ment lo~d ~e 1'/2,87D c~bic feeO. We e~tira~c Ihat thomson ~c ~ 1~ f~ ~d~ ~ ~e dike ~d ~ ~ ~ t~ of ~e dik~ S~uld flo~ b~mc 1~1~ ~ ~ ~idc of ~ ~sit ~te ~c o~, ov~iug ~d f~l~c Of ~M~ submi~ ~ ~ 14, 1991,'~d ~c lov~ hdEht f~m ~e ~ ~-~t plus ~ Udl;~ ~ d~ a ~m~t d~lv~ h~ro~k u~ng ~e ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~i~ ~ d~t but d~ aol i~lude ~c ~dtg~ ~n~u~on fro~ ~oumt of d~flon (or ~ur) s~uld ~ ~ uflng ~{ ~ we ~ aw~e of how im~t ~im fl~ consol sys~m is to the ~ety of t~e r~{d~ ~d prot~ ofd~v~lopm~t {n t~wn ~i1{s SuMi~. ~erefor% m ha~ully · e ab{lity of ~ fl~ e~ system to provide ~e t~ of fl~ proration Sep-2?-OO 04:~2pm From- T-O14 P.025/054 F-Z13 Sep-2T-O0 O4:3Zpm From- T-Q14 P.026/034 .,, ,~. s~[~ .~: proc~ln~ ~ely o~ ~u~ · . Sep-2?-O0 04:32pm Froa- T-014 P.027/034 F-21s ~ ~vrl~L l~',O · YY' &~ ~aa~et~ ~ ~ ta~r~ basiu, ~ ~d be.ncc~t~a~d ~ndee ~e a~a ~i~ ~re di~etly r~lnte4 ~o strut fl~= ~e ~ld ~t~e=~ ~ al* ~ s~oela ~a recognized that ~e delay i~ g~t~ ~ ~8rd ot Sep-2?-O0 04:33pm From- T-OM P.O2B/O~4 R.. ~EtI-C~z-~ TT 25124R~ ~aR aO gA~E SUBJECT. A~ T~£~ TIME. Sep-2?-O0 04:33pm Frm]- T-OM P.030/0~4 F-Z13 Sep-2?-O0 04:33pm Fror~- T-OI4 P.0~1/034 F-213 r'~:. ce $9,X~,~0 ace xeq~r~d ~ ~ ~gSO_foz.cm~ ti ~ch ~980, oubJecc~ . ~c~ at c~o ~ 19~ ~e~atnS .... p~e~un 4~enco, b) ~ g~lX~ r~~c to ~ a mhoo~ ~ be a~ ~OOeO00. ~ ~c~ ~ 4~Bo requ~eed ~ la~teCl clued lo Sep-2?-O0 0,4:34pm Fro~- T-014 P.O;~t/O~4 F-21~ $e~-27-00 04:34pm F~om- T-ON P.034/034 F-213 agpr~a~ely 70 ~ee. , , · ~ t~t ~be p~J~k ~te~ate~ mt~~' ~ver~ m~~ ~ys, U. S. 60 aUd rapt~ ~ ~ ~ ev~ ~ater prO~ ~ ~ia~e~ ~ the ~= ~d s~le ~e. ~i~o~lY, w~th the ~ of ~ccu~ated de~, it ~d effec~elY delete ~ ~Y' The ~d, ~t ~ ~so ~e or.topping r~i~ ~trol pl~ ~11 ~pl~u ~. D~i~ C~te~a Des~sn ~or~d~ NO, 6 ~ be~ ~osely c~rdl~d with bo~h Ber~i~o ~Y Fled ~ol DiS~iut ~d ~he Cl~ of R~o C~O~- T~ pl~ ~ ~en develo~ t~ respo~e to t~e Floo~ Contr~ District's request to ~ti~Y the pre~s pl~ as ouCli~ed i~ F~t~e D~ ~o~d~ ~ ', Apa nt complex at Salina and Malve.rn.~ We the undersigned, as neighbors ~ ~n and around the proposed development petition the Planning Commission of the City bfRm oho Cucamonga to hear our opposition to II~e proposed development on the foil, ,wing causes: The Cilv of Rancho Cncmnonga. and in p~icular the soathem side of the city is ~oming increasingly over devclo~fl. The I~al iafraslmcmm is barely handling lhe vehicalar t~c, lhe water demand, aad oliver ~rvices needed by exisling res~len~s without ove~u~dening rite al~dy lax~[ syslem by adding Ihe pro~s~ developmenl. Cit~ns in Ihe ar~ ~uflteasl of A~chibald and An'ow air,dy have a di~ct t enoug!~ time getting out of their neigh~d~ ~'au~ of rite large all~Ot~tll of vehicular tra~c. Thc proi~scd dcvelopmcut would Close access lo Cucamonga Elemen~ry Sch~l from the norlh, a passage that children iu tl~e surmtmdiag commtmil3' have u~d for over 30 yea~ as a ~fe passage to their school. The development would caa~ elemental' aged chil~n of o~ communiD' to walk up to Arrow. Ihcn over to Archibald aad ~ulh on Archibald d~iog high tra~c · Ihc area of Ihe pressed dex cloplnent is a single family resideotial ~ By allowing the pro~d development Io be buil~ you would bc adding even mom tta~c to the a~ whe~ our children now Io piny. Thc building of Ihe propo~d dcvclopmcnl would al~ lower Ihe pro~y value in Iht i~iate ar~, nn ama which is jusl starlitlg Io rebom~d from Ihe r~ession ell ~e ~qrly niaelies. · Thc proposcd dcvclopmcnl wotdd fur[ltcr tax the already straincd facilities at thc Rancho Cucamonga Scmor Cemcr. Thc ccnlcr already has iaadequatc parking, causing patrol,s of thc facili .ty to park . sltcclsidc iii Ihc local msidcnlial neighborhood and iii Ihc ncighboriag commcrcial ccnler. Wc have often had cars from II c scl ior CClllCl' parked bocks away at our home for cvents. With the above mentioned reasons stated, we the undersigned request that the Planning Commissio. of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed development. Na~ne ~ignature '~dress Phone Number / ' PETITION of proposed Apartment complex at Salina and Malveru. ~ We thc undersigned, as neighbors , in and around the prop'osed development petition lite Planning Commission of the City of Rm clio Cucamonga to hear our opposition Io Ihe proposed development on Ihe Ibll, ,wing causes: · Thc CJls' of Raocbo CIIc;InloIIglL alld iii pa~icular Ihe s~lhcrn side or Ilia cily is ~conling increasingly over dm'cloud. Thc I~al inrraslmclarc is barely handling Ihe vehicular lraffic, fflc walcr demand, alld olbcr ~rviccs needed by existing rcs¢lc~lccs ~viiboul ovcrhllldClting Ihe already laxcd system by adding Iht prolx~cd dcYelolmlCnl. Cili~m in Ibc area malheasl of Archibald and A~tow already have a difficull cngngh lilnc gelling Olll of Ihcir neigh~fhm~l ~( :rose of Iht Imgc alllOlllll of vehicular tlll~C. Thc pl'Ol~}s~d dc¥clopmcnl wmfltl close access Io Cuctmloilga ElclllcnlaBy Solidi fioni Ihe norlh, a i)assagc Ibal chihtmn ia Ibc surmrmding commlmity have used for over 3of yearn as a mfe pasmige Io their school. Thc de~lopmcnl woald cause clemenla~' aged children ofo~ commmfity to walk up Io Arrow. Ihcn over to Archibald and SOlJIb on Archibald d~i,tg high traffic limes. · Thc a,'~i of Ihe pm~scd dm'clopmenl is a single flintily residential a~. By allowing the pro.sod development Io ~ buill you ~ould bc adding cvcn mom traffic to thc ama wbem our children now try lo pla). Thc building of Ibc pmpo~d development ~ould aim lower Iht pm~fy value in thc imnlcdiatc ar~. an area which is just starling to refund from Ibc rece~qion of tim ~arly nineties. · Thc proposed dcvclopmcnl wonld fi~rlbcr tax Ihc already strained facilitics al thc Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. Thc center already has inadequale parking, causing palrons of Ibc facility Io park strcclsidc in Ihe local ~csidcnlial ncighborhood and in Iht neighboring commercial ccnler. We have often had cars from thc senior ccnler parked blocks av,'ay at our home [or eYelllS. Witb file above mentioned reasoas slated, we the undersigned request tb.t the Planning Commission of lhe City of Rancho Cucamonga lo deny approval to Ihe proposed development. Name address Phone Number Received SEP 2 5 CCyC RsnchoOucsm PETITION ? of proposed Apartmeut complex at Salina and Malvern. We the undersigned, as neighbors j"i _ ~.. in and around the proposed development petition the Plamfing Commission of the City of Rancho Cucatnonga to hear our opposition to the proposed development on tbe following causes: · The City of ~cho Cucamonga. and in p~c~ the ~ufl~em side of the ci~ is b~ming increasingly over d,:veloped. Thc local i~ffraslmctnrc is barely bandling ~e vehicular traffic, the waler demaud, aod other services needed by e~sling resideuces without ove~urdeoing fl~e M~dy laxed system by adding tim pro, sod development. Citizens in the ar~ soulh~sl of Archibald ~d Arrow already have a di~cull enough lime gening oul of their nei~t~rh~ ~':~t~se of Ihe large amount of vehicula~ traffic. The pro~sed devel,~pment woald close access Io Cncmuonga Elenten~ Sch~l from the noffil, a passage Ihal childrca in the surroun~ng commmfi~' have u~ for over 30 3'~m as a ~e pasmge to their school. The dcvclopmeot would cause element' aged clfil~n of o~ commuffiW to wa~ up to Arrow, then over lo Archib~d and soulh on Archibald d~ing bi~ tr~c times. The area of Ihe prol~osed developmenl is a single fmffily residemial ma. By allowing ~e pro~sed devclopmeat to bc buill you wouhl ~ adding even more t~c to the ar~ wberc our children now t~ ~o play. * Thc building of thc ¢ropo~d development would also lower the pro~ vflue io the i~e~ate ~, an area which is jusl starting Io rebound fIoln the r~ession of the ~rly nineties. Thc proposed dcvclopmcut wo~d ~nhcr tax the already strained facilities at fl~e ~ncho Cumnonga Senior Cemcr. The ceuler already has inad~uate parking causing patrons oflhe facili~ lo ~rk slr~lsidc in thc I{~:,l ~idcnlial ncigh~rhoM and in Iht ncigh~riug commercial ~nter. We Imve often had cars from fl~e senior center parked bl~ away al our borne for events. With the above menliooed reasons stated, we the undersigned request that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed development. Name Signature Address Phone Number Received PETITION of proposed ~ Apartment complex at Salina and Malvern. We the undersigned, as neighbors in and around the proposed development petition the Planning Commission ~the Citf~(kancho Cucamonga to hear our opposition to the proposed development on the following causes: · The Cib' of Rancho Cucamunga, and in particular the southern side of the ciB~ is becoming increasingly over developed. The local infrastructure is barely handling the vehicular traffic, the water demand, and other services needed by existing residences without overburdening the already, taxed ~'stem by adding the proposed development. Citizens in the area southeast of Archibaldand Arrow already have a difficult enough ti~ne gettiug out of their neighborhood because of the large amount of vehicular traffic. · The proposed development would close access to Cucanlonga Elementary School from the north, a passage that children in the surrounding communil3, have used for over 30 years as a safe passage to their school. The development would cause elementary aged children of our communiB' to walk up to Arrow, then over to Archibald and south on Archibald during high traffic times. · The area of the proposed development is a single family residential area. By allowing the proposed " development to be built you would be adding e~,cn more traffic to the area where our children now t~- to play. · The building of the proposed developmen! would also lower the property value in the immediate area, an area which is just starting to rebound from the recession oftbe earl)' nineties. · The proposed development would further tax the already strained facilities at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. The center alrea~' Ms inadequate parking, causing patrons of the facili .t.t.W to park streetside in the local residential neighborhood and in the neighboring commercial center. We have often had ears from the senior center parked blocks away at our home for events. With the above mentioned reasons stated, we the undersigned request that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed development. Name S~_ Address Phone Number eceived_ PETITION of proposed Apartmeut complex at Saline and Malvern. We the undersigned, as neighbors · in and around the proposed development petition the Picturing Conunission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hear our opposition to the proposed development on the following causes: · The Cily of Rancho Cuc,'unouga, and in particular the southern side of the city is becoming increasingly over developed. Tile local iufi'astmc~nre is barely handling the v~ehicular traffic, the water demaud, and other services needed by existing residences without overburdening the already laxed system by adding the proposed developmenl. CJlizens in the area southeasl of Arc ~ baldand Arrow already have a difficult enongh time gelling out of their neighborhood becm~se of the large amount of vehicular traffic. · The proposed development would close access lo Cncamouga Elementary School I'rom the uorth, a passage that children in the surrotmding communii3, have used for over 30 years as a safe passage to their school. The development wmlld cause elementan: aged children of our corn mnity to walk up to Arrow, titan over to Archibald and south on Archibald during high traffic times. · The area of the proposed development is a single fanfily residential area. By allowing the proposed dcvclopmcnl lo be built you would bc addiug cvcu more traffic lo the area where onr children now try to pla>,. · Thc building of thc proposed development would also lower the property value in thc intmediate area, an area which is jusl starling Io rebound from the recession of Ibc early nineties. · ' 527- L zl..u z' - -- ·. -- - · Thc proposed devclopmcnl would fnrthcr tax tile already slraincd facilities at thc Rancho Cucamonga Senior Ceuler. The cenler already bas inadequate parking, causing patrons of Ibc facility, lo park sJreclsidc in the local resldcnlial ~*,'ighborbood and in Ibc neigbboriug commercial center. We have ol/cn had cars frmu the senior cch :r parked blocks away at our home for events. With the above mentioned reasons stated, we the undersigned request that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed development. Name $ig~.m~ture ,_ ~... Address Phoue Number eceived · PETITION of proposed Apartme,t contplex at Salt;la and Malvern. We thc undersigned, as neighbor's in and around the prop~)sed development pclitkm Ihe Planning Commission ol'the City ol'Rm oho Cucamonga lo hear our opposition to the proposed development on the lbll, ,wing causes: · '1 hc ('il~ of Rancho Cucamouga. and in particular Ihe soulhcru side of Ihe oily is becomiog inclca~{ngly over dcvclol~d Thc h~al infra~lructum i~ barcl) haudling Ihe x~hicnlar Imffic. die w;flc~ tlcmand, and olhc[ services ncctlcd b~ existing [cs;Icuccs wiihoul o~crbu~dcuiug lite already taxed sv~lc,I b) addiug Iht plOl~cd dc~cl~)lUUCnl. Citi~as i, 1he area soulhcast of Archibald Al iow ~lllc;itly h;ix¢ a (lifficilll CllOligh lime gcllillg Olll oFIhcil ncigh/glhmll I~t mst of Iht large alllOllltl of vehicular 'l'llc lUOlX~d dc%clopmcnl wmdd close ucccss lo CucalllOll~H EJClUClllaly Schw[ [1'o111 Ibc iIorlh, u pass;igc lhal childrc, i~t Iht summnding commullily have u~d [or ovc[ 30 y~lrs as a sale pass,ge Io Ihclr sch~l. Thc dcvclopmcnl uould causc clcmc.la~' aged children of our cOlllltlUllily Io walk up Io A[rou. titan ovcr Io Archibald and soufll on A[chibald duriag high Imflic limcs. · Thc mca of lhc I)ro~scd dcxcl~pmcnl is a single [amily msidenlial am. By allowing thc pro~scd dcx clopmcnl Io ~ buill you ~xoold ~ adding cvcn more Iraffic to lhc arca whcrc oor childrcu now try lo pla) Thc building of Ibc propo~d dcvclopmcnl ~xould also lo~cr lhc pro~y value in Ihc immcdialc area. a, area which is jusl slarliag Io rc~u,d from rite mcc[Rion of Ibc ~3rly uinclics. · Thc proposed dcvclopmcut uould further lax ~c alrcadv slraincd facililics al Ihc Rancho Cucamo,ga Scmor Cculer. Thc ccnlcr already has inadcquale parkiog, causiag ~lrons of Ibc facilily Io park ' si~cclsidc in thc h~al ~csidc~llial .cig ~ ~rh~ With the above mentioned reasons slated, we tile undersigned request tlu,t the Plamfing Ct)remission of Iht ('ily of Rancho Cucamonga Io deny approval to the proposed developmem " Address ~ho,e Number Re ed -, PETITION ~ ~ of propose(t Aimrm~cnt complex at Salina and Malvern. We thc undersigned, as acighbors in attd around the prop:~scd dcvcloptncnt petition the Planning Commission oflhe Cily of Rm oho Cucamonga Io hem our opposilion to Ihe proposed development on the Ibll, ,wing causes: '1 hc Cil~ of Rancho Cucamooga. aad in pnmcular Iht Soalhcrll side of thc cily is bccomiog inc~cas{ngly over dcvclol~d Thc h~al infra~lnmh~m is barely handling Ihe vehicnlar ~salcr demand, aod olhcr ~r~iccs uccdcd b) existing rcs;Icaccs xsilhoul o~crbmdcning Ibc almad) laxcd sl~lClll b) adding Iht pml~cd dc~clopmcnl. Cili=Hs in lite area s311111caM of Archibald and A~o~ ~d~catly h;~xc a difficull cmmgh lime gelling oul or ihci~ ncighl~H~l I~ iiiqe of Iht large alllOlllll of vehicular Thc lUOln}scd development would close access Io CUCalllOllgll Elcmcnla~y Sch~l Ii'om Ibc Ilorlh. I~:lss;igc Ihal chiklrcn m thc surrom~dillg commuoily have used for over 30 years as a ~ffc pas~gc Io Ihmr school. Thc dcvclopmcnl ~ uuld cause clcmcnlaO' agc~ childrc~t of our communily Io walk up to Ar~ox~. then o~cr IO Archibald and soulh on Archibald doriog high traffic limes. · 'lhc mca of thc pro.sod dc~ clupmcol is a single family rcsidcnlial ama. By allowing thc proposed dcxclopmcnl Io Im boill 5ou ~ould ~ adding cvcn mom traffic Io thc ama where ottr children Io plax. · Thc h~ilding of thc propomd dcvclopmcnl would also Im~cr Ihc pro~y value in Ihc immcdialc area. ;m mca which is.iusl sl;irliilg Io refund fi'om thc recession of Iht early ninclics. · Thc proposed development ~ould furlhcr tax Itc already slraincd facilities al thc P, ancho Cucamonga Scmor ('enlcr. Thc ccnlcr alrcad,, has madequalc parking, causing palrons of Ibc facility lo park ' ~ We / slrccl~idc in thc I(~al icsidcnlial ncigld~rhmxl and in thc llcigJl~r ng colualcrcl;d ccnlcr, have of loll hild C;IFS from Iht senior collier p;irkcd bl~ks a~s;ly ill our hOlllC for cvcllls. With thc above ntentioned reasons stated, we the undersigned request llu,t the Planning Commission .r lite Cily of Itancho Cucamonga lo deny approval to the proposed dcvclopmenl N a~ne ~ Si~ ~ Address Phone Number eNe¢_ PETITION of proposed ~' Apartmeut complex at Saliua and Malvern. We the undersigned, as neighbors ' in and around the proposed development petition the Plammg Conunission of the City of Rancho Cucmnonga to hear our opposition to the proposed development on the following causes: · The Cily of V. ancho Cucmnonga. and ia particular the southern side of the city is becotning incrmqsingly over developed. Thc local infrastmclure is barely handling thc vehicular traffic, thc water detained, mtd other services needed by existing resideaces without overburdening lite already taxed syslem by' adding the proposed developp~ent. Citizens in lite area southeast of Archibald and Arrow already have a difficult enoagh lime gening out of their neighborhood because of the large amoant of vehicular traffic. · The proposed developmeat woald close access to Cucamoaga Elemenlat3, School [mtn the north, a passage Ihat children iu the surr~mnmtuty have used for over 30 yea~ tis a safe passage to their sehool. The development would cause elementaE,, aged children of our connuuniq, to walk up to Arrow, then over to Archibald and south on Arclfibald during high traffic times. · The area of the proposed development is a single faafily residential urea. By allowing the proposed development I.o be built yon would be adding even more traffic to the area whero onr children now tr3,- to pla)'. · Thc building of the proposed development would also lower the property value iu the immediate area, an area which isjus! starting to rebonnd from the recession of the early ninelies. · The proposed development would further tax the al,early strained facilities at thc lhncho Cucamonga Senior Center. Tte cenler already has inadeqnale park ng causing patrons of the facility to park strcctside in thc local rcsidcadal ocighborhood and in Ibc acighboriag commercial center. We have often had cars from the senior center parked blocks away at our Imme for events. With the above mentioned reasons stated, we the uodersigned request that the Planning Commission of the City of P, ancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed development. Name Signatur9 / . Address Phone Number PETITION of proposed Apartment complex at Salina and Malvern. We the undersigned, as neighbors ' · ~ ~' in and around the proposed development petition the Planuing Commission ~f the City ~l:~ancbo Cucamonga to hear our opposition to the proposed development on the following causes: · .The Ct?' of Rancho Cncmnonga, :md in particular the soulhern side of the city is becoming mcrensmgly over developed. Thc local i~ffrastmctnre is barely handling the vehicular tmt]ic, the waler denmud, and other services ,ceded by existing residences witimut overbunleuing the already laxed syslcm by- adding lhe proposed developmeat. Citizens in the area soulheasl of Archibald m~d Arrow already have a difficult em,ugh time gelfiug out of Iheir neighborhood because of the large amonni ofvehicukn traffic. The p~,posed devel.)pment would close access to Cuca~onga Elemenlary School from the uorth, a passage tlmt childrct~ in Ihe surrounding communi¢- have used for over 30 years as a safe passage to their school. The development would cause elemenlaU aged children of our comlnunity to walk up to Arrow, then over to Archibald m~d south on Amhibald during lfigh traffic times. · The area of fl~e pmFosed developmen! is a siagle family residential area. By allowing the proposed dcvclopmcut to be built yon would be adding even more traffic to the area where our children now to play. · The building of thc proposed development would also lower the property vahie in the immediate area, an area which isjus! starting Io rcbouud from Ihe recession of the early nineties. · ~____ :~: :.-~--.-_ ..... ..~. ~-- --. :.~ _:.:~--,~- - ~ : ....... ~-~. · Thc proposed development would further tax Iht already strained facilities at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Cenler. The center alread3 has inadequate parking, causing patrons of thc facility to park slreelside in Ibc local rcsidcnlial ucighborbood and in the neighboring commercial center. We have often had cars from the senior cenlcr parked blocks away at our home for events~ With the above mentioned reasons stated, we the undersigned request that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed development. Nmne x Si~na. tuxe ,~ , Address Phone Number Received lSEP Z 5 3]00 City of Rancho Cucamonga IqCrlTION of propose([ Aparl,nent complex at Salilm and Malvern. We tile undersigned, as neighbors ill and around the prop~)scd dcvcloplncnt petition the Planning Commission oflhe City ol'Ra~ oho Cucamonga to hear our opposilion to lhe proposed devclopmeRI on Ihe Ibll, ,wing causes: 'Iht ('il~ of Rancho CIic;llllOllg;I. ;llld ill particular Ibc soalhcrn side of Ibc cily is bccolni~lg inc~casi'ngly over dcvclol~d Thc h~al infra~lruclum is barcl) handling thc vehicular Iraffic. water demand, mid olhcr ~r~iccs uecdcd by cxisliug ms¢lcnccs x~ilhoul o~crbmdcniRg Iht already I:lxcd ~ slclll b) adding Iht lm~l~cd dcvcl~}lmmRI- Cili~,~ in Ihe area soulhcasl of Archibald and A i i~w ~lhc;itl) h;ixc a difficull cnmlgh lime gelling oul ~[ Ihcil ~lcighl~ h~l I~ mst of Iht I:UgC 11111OIIIII Of vehicular Thc lUOl~}scd dcvclupmcul ~oLlltl close access Io Cucauloaga Elcmculaly Sch~l (iota Iht ilorlh, a ii;its;igc Ihat childrcu il~ Iht surfoulldillg co]nmunily h;svc u~d for over 30 years as a safe p:ls~lge Io Ihcir school. Thc devclopmcnl ~ uuld c;itlSC clcmcnlaO' agc~ children ol'our commmlily Io walk up Ario~x. dlcn over lo Archibald and soulh ou Aichibald during high Imffic lilncs. · 'lhc ama of lira pro~scd dcxclopment is ti single filmily ~esidculial am. By allowing Ibc proposed dcvclolmlCnl Io ~ buill )ou ~xoukl ~ adding cxcli mom Iraffic Io thc area whcm our children nob Thc b"llilding of Ibc propo~d dcvclopmcRt uould also louver Ibc pro,fly value in Ibc imlacdialc atoll. ;in mca which is jusl si:ming lo rclmund fioul thc rcces~iou of Iht carl)' ainclics. · 1'he proposed dcvclopmcut ~%ould fi~rlhcr tax Ihc already slraincd fac(lit(cs al thc Rancho CucamoRga Scuim' ('cnlcr. Thc cculcr already has inadequalc parkiRg, causiug palrOR$ of it fac(lily Io park sllc¢lsb.[c ill Ih¢ I,~,:;11 icsitlcnlial ;~cighborh~KI and iii Ibc ucighboriug coauncrci;d eeRIer. Wc have / orlon had {:;irs fl'om Ibc scllior cculer parked blocks a~ay al our home for c,,cnls With tile above mentioned reasons slated, we the undersigned request tlwt Ihe Planning Commission t}l' thc ('ily t}f Rancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed develolmlenl ~ame Signature , g&lress Phone Number Received City ot Rancho Cucamong~ ' Planning Oiwsmn · e'"'""~z- PETITION ~' ' of proposed Apartment comt)lex at Sail:aa and Malvern. We the undersigned, as neighbors · in ond around the proposed development pelition the Plamting Commission of the City of Rm ,silo Cucamonga to hear our opposition to the proposed development on tl~e tbll, ,wing causes: Thc Cily of Rancho Cucaluonga. aad in p~icular Ihe s~aflmrn side of Ibe city is ~coming increasingly over dcvclo~d. Thc local infraslruclurc is barely handling the vehicular Ira~c, thc walcr riceland, aud other services needed by existing rcs~leuces xsJiboul ovcrbuldcnhlg Ihe alr~ldy laxcd ~)~lClU by addiag II~c laopo~cd devclol)mCnl. Cili~ns in Iht area ~ulhcasl oF Archibald and Arrow already have a di~cult eaough lime gelling otll of Ibeir neigh~H~ ~c:msc of Ibc large ammmt of vehicular Thc proposed developmcut would close access (o CtlCalUOllga ElenlClllary Scb~l ~n] the uorlh, a passage Ihal chiklren in Iht surrouadhLg COmlUUOily have Iised for over 30 y~rs as a safe pas~tgc m Ihcir school. Thc devclopnmnl xxouid caosc clcmcntaD' aged children ofo~ coommnily Io walk np to Arrow. Ihcu over Io Archibald and somh on Archibald d~ing high Im~c times. · The area of the pro~sed dcvclopmenl is a single family residential ~. By allowing the proposed development Io be buill )on ~ould bc adding cvcu more tra~c to thc a~ whcrc our children 11o~' try Io play. Thc building of Iht propo~d development would also lower the pro~' value in thc immediate area, m] area which is jasl siartiug Io rc~und fi'om Ihe recession of the ~qrly nineties. The proposed dcvclopmcot would furlbcr tax Ihe already strained facilities at the Rancho Cucamonga Seuior Cculcr. Thc center already has iuadequale parking, causiag patrons of thc £qcilily to park slrcclsidc iii Ihc local rcsidcalial neighborhood aad in Ihc acighboriog commcrci;d CCaler. We have oflca had cars from Iht senior ccnier parked blocks away al our homc for cvcnls. With tile above mentioned reasons slated, we tile undersigned request that tile Planning Commission oFthe Cily of Rancho Cucamonga ~o deny approval to the proposed development. ~ame Signature ~ddress I'hone Number Received · PETITION of proposed Apartment coral)lex at Sallna and Malvern. ~ We thc undersigned, as ncighbors , in and around the propt~sed devcloplncnt pclilion lhe Planning Commission ol'lhe Cily ol'Ra~ ,;ho Cucamonga Io hear our opposition to lhe proposed development on Ihe Ibll, ,wing causes: '1 hc CiI~ of Raocho CllCalllOllg;I. alld ill particular thc sealhcrn side of thc cily is becoming inc~cas{n[~ly o~cr dcvclol~d The h~al infraslrucl.rc is barely handling thc x'chic.lar tra~c. Ibc water demaud, and oilier services needed by existing [es~lcnccs x~id~oul ovcrbuldcmng Iht laxed g~slcm b) addu~g Ihe I.Ola~cd de~cl;~l)mcnl. Citi~.s m Ihe area soulheas~ of Archibald and Al mw ]dready haxe ;I (Ii,cull c...gh lime gclli.g o.I of d~eir neighl~lh~nl I~ rose of Ibc large amotml or vehic,lar 'Iht [,Ol~scd dc'xclopmcnl x~ouhl close access Io Cucamonga Elcmcmaty Sch~l from lhe norlh, a p;ISS:tge (h~ll childrc, i, Ih~ surrom~di,g commmdly have u~d for over 30 years as a ~lfe p:lS~lgC Io Iheir sch~l. Thc dcvclopmcJd x~ould cause elc~lCldaO' agc~ children ol'our commumty ~o walk up Io Ar[o~. Ihc~ over lo A~chibald a~d soulh on A]chibald during high Irafl~c limes. ~ '1 he a~ea or ibc pro~sed dc~clopmcnl is ~ si.glo farad)' tcsidcnlial area. D)' allowing Ibc ptopo~d dex'clopmcnl Io I~ buill )ou %xould ~ adding even more Irate Io Ibc area where our children now ~ry Io pla) Thc building of Ihc propo~d dcvclopmcnl ~%ouid also Io%~cr Ibc pro,fly value i~ thc immediate area. an area which is jusl slarlit]g Io te~m~d fi'om Ibc rcce~ion of Ibc ~rl)' nineties. · The proposed devclopmcnl would fimher tax Itc alrcady strained facilities al lite Rancho Cucamonga Senior Cenler. 'l'he cenlcr nlrmqdv has inadequnle parking, causing Dalrons of hc facilily Io pa~k sl~eclsi(Ic iii Ihe k~al ~csidcnlial neighl~rh~l and in Iht ncigh~ring commcrci;d ccnlcr. We have / often had cars from Ihe SClliO[ COllier parked bl~ks ;i~ay al our home for cvcms. With the above mentioued reasons stated, we lite undersigned request thai the Plmming ( OlllllllSSIt ii of il~e ('ily t~f I~ancho Cueamonga Io deny approval 1o the i~roposed dcvelopmenl. Name Siguature Address Phone Number PETITION of proposed Apartment complex at Salina and Malvern. Wc thc undersigned, as neighbors in and around thc propt~sed development petition lime Pla nfin~ Comnnssion of the Cil¥ o{'~a, cbc Cucamon~a to hear our opposition to tile prol)osed dcvelopnlent on the [bgl, ,wing causes: · The. Oily. of Raacl o C camonga, and in parlicular file soulhcrn side of lite city is bcconling mcrcasmgly over developed. Thc local infraslmclnr¢ is ,barely haadling \valor delnand, alld oilier services necded by exisling residences wilhoul overburdcoing Ihe already laxcd syslem by adding lite i:,rolx:,~ed developmenL Cili.zens ht Ihe area sotflheasl of Archibald aa'd Arrow already have a difficnll enough time gcltiag pill oflhe r neighbodtood bec:rose of Ibp large anloiHit of vehictllar tral~ic. The proposed developmcat ',voald close access Io Cucaulonga Elemeularv School £rom the norflk a passage Ihal chiklren ill Ibc surrounding community have used for over'30 ye:irs as a safe passage lo their school. The development \votdd cause elemealaO' aged cl dren of our commuoil~, to w Ik up Arrmv. Ihcn over 1o Archibald aud sonlh pa Archibald dnring high traffic tiraes. · The area of Ihe proposed development is a sitlgle family residential area. By. allowing the proposed development Io be built you wouhl bc adding cvcn more traffic to lhe area where otlr clfildrcn nov,' try Io play. * · Tho building of Ibc proposed dcvclopmcal ~xoald also lower Ilie property value in thc immcdiale area, an area which is jasl slarlillg Io rebound from thc recession oflhe early nineties. · Tile pmposcd dcvclopmcnl ~xonld fi~rlhcr lax Ihc alrcadv slmincd facilitics at Ibc Rancho Cueamonga Seaior Cenler. The ccnler already has ioadequale parki'ng, eausiag patrons of thc facility lo park slrcclsidc itl lite hx:al Icsidcnlial ~tcighDorhood attd in Ibc ocighboriag comalcrcial ccnler. We have often had cars £rom the scnior ccnlcr parkcd blocks away al our borne for cvcnls. With the above mentioned reasons stated, we lite undersigned request that tile Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga lo deny approval to the proposed development. Na~ne [Signature ~? Address Phone Number K .gr q Received City of ~ancho Cuce~c,e PETITION of propose~l 1 Apartment complex at Salina and Malvern. We thc undersigned, as neighbors · in and around the proposed development petition the Planning Connnission of the City of Ra, oho Cucmnonga to hear our opposition to the proposed development on the foil, ,wing causes: · Thc City of Rancho Cucmnouga. and in parlicular Ihe s~,athcm side of tile city is becoming incr~lsi'ngly over dm'eloped. Thc local inlYaslruchlrc is barely Inmdling thc ¥chicnlar Imffic, walcr dcaland, and olhcr services uccdcd by cxisling rcs¢lenccs wilhoul overburdening the alrca(ly laxcd syslcm by addiug die prolm~ed dcvelopmcaL Cili:mns in Ihe area soulheasl of Archibald and Arrow already have a difficult enough time gelling oul o1' their neighborhood bec:rose of Ibc large amonnt of vehicular traffic. · Thc proposed developmcul would close access Io Cncanlollga Elementary School From tile north, a passage that children in die surrounding comnmuily have used for over 30 years as a safe passage to their school. The devclopmcnl n'ould canse clcmcutan.' aged children of our corn mmfity Io walk up to Arm,,'.'. Ihcn o~.~2r Io Archibald and sonlh on Archibald during high traffic times. · Thc area of Ibc proposed dcvclopmenl is a single Family resideutial area. By allowing the proposed dcvclopmcnt Io bc built you would bc adding cvcn more traffic to the ama where our children now try lo play. · Thc building of lira proposed dcvclopmcul would also lower thc property value iii tim inuncdiatc area, an area which is just starling to rebound from tl~e recession of thc early nineties. Thc proposed dcvclop~ncnt woldd further tax Ibc already strained facilities at thc Rancho Cucamonga Senior Cemer. The ceuler already has inadequate parking, causing patrons ofthc facility Io park slrcclsidc iii Ihc local icsidcnlial ucighborhood and iii Iht ncighboriug comulcrci;d ccnlcr. We have ollcu had cars froln Ibc senior COllier parked blocks away at our bonlc for cvcnls. With tile above mentioned reasons stated, we tile undersigned request tlu,t the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to deny approval to the proposed development. Name Signature /~chiress Phone Number Received__. "! planning Dw~s~on -' September 27, 2000 The attached documents ars submitted on behalf of Californians United for Reasonable Expansion, Inc. ("CURE") in connection with Planning Commission Hearing of September 27, 2000, concerning The Heights at Havenview Estates. This submission incorporates by reference all documents previously submitted to the Planning Commission and Grading Committee in connection with the August 22, 2000 and July 18, 2000 hearings as well as the transcripts from those proceedings. 1. Does the Planning Comn~ssion have new information before it not previously considered when it placed 'flood misted" conditions on the Project in 19907 Yes: in 1990, the Planning Commission relied on the Debris Basin handling a 200-year event and holding 310 acre feet of debris based upon the Army Corps representations. At that time the proposed replacement channel only addressed runoff from approximately 120 acres between the Oebris Basin and the northern boundary of The Heights' Project. The replacement channel must now be sized to mitigate any of the projected overtopping of the debris basin to protect both the future residents of The Heights as well as the existing homes that will be subject to addttionel flooding if the Deer Creek Levee is removed. New Information: · The Army Corps of Engineers has stated that the Debris Basin's design estimate of 310 ecre feet was "unreasonable'. (See A: Exponent 9/18 Report, Exhibit 1, page 8). · The Debris Basin no longer holds the 200-year event. The debris basin by itself can not meet FEMA standards requiring that flood-structures hold the 100- Year (one percent probability) flood under adverse conditions such as a watershed burn. (See A Exponent 9/18 Report, Exhibit 4, page 1 and San Bemardino County Flood Control calculations at D: pages 37 and 38) · San Bernardino County Flood Control District conducted a study in February 2000, concluding that the effective basin capacity is only 132 acre feet (approximately a 25 year event) of debris versus the 292 acre feet that the Corps' concludes is generated by the 100-year event. (See attached) · Exponent Failurs Analysis conducted a study concluding that the basin handles 111 acre feet of Debris. (See Exponent 4/28 Report prsviously submitted to the City on 7/t8/00 and incorporated by reference). This is less than a 20-year event. · The Corps now admits that the "reasonable" estimate of the storage capacity of the debris basin is 162-acrs feet. Even if we assume the Corps' f*~lures are correct; this amount is 150-aore feet smaller than the Corps odginsi 310 acre feet design. This is equivalent to a 33-year event. (Exponent 9/18 Report at page 9) The Corps' peer review consultant, Muasetter Engineering Inc ("MEI") recommended on August 3, 2000, that a study of the debris basin spillway embankment be conducted because of overtopping concerns. (See Exponent Report, Exhibit 2 at p 7). This study has not bean completed. The Corps recommends engineering modifications to the debris basin to improve its debris deposition. This engineering work has not been completed (See Exponent 9/18 Report, Exhibit I at p 16) The Corps now states that the basin will handle the 100-year event only if the concrete channel can carry overtopping debris. The Corps provides no technical support for its conclusion that the channel canr' can'y both water and debris..The original Design Memorandum warned against any debris getting into - ~ - the channel (including Russian thistle) because of the potential for blockage and overtopping. (See Exponent 9/18 Report at Exhibit 5). San Bemardino County Flood Control District has not complsted its flood inundation maps for Deer Creek. Particularly with the Corps' new information, no permit approvals should occur until those maps are completed so that appropriate mitigation is planned. (See September 1, 2000 Correspondence from. Office of Emergency Ser¥icee to San Bemardino County Flood Control Dist~ot attached) 2. Is the Replacement Channel designed properly even if we assume the Deb#s Basin w#l not fail? No. MDS Engineers submitted a Sediment Transport and Deposition Study, Interceptor Channel Tract NO. 14771, dated June 19, 2000. The City has a copy ef this report in its files, which is Incorporated by reference and made a part of this Administrative Record. The MDS report and os'leulatioos reveal that 5.27 feet of sediment will deposit in the Deer Creek channel. UThis amount of sediment deposit is suffioient to block the channel and cause floodwaters to overflow it." Mr. Gars, an outside consultant for the City, confirmed on September 26, 2000, that The Heights have not submitted any additional modifications to the replacement channel to address this situation. See Hamilton Letter to Steve Van Dorf, Army Corps of Engineers attached. Blockage of the Deer Creek Channel not only affects Haven View but ali of the areas to the south and east. The City cannot approve a replacement channel that is unsafe for its citizens. The Army Corps has rejected The Heights channel permit on four separate occasions in the past year. 3. Should the Planning Commission and City Council delay reaching a decision untff the Army Corps evaluations are final? Yes. The Department of Army is reviewing the August 4, 2000 District Memorandum now, It is not final. The Department of Army will determine if further studies are necessary as a result of these findings. Granting any further approvals for the Heights Project is premature. (See August 31, 2000 correspondence from Secretary Joseph Westphal attached). 4. Does post-1990 evidence exists concerning the Cucamonga Fault not previously considered by the Planning Commission that materially impacts the viability of the Replacement Channel? Yes. Declaration ofWolfgang Roth, Dames& Moore, November 18, 1999, attached. Included at D are documents previously submitted to the Commissioners and City, including documents from San Bernardino County Flood Control District in disagreement with the Army Corps evaluation of rainfall frequency and debris generation and channel discharge. The following documents ere submitted in connection with this filing. 1. Exponent Failure Analysis Report Of September 18, 2000 and Exhibits I through 5. The referenced Exponent Failure Analysis Report of April 27, 2000 proviously was submitted to the City. 2. 3 page analysis of San Barnerdino County Flood Control District dated February 1, 2000 3. Memorandam from Douglas Hamilton to Army Corps of Engineer regarding MD$ Sediment Transport Modal for Tract 14771. The MDg Report previously was submitted to the City by The Heights at Haven View Estates. 4. August 31, 2000 l~tter from Secretary Westphal, Department of Army, to Malissa McKeith, 2 pages 5. September 1, 2000 letter bom Office of Emergency Services to Kenneth Guidrey rejecting SBCFD inundation maps. 4 pages 6. Declaration ofWolfgang Roth, 2 pages 7. Suppor~dng Documents Bate Stamped 001 - 150 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS I. The CORPS desiqn capacity was for 3.27" rainfall. The Corps said this 3.27" was a 3-Hour 200- Year storm or 2.95"as a 100Year Storm. Is this the right rainfall? A. 3.27" per the Corps 200 based on 1943 data from Los Angeles ........................................................... 1-4 B. 70-Years was what San Bernardino County said the Project was in 1979 ............................................... 6 B. 4.9" for 100 per San Bemardino County Flood Control on 1986 data ..................................................... 7 C. 4.9" for 100 per Cristiano consultant Morse Consultants on 1986 data ................................................... 8 D. 7.06" for 100 per Dr. James Goodddge, former state climatologist on 1998 data ................................... 9 E. Appendix: What is a lO0-Year Storm? How is a lO0-Year Storm determined?. .............................. 13 Conclusion: the Corps is wronq- the 100-Year rainfall is between 5" to 7" not 2.96". II. How much does the Deer Creek Debris Basin hold? A. San Bemardino County Flood Control: 257 acre feet in 1994 .............................................................. 15 B. Army Corps of Engineers: 310 acre feet in 1984-1999 .................................................................. 1 & 16 C. Exponent Engineers: 111-134 acre feet in 2000 ................................................................................ 18 D. Michael Bollinger, chief engineer of L. A. Flood Control:<134 acre feet in 2000 ................................. 25 E Robert Kirby, Corps engineer responsible for basin design: <130 acre feet in 2000 ........................... 27 F. Appendix: Why isn't the Corps legally responsible for making such a big mistake? Conclusion: Deer Creek Debris Basin does not hold 310 acre feet. It holds 130 acre feet III. How much debris is generated by the Deer Creek Watershed? A. Army Corps in July 1999-200 Year Storm as 310 acre feet ................................................................. 2 B. Army Corps in November 1999-200 Year Storm as 310 acre feet C. Army Corps in December 1999-111 Year Storm as 310 acre feet ..................................................... 16 D. San Bemardino Flood Control in 1994-50-Year Storm ...................................................................... 37 E. San Bemardino Flood Control in 1998- <1S-Year Storm (483 to 1450 acre feet) .......................... 38 Conclusion: Million tons of debris can come from Deer Canyon IV. Is the Deer Creek Channel adequate for a 100-Year Flood? A. 1979-Chief Flood Control Engineer for the County says 70 years ....................................................... 6 B. 1986-County hydrology manual figures at less than 25 Years ........................................................... 40 C. 1991- Michael Baker Engineers finds channel concrete is inadequate ......................................... 41-43 D. Judge's decision that channel holds 15,000 cubic feet per second .............................................. 44-45 E. Terra Vista discharge problems in lower channel .............................................................................. 46 Conclusion: The channel will fail in a 100-Year Flood. V. What about the Deer Creek Levee? A. 9 foot high Levee built with federal funds in 1936 by the federal Civilian Conservation Corps B. Flood of 1969, the 9' levee protected the area .................................................................................. 47 C. Levee improvement raised the height to 15" using Federal funds under Watershed-Bums Act ......... 49 D. Levee included as part of the Recommended Plan in Design Memorandum #2 ................................ 50 F. Federal Funds of $431,000 allocated for Deer Creek Levee improvements in1975/6 ....................... 52 E. 9,700,000 cubic feet of fill added to Deer Creek Levee from 1978 to 1981 Phases Ill -VI. F. Debris Basin and Channel completed November 1982 16 G. 1984 FEMA rates Levee to 100 Year Storm 54 H. Cristiano consultant Associate Engineers on Levee capacity 55 I. Re: Evelyn comments on Levee as a 'convenient debris disposal site"lO'Nell's a mound of did. Conclusion: The Deer Creek Levee is a federal levee, constructed under the authority of the United States Government and a contractual aqreement with the Government specifies the flood capacity of the Levee is not to be encroached upon, impaired or diminished in any way. Paqe 64 VI. Misrepresentations or False information was submitted to FEMA in 1991. A.. The 1991 application misrepresented that the remapping as reflecting 'new construction" of the debds basin and channels but that chanqe had already been made on FEMA's 1985 Map ................................ 54 B. Both Cdstiano's consultants and the County omitted any notification to FEMA that they both calculated the rainfall as significantly higher than the Corps 3.27". ..................................................................... 7 & 8 C. Omitted was data showing the County's 100 Year Storm would discharge more than 5400 cubic feet....40 D. The concrete channel was substandard to the flows and certified only to 60 feet per second when flows above the Levee are to 79.2 feet per second ......................................................................................... 41 E. Omitted was data that the Levee was part of the "Recommended plan' of the "new construction'. ......... 50 F. False or erroneous data was ~ubmitted saying the maximum possible tower dischaq3e was 120 Cubic feet per second ............................................................................................................................ 74 G. False or erroneous data was submitted saying a 100-Year flood would not have areas of flow exceeding 1 foot in depth .......................................................................................................................... 75 Conclusion: Flood zone was lifted in 1991 by fraud or by ne.qli.qent errors and omissions. VII. Are there other factors the Corps design ignored? A. The possibility of any rainstorms occurring for five years after a bum ....................................... 36 & 77 B. Any rains when there is snow pack on the peak could cause a failure. C. Successive storms are not accounted for ......................................................................................... 82 D. Cucamonga's storm durations always have been 12 to 24 Hours, not 3-Hours. E. Basin clean-out safety factor ............................................................................................................ 83 Conclusion: Any one of these factors could cause floodin.q. VII. Expert Declarations and documents A. M.D.S. or Morse Consulting, Cdstiano consultant .................................................................... 8 B. Dr. James Goodridge, former state climatologist ................................................................. 86 C. National Weather Service/N.O.A.A. Atlas on rainfall ............................................................ 121 D. Associated Engineers, Cdstiano consultant ...................................................................... 122 E. Art Brunington, former head of Los Angeles Flood ............................................................. 123 F. Mike Bollinger, current head of Los Angeles Flood .............................................................. 25 G. Robert Kirby, Corps Deer basin designer .............................................................................. 27 H. Dr. David Williams, former Corps engineer and hydrologist ................................................ 137 I. Bruce Collins, former Corps engineer and hydrologist ........................................................ 133 J. David Hamilton, debds basin expert .................................................................................... 19 K. Dr. Tom Sheahan, hydrogeologist ...................................................................................... 126 L. Andrew Campbell .............................................................................................................. 148 TABLE III-1 Debris Production Factors Drainage Drainage 3 Hour Area Slope Density Hypsometrie Rainfall Location (sE mi) (ft/mi) (mi/sq mi) Index (in) Deer 3.71 1200 2.8 .43 3.27 ~ Demens 2.35 1150 3.4 .35 3.30 Hillside 0.70 1170 3.6 .31 3.30 Correction Factors (in %) Estimated Debris Production DrainaEe Hypsometric 3 Hour Volume Location (cu yds/sq mi) Slope Density Index Rainfall (ac-ft) Deer 15§000 96 91 94 86 310 ~ Demens 200000 95 84 77 88 160 Hillside 230000 95 78 58 89 40 The Corps notes that they desJgned to al 3-Hour Rainfall of 3.27" on Deer-estimated as 200-Year Storm only 60% of the County estimate I ~-3 00[ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY L~GE~S, CALIF~N~ ~s~s The Co~s conflms ~e 3-Ho~ rai~all JOy 13, 1999 calculationsfor thewaters?d~bnt~to Deer Debris basin is 3.27' Estimat~ at Office of ~e C~ef 200-Ye~ Store Hy~olo~ ~d Hy~u~cs Brach Ms. Marylinda McKeith ·. 4993 Ginger Court AltaLoma, CA 91737 Dear Ms. McKcith: This letter is in response to your June 14, 1999 letter and your June 19, 1999 facsimile regarding your request for hydrologic and hydraulic information for the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel. In your June 19 facsimile, you requested responses to several key questions that you considered the es:3ential points from your June 14 letter. Consequently, we are concentrating our response on the questions put forth in the June 19 facsimile. Question 1: "Does your certification letter of March 11, 1991 certify that the debris basin holds the SPF debris discharge?" R~sponse to Questionl: The referenced Corps of Engineers letter addressed to Mr. Paul Peterson dated March 12, 1991 simply stated that the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel were designed to convey thc Standard Project Flood (SPF) which has an estimated recurrence interval of approximately 200 years, as noted in our Design Memorandum No. 6 (DM No. 6), dated June 1979. The letter did not specifically "certify" that the debris basin holds the SPF debris volume. However the 3-hour rainfall value of 3.27 inches used to derive the debris " basin storage volume with thc Tatum Method is the same value as the SPF rainfall total for the watershed tributary to the debris basin. Therefore it can be inferred that the Deer Creek Debris Basin was designed to capture and store the debris produced from thc SPF. Question 2: "Is the Standard Project Storm 3 Hours thc 3.13" of the Corps design memorandum or is it thc 5.24" or 5.5" the National Weather Service indicates?" ~~2: The Standard Project Storm 3-hour total average precipitation depth for the Cueamonga Creek Debris Basin watershed is 3.13 inches (Plate 14 from the Hydrology Design Memorandum No. 1 Cucamonga Creek). The Standard Project Storm 3-hour total average precipitation depth for the I)eer Creek l)ebrb Basin watershed is 3.27 inches (Table III-1 of Cucamonga Creek Flood ConU'ol Project, Feature Design Memorandum No. 6, Deer Creek, Dcmcns and ltillside Debris Basins and Channels, dated June 1979. We are not sure what the National Weather Service values cited represent. 02 2 Question 3: "Is the maximum POSSIBLE 100 Year intake tower discharge 116 Q or is it more (375 Q from T-15 or tlae 430 Q of the early design notes)?" ~l~.~!!~l~l~: The intake tower with an un-gated 36-inch-diameter encased reinforced- concrete pipe passing under the debris basin was designed to drain flood water that collects or pools within the basin after the storm event. As part of the mai~. drain pipe to the intake tower, additional gated drain pipes were installed to selectively divert this pool of water to separate spreading grounds located outside the flood control channel for groundwater recharge. There is no recurrence frequency associated with the debris basin pool drain. The exact design discharge for the debris basin pool drain was not noted in the design memorandums because its capacity does not affect the level of flood protection afforded by the debris basin. The Deer Creek Debris Basin spillway is designed to convey all discharges up to and including '- the Probable Maximum Flood discharge of 15,000 cubic feet per second. Question 4: "Is the Corps certifying that post bum conditions in the watershed present no risk and were thus elimimtted from calculationsT' ~ion 4: The Cucamonga Creek project including Deer Creek Debris Basin were designed to specific standards, Standard Project Flood and Tatum Debris Method, respectively. There is a possibility that a combination flood event with watershed bm event that is more severe than these desi,gn standards could occur. This is referred to as residual risk.' However the project as constructed affords a very high level of flood protection that would only be exceeded on rare occasions. The debris basin design volume was based on a Los Angeles District geologist's evaluation of debris production polential, and the accepted procedure by Tatum entitled "A New Method of Estimating Debris-Storage Requirements for Debris Basins", dated January 28 - Februs~ 1, 1963. This method estimates the debris volume based on a major storm, with ground conditions conducive to runoff, occurring 4 m 5 years atter 100 percent of the drainage area burned. The Deer Creek Debris Basin design volume of 310 acre-feet was based on this .. method. Besides the direct questions that were asked in your June 21, 1999 facsimile transmittal, several other issues were discussed in the text of both of your correspondences. As we are unclear on what the other issues are that you would like us to address, we will defer responding further until we receive clarification. 03 3 We hope the information provided will help resolve the issues and concerns of the community protected by flood control facilities downstream of Deer Creek Debris Basin. Questions may be directed to Mr. Joseph B. Evelyn, Chief, Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch, at 213-452-3525. Sincerely, Il C~orge L. Be~s/ // fiChief, Engm~;ifig Divisi~t~ 04 During the construction ~f the channels the Head of County Flood says the channels were designed for a Standard Project storm of 70 Years. (1979 data) ,,4 Prevention fforts t tal' $200 million devastate *ea ~ued from pa~ 9 complete $19 million system provides fl~ protection rushing out of the f~thills 'and which fell on the~:': ~ B~r&no V~ley fl~pl~n W the ~ ~a River. for much of the ar~ ~at ll~ ~ong the L~ ~geles-8~ floMplain in the fern of rain was.absor~d directly in~ ~Enage s~m. ~mardino co~W ~rder. ·the *'stet ruble. ~d most of the s~n~ng is yet w come. ~e construction of the fl~d channel al~o o~n~ up m But as resid~tlal dm,elopment ~n to spread. In the valley, flo~ control efforts have ~en development large areas of l~d which had previously ~stward across the floMplain, the value of land and c~centm~d in two prima~ wries, one ~e W~t End, been ~mlnerable to f~ damage, 'betterPr°~rtYmethod~ganoft°safe~ardingriSe' and SOthedidar~eman~from devastatingf°r some'.. and the o~er In and dread the city of San Bem~dino, , The ~co~ W~t End system, now in its final First el ~e W~t End channels to ~ cons~ct~ was .~c~stmction~tge Cucamo~.gi Cr~k End D~[ floods. · e ~n Annie and ~o Creek sys~m, complet~ ~ ~ ~ sgstem, -- · The channels were pm~sed a~ the ~swer. The idm of October at ~ W~l cost of $11,478,~7. C~pl~ with ~e TMt will cost an estimat~ 8117 million by the tiwe it the channels, ~aid DiPietro, ia t0 moxe water aa fast S~ An~nio Dm and reservo~, complet~ ~ 1~6, the is compiet~ in 1982. N~rly 80 ~rcent of the money for possible to make r~m for more water coming down the system comes from the {ederal government, from the mop.ins. authorized by ~ngress. . . To that end~ the ch~nels are de~ed to handle Still to come -- ~metime in ~e next 20 years is a volume ca~ ed by what the Cor~ ~n~r~ similar "freeway" for Day Cr~k, lying between ~stem ~~ fl~d~ as the~m~um~ R~cho Cucamon~ and a'~ Fondus. Estimates are amomt of runoff that mi~t be expected in a fl~d once that Day CLerk, in t~ay's dollars, will coit smut $1~ ~O~q~s or so2 . . million..r' ' That ~oe~; t ~a~ s~ndard pr°je~ fl~d c°mes °ncc AI~ in the future are widespread improvemen~ t~ ~e in 70 yea~, and then not again for another 70. WMt it ~n~ Ann R vet system, including a dam. near Mentone do~ mean is .that, bas~ on s~tistical averages, the · which E~c, in 1979 doll.s, is e~ected td cost ~ water ca~edin sucba fl~dmight ~¢~erien~once million, oat of eva~ 70 winter~. ": Al~gether, when and H the county's' entire fl~d By channehzlng the water moving across the · control pro.am is fin~ly built and constmcted,'a W~I flo~plain, ~e flood conffol dis~ict and'the Cor~ hgve . ~ $1.36 bilho~ will M requked. ' b~n able ~ o~n ~o~ development ~rge amounts of The relationship between, development ~d flo~. which Could not have ~en ~fe y develo~d con~ol requir~enB is not lost on D~ie~o. T~t relationship ~as no~d re~ntly by Rep. Jim · In prior years, when most of the West End w~s rural Lloyd. D-35{h D strict, when thd con~essman stud aWp 'and a~icultural in naive, a serious fl~d ha~ restively ~e Cuc&monga Creek dam and debris basin and noted little in the way of f~ed and e~ensive pro~y .to . that'"eve~ dex'elo~r should realim that there's no way . dredge. Addition~ly, much of the water ~at came he could be ~oing what h~'s doing w~thout · s pole t. .. l~~~.- * ~ ......... -,, = .... ~ _ ,: . := :~ ..... ~_ ~ STORM OURAT~ T MINUTES PROJECT LOCATION c~E~ r~EE~ P~'~ ~5,~ ~w~e~ ~ . ' ',-' " NOTES ~*'u/~'~*", ~*'~/~'~*~ I'/z.~ ], ~/~,~ , ~/~'~ ' ' 0 ' AHEA - AVEDAGED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ~ASS RAINFALL J HYDROLOGY MANUAL -pLOTTiNG ~ET FI~E 07 Hydrology Caculafions UII[T ~;~sls rR .... ,:~"..~' ~OE 1.~ TO N~E 2.'~ iS CODE = t · ~MiY ~Y~R~H Tl~ flNlT = S.~ ~INUTES ~ ' ' QATEP~ED ~A = ~68.~ AC~S LOW L~ ~CTION · .176 ,~DR~GE~?~ eOD~ It ~PECIFIEDm SPECIFIES PE~ S-~INUTES ~IN~ALLIiNCHI. .43 EPECiFiE~ ~E.~E ~-MiWUT~S ~IN~ALLIIN~} = i*dS 1992 Cfisti~o's consulters calculated[ ~P[CiFZ;5 ~EA~ t-HOUR ~tNFALL{IW~I = 2.30 watershed for ~r Debris bas~ as 4.9"{ ~PECi~IE~ PEAK 3-HG~R ~Ai~FALL(iKCH) : 4.gG. for 3-Ho~ sto~ e=:~';,:-.. ,,,.._~ ~A[ 6-H~UR P~IN;ALLtlN~d) : 8.~ based on 1986 data S-BI~JTE ;ACTOR · .894 30-~,~,*,= ;ACTO~ = .8~ t-~OUR F.qCT02 = .894 -. Suggested Design Storm for 1 Day Storm on Deer Creek Long -117.502 -117.659 -117.614 -117.698 -117.651 -117.651 -117.669 -117.685 -117.675 -117.267 -117.65 -117.681 Lat 34.26 34.237 34.274 34.1 34.062 34.062 34.086 34.052 34.044 34.163 34.133 34.136 Elev 3440 4275 7735 1170 986 986 1153 960 2394 1125 1610 1609 MAP 29.45 32.58 34.26 16.89 12.94 16.81 17.69 17.38 26.83 16.31 20.45 19.81 21.02 42.00 Inche~ RP2 5.82 5.55 5.08 2.57 2.11 2.83 2.81 2.98 4.10 2.17 3.10 3.13 3.40 RP5 8.52 8.72 9.32 3.59 3.31 4.23 3.91 4.51 6.07 3.49 4.61 4.64 5,30 RP 10 10.99 10.79 12.09 4.26 4.10 5.16 4.64 5.51 7.38 4.36 5.59 5.62 6.57 RP 25 12.46 13.35 15.51 5.08 5.06 6.29 5.53 6.75 9.01 5.43 6.80 6.84 8.13 RPS0 14.03 15.19 17.96 5.67 5.76 7.11 6,18 7.64 10,19 6.20 7.67 7.71 9,27 RP 100 15.55 16.98 20.35 6.24 6,44 7.90 6,80 8.50 11.34 6.95 8.51 8.56 10.37 RP 200 17.03 18,72 22.69 6.80 7.10 8.68 7.41 9,35 12.48 7.68 9.34 9.39 11.46 RP 500 18.89 20.90 25.60 7.50 7.93 9.64 8.18 10.40 13.90 8.59 10.37 10.42 12.82 RP 1000 20,39 22.67 27.96 8.07 8.59 10.43 8.79 11.26 15.04 9.33 11.21 11.26 13.91 RP 10000 25,03 28.12 35.25 9.82 10.66 12.85 10.70 13.90 18.61 11.61 13.79 13.85 17.33 %MAP RP2 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.17 6.94 RP5 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.26 10.78 RP 10 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.25 0.32 0.31 0.26 0,32 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.32 13.33 RP 25 0.42 0.41 0.45 0.30 0.39 0.37 0~31 0.39 0.34 0,33 0.33 0,35 0.39 16.50 RP 50 0.48 0.47 0.52 0.34 0,45 0.42 0.35 0,44 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.39 0,45 18.79 RP 100 0.53 0.52 0.59 0.37 0.50 0.47 0.38 0.49 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.50 21.02 RP 200 0.58 0.57 0.66 0.40 0.55 0.52 0.42 0.54 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.55 23.22 RPS00 0.64 0.64 0.75 0.44 0.61 0.57 0.46 0.60 0.52 0.53 0.51 0.53 0.62 25.97 RP 1000 0.69 0.70 0.82 0.48 0.66 0.62 0.50 0.65 0.56 0.57 0.55 0.57 0.67 28.18 RP 10000 0.85 0.86 1.03 0.58 0.82 0.76 0.61 0.80 0.69 0.71 0.67 0.70 0.84 35.09 JDG Page2 10/6/'99 c 9 Analysis of 3 Hour Storm jn Deer Canyon $ 8 $ ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~l 34.125 34.~3 34.1~ 34.~ ~.~ 3~.~ 34.~6 ~.~ ~.3~ 34.3~ 34.2~ ~329 34.~3 I~ng -117.525 -117.~ -117.~2 -117,591 -117.627 -117.~2 -117.~9 -117.~0 -117.~4 -117,691 -117.0~ -1174Z~ 417.~ Elev 13~ 27~ I~ ~ ~ ~5 ~75 ~ 47~ ~ 5~ 3~ 4~0 MAP 18~ 27.~ 18.~ 17.33 16,2~ 14.~ 29.~ 12.34 I0.~ 2~.~ 33.77 11,7 ~.~2 Avg 0.~ I.~ 1.~ 0,87 1.31 1.14 1.74 0.87 0,79 1.~ 1.61 O~ Sider 0.~ 0.~ 0.59 1.16 0.39 0,41 0.79 0,31 0,30 0,~ 0.55 036 0.~ R~ · ~ ~ 29 18 I~ ~ 1~ 27 32 45 ~ 17 57 l~hea RP2 I.~ 1.~ I.~ I.g5 1.19 l.~ 1.59 0.79 0.69 1.11 1.41 0.82 1.38 ~5 1.47 2.31 2.19 I.~ 1,76 1.52 2.34 1.17 ~.~ 1.67 2.13 I.~ 2.08 RP 10 1,78 ~80 2.~ 1.~ 2.13 I.~ 2.~ 1.42 1,29 2.~ 2.65 I.~ RP~ 2.16 3.~ 3.22 2.29 2.59 2,~ 3.~ 1,72 1,~ 2,57 3.~ i.~ 3.21 RP~ 2.~ 3.~ 3.~ 2.~ 2,92 ' 2,~ 3.~ 1,94 1,~ 2,~ ' 3_74 2.17 3.~ ~ I~ 2.70 4,25 4,~ 2,~ 3.~ 2.~ 430 2.16 2.05 3,29 4,20 2.~t 4.11 ~ 2~ 2.~ 4 ~ 4.41 3.14 3.55 3.~ 4.72 2.36 2,27 3,65 4.65 3.~'69 4.55 ~ 3.29 5.18 4.~ 3.~ 4.~ 3.~ 5.~ 2.62 2.~ 4.10 5.22 RP I~ 3.55 5.59 5.29 3.76 4.26 3,68 5.~ 2.~ 2.~ 4.45 5.~ 3.29 5.115.~ RP I~ 4,37 687 6,~ 462 5.~ 4.~ 695 3.~ 3,49 5.~ 7.12 4.13 RPI 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ ~5 0.~ 0.~ 0.12 0.~ 0.11 OAO 0.~ 0.~ 0.10 0.07 0.~ 0.11 ~.~ to o. o o,H o. a o. 2 o. o o. 2 o.m o.m o. 3 RP25 0.12 0.12 0.18 0,19 0.16 0,15 0.12 0.14 0.16 D. lO D. IO 0.16 0.~ RP~ 0.~ 0.14 0.~ 0.~5 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.16 0.18 B. 12 0,[1 0,19 0.11 RPI~ 0.15 0.15 0.22 O.l~ 0,20 019 0.17 D. 19 0.12 ~2~ 016 fl.~ 0.19 0.~ 0,15 RP~ 0.~8 0,~9 0.27 0.21 0.2~ 0.~ 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.1~ 0.~5 O,g 0.15 ~ I~ 0.2t) 0.20 0.29 ~.~ 0.26 0.~ 0.19 0.~ 0.~ O. 18 O, 17 0.~ O. 16 RP ~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.36 0.27 032 0,30 0.~ 0.~ 0.35 0,22 0.21 0.95 AssDmptkx~d I) Average tumfff of ~r Cyn = 12 inc~, 2) consampt[ ye ug or naUve vggi~[ol~ = 30 inches. Average annu~ ralgfall e 42 inches gP mfem ~ ~e ~turfi ~ri~ in y~s, The return ~fi~ in I~ avem~ ~fl~ iD y~ ~t~veen evenr~ of a give~ magnilude. DEFANTHENT OF TRA! 'PORTATION AND FLOOD CONTROL .~.'.: '"~ ,"Mt TNH ~ · San CMn.reline. CA 11'~41~ · Clt'y of Ra.-'~.~o Cucamo~a P. O, ~ax ~0'7 Raglcho ~, ~ A~en~i~: ~. ~ Re~ ~r ~ ~ ~~ April ~, 1~, ~ ~fl~ ~en~gi~ ?~ ~2 l~g~ ~ ghe ~ aide ~ ~aven Avezue, ~he propose~ levelop~n~ Is ~Jacen~ ~ ~d Cr~k R~tl~ ~e ~I~ se~ ~ a Diversion ~v~ to direeti~ the ~d wa~erm of Deer Or~k lu~ ~ ~ ~e Co~ of ~e~ ~ c~pleted conet~ction of ~he Deer Creek Debris D~ ~ic~ is ~le ~ ~t~lll~ ~ f~lli~leS fO~ ~he ~nser~ien of ~orm ~ers. ~l~er O~em~l~ ~tliV ~lr~ north ~ upstre~ ~ the Deer Cree~ Reoe~ton ~ee, ~e levee ser~es ~he ~rp~e of In our Opia~, ~lo~t of ~t l~ ~ of the ~r Cr~k R~tl~ ~. 011 r.~er ~o t~e ¢~ ot ~oho Cuc~Jon~ O1° Page I of 3 ]l i all estimales change as .more data - [ available. The Corps estimated 2!0 · [California rivers in 1960: every estimate] ]has changed twice and some bare been] / changed 4 times. · SAY, WHAT I$ A IO0-YEAR FLOOD? and WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY OF THEM? J. David Rogers, Ph.D., RG, CEG, CHG We~ve all been them; glued to our TV sets watching the roving reporter in their raincoat, soaked to the bone, providing their "flood watch" by that Ixoublesome spot that's flooded so many times before. After the water breaks out of its channels, we're told it was a N 100-year floodN. Will it be another 100 years until it happens again? WHAT IS A 100-YEAR FLOOD ANYWAY? It is a probabilistic assessment that means a given event has a one-in-one hundred chance (1 percent) of occurrence in any given year, or a "return period" of once every 100 years. Such assessments are based upon statistical frequency of collected data, as presented in Table 1. The reader can see from this table ..~ ~at the 109 y~e~ return period storm has a 9.6% chance of occurrence in 10 years, 22% chance in 25 ,years, 39% chance in 50 years and an 86% chance in 100 years. So why do we hear so much about "100-year floods"?. In hydrology, there are actually tluee types of comparative assessments: 1) rainfall within a given time interval; 2) peak stream flow; or 3) volume of flow caused by a single storm event or sequence. Each of these attributes can be measured and counted as discrete data points, to provide statistical comparison, or frequency analysis. As a consequence, we can have a 100-year storm, a 100-year peak flow event, or a 100-year flood, all of which may or may not be independent of one another. Although the media commonly use the terms ' 100-year storm" and ~ 100- year flood", storm periodicity is always mamed to some time interval, such as 24 houm, a week, a month Or a se~tson. PRECIPITATION VS RUNOFF So, a 100-yeas recurrence frequency rainfall event does not necessarily precipitate a 100-year nmoff, because runoff volume is built upon a host of other contributory factom, the most important being how saturated the ground already is when a storm hits. The more saturated the ground, the less moisture it can accept, so more water will be available to coalesce downslope and accrue in channels. Other factors influencing runoff include: type of ground cover and vegetation, terrain physiography, storm duration and changes in precipitation intensity. If it were to rain more or less continuously beginning in late October, by March we would begin to see extremely high levels of runoff with even modest size storms, because the soil has absorbed all the moisture it can within the given time interval. We term this condition "antecedent moisture", which describes how much moisture is already been absorbed in the gmand. Short-lived, but intense bm'sts of rainfall usually do not cause widespread flooding, but can cause debris flows and mudalides, which then flow do~vnhill and clog drain inlets, causing substantial secondary flood damage. OROGRAPHIC LIFTING CAUSES IT TO RAIN AND SNOW IN THE MOUNTAINS Hydrologists have long recognized that clouds dispel greater amounts of moisture over highland areas, due to a phenomena known as "orographic lifting". Thus, we see levels of precipitation two to three times as high in the higher elevations and rainfall "shadows" develop in areas down-wind of such highiancls, which may receive as little as a quarter or third of the highland precipitation. It rains and snows in the mountains and it's dry in the desert on the other side. 013 http://www.geolith.conffpublications/floods/flood.htm ... -. SAY, WHAT IS A 100-YEAR FLOOD? Page 2 of 3 IS THE RAIN FROM ANY GIVEN STORM SEQUENCE ABOUT THE SAME EVERYWHERE? No, local variations in rainfall intensity, from one watershed to another, are startling because of locnlized "storm cells". For instance, during the 8-day storm sequence ending at 4 AM on Friday January 3, 1997, 42.16 inches of precipitation was recorded at Buck's Lake (elevation 6,000 feet) in the Feather River Basin, while only 15.40 inches was measured during the same interval at Calaverus Big Trees (elevation 4,900 feet). In the Feather River drainage an additional 8 inches of water was released from snow melting because air temperatures were lower than in previous winter storms. A record peak runoff of 330,000 cubic'feet per second (cfs) was recorded on the Feather River just above Oroville Reservoir. Even though the peak runoffwas greater than a 100-year recurrence frequency event, the other two measures, such az flood volume (less than 1982-83) and rainfall (less than December 1955) were not records. WHAT IS THE STORM-OF-RECORD ? The storm-of-record is the greatest level of precipitation ever recorded, for a given time interval. The 24- hour storm-of-record in the East Bay area occurred on October 13, 1962, when 9.4 inches fell in a single day in the Oakland Hills, with 13.73 inches recorded in 48 hours. This storm precipitated little flooding of major rivers, but did cause considerable damage in the Oakland Hills, mostly due to accumulation of slide debris in drop inlets and culverts. If the same storm had hit in March or April, after the ground were saturated, the resultant flooding would have been much worse. STORM DURATION USUALLY CONTROLS DESTRUCTIVE RUNOFF The other complicating factor is the duration of the storm. In the Bay Area the average storm duration is quite short, only about 1.5 hours. On January 3-5, 1982 a subtropical storm hit central California, but its forward motion was stalled by a high pressure area sitting over the Sacramento Valley. The result was a 30-hour long event that dumped upwards of 27 inches of rain on coastal highlands bordering the Bay Area. Although the volume of moisture recorded over 24 hours dicln't hreak ihe October 1962 record, the 30-hour totals were records, culminating in a series of debris toy dollars in damage in the Bay ^ rea. We have storms that are e~ intense-more than an inch per hour For the nor~ C~c nber 1964 storms caused recorc c~. ,~ X ~u, ~ nuu, pcnoas, lne ~or0s mree on 0,- - ~o~)ec. xD~"t' fluence with the Van Duzen 1~ ..... -- ~.~ ~,$'tO 1955 The 1964 flood was re~ hour storm aurat~on may be standard ~0 ~c~O~ ~ ~c~O~ .',~x~%c~ ord~d at Lav~onville, but t~e but it is not fight for our area. ~\~x~ ~o\o0~. o~S THE FUTURE HOLD? We will have more 100-year rains, floods and peak flows. In 1977 one Ol me iounmng mme~ hydraulics, Dr. Ven T. Chow, wrote that ~order to accurately predict a 10-year recurrence frequency gvent~ we would need 100 years of records, which is about what we have today. Bht, in o~der to acCUrately_ predict a 100-year recurrence event, we would ti~ed 1,000 years of records, which we do not have. Flood predi~ti~Fts~'lil~6th0se of the weat~, depenrt-an umque set oI environmental variables which are almost never repeated, meaning the one thing upon which WE CAN count is that the results of any given storm will always be different. So, you know of some property along the Russian River that hasn't been flooded since 19557 That might actually mean your chances of disaster are increasing each year. My advice would be don't buy it without a boat. 014 http://www, geolith.com/publications/floods/flood.htm .-'-:-:~ [November 18, 1998 correspondence from San Bernadino County Flood Cona'ol Dizcrict to the City of Rancho Cucamonga- there was no cover letter] sac.F c_v DTM TO DTM ~LUME pEBRI.~ g~l TO DATUM VOI.U~IE IIYDR.4 I;I. iCI '01. ! '.iii 37114.~ 015 '~---F-~ L~T~t & W^TK[N8 0¢ #4 (THU)I2. 30' 99 10:02/BT. 9:58/N0, 4861483924 P 10 -' Re ,iew of Debri Production and l vel-of-Prot cfion Cr k l brb HydreloSy ~ Hy~ui~ S(~ ~ ~b~ ~ corps 29 Novmr~ 1999 heksround: A de~4op~ end residents nrc lifi~ oy~ a proposed reel em2. d~lopment locat~ ne~ Dea-~ hn Ik~medino Cou~y, C~ ~no ~ce of co~cc~ lies just downs~mnn ~om Dcc~ C~ ~ Bash ~lon~ fl2 wes2m side of Deer Cre~ C~. Deer Cree~ Debris Basin taxi C~nnel were aulbom~i !~' tim 1968 Flood Control Act and completed in about 198~. Dee~ C~eek Dekis Besln v~s d~isncd to ¢~wt,~re debris oad ac~ os n inlet smF, tmc for dJ~e~ floM ~0 ~he downst~un bnpro~d ~dalmel. ($PF) cycm mi thigh* to bare a lcvel.of-prmection of about 200-~r. The Corps o£ ~uSinea~ Los Angeles District was s~cM to rc-~walum the l~vel-~f.~ro_~2on bassi on tl~ ~ I.~ ..... rcadib, avaihble in~ormmion end is sunmarizat here~. Rcsult~ Beam upon this invc~gefion) tho Deer Creek Debris ~ ~ ~e ~e of 310 ~f~ ~ ~ to ~ ~t to a .~ ~hbfli~ (~ 1 ! I-y~) ~ ~cld ~t. ~ m~ho 0.~ ~ ~ ~i~~or~g h ~ ~v~ y~. ~ ~ ~ of~ ~v~ it ~ ~m ~ ~ do~~ (~ f~ 5,~ ~/s) ~ ~n up ~ a .~ p~ (or 50~) ~ ~s of ~ ~ym m ~ ~ow. Technif~d lnformtiion. Deer Creek Debri~ Basin is ler~ _~'~_ on DeeF Creek m the mouth of Deer C~nyon in Sm ikrmral,~_ CounW, Co. Deer C'R~k, ~* th~ debris ~; dralm 3.71 mi2 in lhe San (hbficl Mmmhim. De~ Crcck is a tributmT of Cm:mmmSn Cree~ ~tcamon~ (~ck flows ~rqiect, lncmin~ ~ecr cree~ bnpm~me~ Js shown on ~%~re 3. Patine~ dm ~or ~cr this analyis the Corps ad~essed only ne of the seven mistakes x~e asked em about. That one mistake brought he level from a 200-Year event to a 'Ill-Year" C:~Doc~Dccr Cr~k Dcbri~ B~bLdu~ LSst Ul~ated: 0 1 b I V St ~R'rRlau uu ;,~ ,...., ,,. ,~ ,, ,,,.,,zzo,. ~:~u/ao. 4861483924 Renew of D~fis P~du~on and Levd~f-P~cfion __ 3.71 ~: ~+~ ~ 2621.0 f~ -- Top of~ " 26~.5 f~ ~ ~j~ FI~ P~ 5,400 ~/s Vol~ ~1~ ~ ~ , : De~ ~- (~ ~l,~y ~) 310 ~f~ San Gabriel Merm~ns in ~i~ a~ea ate sus~l~ible to wildfaes, whi~ play · major:role in debr~ pmd~on at ~ basin, eq~'iaUy fonowing smnn ~ The dd~ resin was designed xain~ Standnd PriVet Flood (SPF) n~erbt Tne Slq~ ~ns breed on the 3-hum ~ storm of ~ 1~43. The strum, which m~lly ooeutml ovor Siena dischr~ wej ~ ~ bo ~,400 fWs. TI~ o~anen~ of .a ak~m of the ma&nitude '~a Meduxl of F.~im~ia8 Deb~ Stora~ i~lebeme~s ~or Deb~ lb~]~'" by ~mt B. Tmem, e~_~ for Dee~ Creek Dei~s i~asin wns 310 n,~ F~ de~nil~ on ~lm ofiginnl d~bfi~ Yiuo Channels, dasd Juns 19~ Methodolos~.'l~f~ dd~ besin was dcsi8~l to ~al~mu dda~s, uP to ~hc d~sign yJcld, plus ~n'.'e as nn inle~ sfruf:t~e fnr flood flows Io lhf~ trolleyed ,'*hnnnel dowu~r"mn ~be hvel-of-lzOteefion for the delais brain, lined on the deb~ yieM, wm teedeulaled ming b [The capacity of the debris basin today isI EXl onent- acr feet. IThe debris basin will not hold the 100 JL lYear storm EVAI.UATION OF THE DEBRIS STORAGE CAPACITY OF TIlE DEER CREEK BASINt April 27, 2000 Exponent, Inc. has prepared this report which evaluates the storage capacity of the Corps of Engineers' Deer Creek Basin and Dam located near Rancho Cncamonga in San Bemardino County, California. CONCLUSIONS: The cutxent debris-holding capacity of the Deer Creek Basin and Dam, measured using a d~iiC'3~ ~resent-day aerial survey and the methodOlOgy us-fi~-d-b-~l:~oth Los Angeles, and San Bemardino Counties, is 111.6 acre-feet. The debris storage capacity t~-alin0st'200 acre-feet smaller than the 310 acre-feet storage capacity anticipated in the June 1979 Feature Design Memorandum No. 6 (FDM No. 6)..Becanse the Deer Creek flood control channel relies on the basin tRsap_t!/re all of the debris during a 100-year event, the lan_ds beneath the debris basra are still within the floodplain as defined by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). On November 29, 1999, the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers issued a report which restudied the situatiou by applying updated methods to determine the amount of debris to be produced by the Deer Creek watershed during a lO0-year event (See Exhibit 1). Using the debris yield vs. frequency chart developed in the referenced report, the probability of a stoma exceeding the capacity of the basin by producing more than 111.6 acre-feet of debris is 0.05, which corresponds to a recnrrence interval of 20 years. Statistically, one would expect a flood event that fills the basin with debris once every 20 years based on the 1999 report. Thc Corps' 1999 res0.tdy concludes that the 100-year debris volume produced by the Deer Creek watershed is 292 acre-feet. This is 180 acre-feet or 290,000 cubic yards of debris more than today's debris holding capacity of the basin. If the 100-year event ~ Prepared by Douglas Harnihon, P.E., Exponent, Inc., 3187 Red Hill Av¢iiLJe. Suite lO0, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Aerial storey prepared by Psomas and Associates, Inc. 018 I occurs, the basin would fill up, and debris would flow down the spillway into the flood control channel. The size of the debris and the speed of its movement down the spillway is likely to disintegrate the concrete channel bed and walls, causing floodwaters to escape the channel and spread back out on the fan in a manner similar to that before the flood control project was built. The Probo#le Overflow Drawings in .Design Memorandum No. I for Cucamonga Creek (January, 1973) indicate that much of the area between Archibald Avenue and Milliken Avenue down to Prado Reservoir is subject to flooding. This area includes a number of new schools and new housing developments as well as Ontario AirporL Chaffey College, and the Milliken Landfill (See Exhibit 2). DISCUSSION: 1. Debris is Delivered to the Deer Creek Debris Basin only through the Incised Channel on the Eastern Side of the Inactive Fan Head Valley In July 1999, FEMA issued new guidelines for determining flood hazards on alluvial fans. A three-stage process is used to distinguish active-alluvial fans, where flow paths relocate during a flood, from inactive alluvial fans where the channels are incised and will stay in the same position during a flood. The three stages are: I. Recognizing and characterizing alluvial fan landfonns. 2. Defining active and inactive areas of erosion and deposition. 3. Characterizing the 100-year flood in the areas defined as active. The three stages in the FEMA guidelines have been followed in order to determine whether the Deer Creek channel can be expected to move across fan and deliver debris into the western side of the debris basin. The results of this determination are discussed below. The Deer Creek debris basin is located on a fan-shaped sedimentary deposit composed of alluvium. The dam is located Upstream of the point where-the Deer-Creek-channel begins to spread out onto an alluvial fan as distributary and sheet flow. This part of the landform where the dam is located is known as a fan head valley. Exhibit 3 shows a map from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California dated January 1980. The map indicates that the Deer Creek channel is located on a soil surface labeled "Ps" which stands for psamments and fluvents, frequently flooded. The western two4hirds of the fan head is designated "SI:'C" which stands for soboba stotD, loamy sand, and displays significant soil development. Such a dlear distinction between two diverse soil types is indicative of an incised channel condition. Field inspection of the Deer Creek alluvial fan confirm the presence ora distinct, incised channel adjacent to an inactive fan surface. 019 The stream gage at Day Creek, just east of Deer Creek, recorded a peak flow of 9,450 cfs for the 1969 flood, wfiich is the largest flood of record; and a peak flow of 4,200 cfs for the 1938 flood wbicb is Ire second largest flood of record. According to the Corps' November 29, 1999 report, Figure 4, the 1969 flood on Day Creek would be about a 1,000-year flood and the 1938 flood would be about a 200-year flood. Aerial photographs have been reviewed which show flooding patterns itl Deer Creek that exist after major historical flood events, l~hibit 4 shows the flooding patterns after tile flood events of 1938 and 1969. Both of these lloods occurred before the construction of the Deer Creek debris basin so tile present day location of the dam and basin are drawn itl for reference. A 1994 aerial photograph, which shows tile dam itl place, is also included in Exhibit 4. The aerial photographs sbow that, upstream of tile dam's location, tbe floodwaters were confined Io the incised channel every time. This is consistent with the soil survey map. The "coincident frequency" analysis in the Corps' 1999 report (page 6) concludes that flood magnitudes as small as the 10-year event (730 cfs) could carry the 100-year debris yield estimate of 292 acre-feet, if such a flood occurs 1 year after a fire bums the watershed. If t}~e floodwaters and debris remained confined to the incised Deer Creek Channel during a 1,000-year and a 200-year flood, they will certainly remain confined for a I O-year flood ex, enl. Tile Deer Creek dam crosses the entire length of the fan bead valley, however, debris is delivered to tile basra only tbrougb the incised channel which is 10 to 20 feet deep and is located ou the eastern one-third of this surface. The western side of Ihe fan surface is inactive and not subject to flooding during the t00-year event. Debris will be conveyed only to the eastern side of the debris basin. Tile western side of tile basiu will not fill up with debris. In March 2000, Exponcnt commissioned an aerial flyover and survey of the Deer Creek debris basin. The survey was performed by Psomas and Associates, Inc., a company with extensive experience iu conducting such surveys. Exhibit 5 shows a three dimensional rendering of the Deer Creek debris basin based on this survey. The first rendering is looking downslream along Deer Creek towards the dam's spillway. The incised channel can be clearly seen ou tile left (or east) side of the rendering. The second rendering is looking upstrearu with Ibe spillway on tile lower right side. Tile Deer Creek channel flows against Ihe easmru canyon wall and delivers debris to tbe east side of the basin. The west side of tile basin, downstream of the water tanks, is located on the inactive part of the fan head valley and will not receive debris during a flood event. 2. The Curreut Debris StoraRe Capacity Is I 11.6 Acre-Feet Aerial photography, taken during the March, 2000 survey, is used to produce a lopographic map with 5-1hot contour iutervals showing tbc size and shape of the area 020 contained by the dam. Tile survey map is used to calculate the capacity of the debris basin, based on the present-day topography of the bottom of the basin. The design approach that the debris deposit slope is one-half of the canyon's natural channel slope comes from Ihe Los Angeles County Flood Control District's Design Mrmuttl, Debris Dams and Basters. In June 1993, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works revised this approach to accouut for updated observations as to the actual perlbnnance of debris basins (See Exhibit 6). The' revised procedure limits the design debris deposit slope to a maximum o1' 5% regardless of the natural channel slope, and it requires the level capacity (i.e., a flat pool surface located at the spillway elevation) to be at least 50% of the basin's debris capacity. These provisions are necessary to prevent a phenomenon attributed to several debris basin failures known as "momentum overflow". This is where debris travels up the dam and over the spillway before the basin has trapped its expected volume ofdebris. The debris capacity of Deer Creek Basin and Dam is calculated using the current Los Angeles County procedure and the current survey map. Exhibit 7 shows the boundary of tile level pool which is located at an elevation of 2,658 feet. The level pool volume is 19 acre-feet. Exhibil 7 also shows the bouudary of tile debris deposit cone and the coutour lines that lbnn its surface based on a 5% deposit slope. The spreadsheet used to calculate the voltune of the debris deposit is also included in Exhibit 7. The total debris storage capacity of the Deer Creek debris basra is 111.6 acre-feet, however, tbe level-pool stgrage should be 56 acre-feet not 19 acre-feet if it is to reliably trap this much debris. This report assumes that debris would build up to its maximum level along the western terminus of the debris deposit. If a more relined estimate is made of the western terminus, it will result in a smaller debris storage capacity than the way it is estimated itl this report. 3. The Current l)ebris Capacity Corresponds To Less Thau A 20-Year Event In the Corps' reporl dated November 29, 1999, the current debris-holding capacity of the debris basin was not discussed. However, the Corps did' provide a "coincident-frequency analysis," from which the probability of a particular volume of debris produced by the watershed can be determined. The Corps' analysis includes variations in the size of the flood aud number of years after a burned watershed condition exists. That analysis appears at page 7 of tile documeut aud in Figure 5 attached to it. There are reports, prepared by other experts, that dispute the iuput parameters that should be used itt the debris yield equation, aud others Ihat dispule even the equation itself. This office may investigate these opposing viewpoiuts in fitture but the Corps' debris yield-frequency curve is not modified iu Ibis report. Using the Corps' Fignre 5, the probability that in a given year a storm will generate more than I I 1.6 acre-feet of debris is .(}5. Tha! corresponds lo a fi-equency of exceedance of about one lime every 20 years. 021 4. The Couseqneuces of a 100-Year' Event The Corps' 1999 restudy concludes that the 100-year debris volume produced by the Deer Creek watershed is 292 acre-feet. This is 180 acre-feet or 290,000 cubic yards of debris more than today's debris holding capacity of Ibc basra. If the 100-year event occurs, the basin xvould fill up and debris wonld flow dowu the spillway, into the flood control chatmel. The spillway is designed to fimnel debris into the flood control channel. The channel, however, is not designed Io convey debris aod floodwaters al the same time. The size of the debris and the speed of its movement through tbe system is likely to clog the system, or disintegrate the concrete channel bed and walls, causing floodwaters to escape the chanoel and spread back out on the fan m a manner similar to that if no flood control project had been built. The Probable Ove~o~v Area drawings in Design Memorandmn No. 1 for Cucamonga Creek (Janua~, 1973) indicate thai much of the area between Arclfibald Avenue aud Milliken Avenue down to Prado Rese~oir is subject to flooding. This area includes a uumber of new schools and new housiug developments as well as Ontario Aiq~o~, Chaffey College, and the Milliken Landfill (Exhibit 2). 5. The Constructiou l)rawiuo,.,s Contained iu Design Memorandmn No. 6 Correspond To A Volume of 202.8 Acre Feet The Amly Corps of Engineers' Design Memorandum No. 6 provides the most detailed engineering drawings and explanations available as to the design procedure used. A grading plan of the Deer Creek Debris Basio and Dana is shown m Plate 3 of that document (See Exhibit 8). The plate comams a "DEBRIS LINE" starting from the spillway crest and going all of the way around the basin. This line represents the boundary of tile surface of deposited debris that is expected to enter the basra during the design flood event. The text of Design Memorandum No. 6 states that the shape of the debris line is based ou the desi§n criteria that the slope of the debris deposit is equal to one-half of the natural canyou slope before the basin is built. (This design procedure is the one developed by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and described in its Design-Manual, Debris Dams and Basins. As stated above, tiffs procedure was revised in June 1993 to inclnde a maxilnmn debris slope of 5°/O.). Plate 5 of the Design Memorandum shows a 6% slope debris line on a cross section through the dam's spillway (See Exhibit 8). From topographic maps, it is estimated that the natural channel slope of Deer Creek is 12% in tile area of the basin. The 6% debris deposit slope used in FDM No. 6 checks with the Los Augeles County design criteria in existence at lhe time. Plate 3 of FDM No. 6 depicts a debris slope with its Iow point at the spillway crest (elevation 2.658 feet) and theu risiug at a 6% slope along a line parallel to the stream-flow axis. No elevations are shown on tile "DEBRIS LINE", however it can be reproduced reasonably well usiog a 6% slope on the March 2000 topographic snrvey. 022 The "DEBRIS LINE" elevation on the extreme we.stem edge of the basin appears to exceed the 6% slope line shown on Plate 5. No explanation is given in the Design Memorandum for how this could occur. If the "DEBRIS LINE" as drawn was intended to show the perimeter of the debris deposit that would be contained during an actual flood, ii is not rcalistic- it encloses a volume much grealcr thau Ihe voluule of debris that wonld actually he held. During a flood, debris will llow into the debris basin following tile incised path of tile streambed which is on tile easte~'n side of tile basin. 'The maxin]unl debris slope would be observed along the line of the stream flow axis. In this case, that point of intersection is almost precisely where Ihe dam's spillway is located. The debris deposit slope measured along directions at an angle to the stream-flow axis should be less Ihan 6%, not more. Consequently, the perimeter of the debris deposit would be smaller than shown on Plate 3 of FDM No. 6, and ibe resulting volume of debris that would be held during an actual flood would also be smaller than depicted. Using the reconstruction of the design "DEBRIS LINE" on the March 2000 topographic map, tile volume of debris that would be contained iii the basin is computed as 202.8 acre-feet (See Exhibit 9). The level-pool volume for tile design is 19.0 acre-feet which is only 9.4% of the basin's total storage capacity, whereas the level-pool volume should bc at leasl 101.4 acre-feet or 50% of the basin's capacity. The cun'ent level-pool volume of Deer Creek debris basin is far too small Io satisfy the "momentum overflow" provisions oftbe Los Angeles County criteria. 6. A Dehris Capacity of 202.8 Acre-Feet Corresponds To Less Than A SO-Year Event Using lrigure 5 of the November 29, 1999 Corps of Engineers restudy, the frequency ora storm producing more than 202.8 acre-feet of debris is estimated to be greater than once every 50 years. In light of the Corps' 1999 revised debris yield estimate for Deer Creek, if the debris basin has beeu built according to the plans in FDM No. 6, it would not provide a 100-year level-of-protection. PEER REVIEW: At Exponent's request, Michael Bohla,~der of the Hydraulics and Water Conservation Department of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) has reviewed this report. This agency is tile author of the debris basin design standards that are used iii Los Angeles County and that are relied on by a number of other agencies in California with a flood control missiou. They are also recognized world-wide as a center of expertise on the analysis and mitigation of debris flow hazards. LACI)PW concurs flint the western side of tile Deer Creek Basin ,,viii not fill up with debris during a flood event and that tile debris holding capacity of the basin is less than 023 the 100-year debris volume reported by the Corps of Engineers. During the review, Exponent was asked by LACDPW to provide additional calculations that stretch the capacity criteria in order to identify the maximum debris holding capacity under the most ideal conditions. The purpose of doing this was to identify the outer envelope of the basin's current debris holdiog capacity. Four additional calculations were performed: 1. Revise the capacity analysis of Exhibit 7 to assume that the debris deposit will have a 5% slope aod fao out into the western side of the basin at a 45° angle 'to the direction of flow. This analysis concluded that the basra capacity would be 113.9 acre-feet, which is about a 20-year event based on the Corps' estimate. 2. Revise the capacity analysis of Exhibit 7 to assume that the debris deposit will have a 6% slope and fan out into the western side of the basin at a 45° angle to the direction of flow. This analysis concluded that the basin capacity would be 136.6 acre-feet, which is about a 25-year event based on the Corps' estimate. 3. Assuming the conditions for a pit-type basin, calculate the storage ratio, which is defined as the ratio of storage capacity below original ground to the total storage capacity of the basin. By using the original grading plans for the dam, the natural ground contours were reconstructed. The storage volume between the natural ground surface and the bottom of the basin is 131.4 acre-feet. Based on calculations (1) and (2), the storage ratio is 1.16 and 0.96, respectively. A storage ratio that is greater than 0.70 indicates that the propensity for momentum overflow is high and special precautions to prevent its occurrence may be required. 4. Compute water surface profiles for the Deer Creek channel upstream of the basin for the 2-, 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year flood discharges. This analysis was done using the steady-state, one-dimensional open channel flow model known as HEC- RAS. Computed flow depths were limited to critical depth as a minimum. This analysis showed that even for the highest discharge, maximum flow depths were 5 to 8 feet and the amount of freeboard (i.e. the distance between the top of the water surface and the top of the channel bank) were 10 to 15 feet. This analysis further confirms that the Deer Creek channel is entrenched and debris will flow only into the eastern side of the basin. Exhibit I0 shows a plot of the computed water surface profiles for the 5 discharges. These additional calculations performed as part of LACDPW's review, confirm that the basin's capacity is too small to contain the 100-year event. Even if the calculated capacity of 136.6 acre-feet in (2) were realistic, it is still 155.4 acre-feet too small to contain the 100-year debris volume determined by the Corps of Engineers. : . IThe debris basin will not hold the 100I ' - iYear storm COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMEltT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 1.2000 WR-I Mr. Do. las Hamilton, P. E. 3167 Red Hill Avenue Dear Mr. Hamilton: DEE. R CREEK DEBRIS EEVIEW OF C.,APAC~TY ~ED ON LOS ANeELES ~ STANDARDS As requested, i have revi~,i~ you~sttaiydatad April 11,213110 that c°111~ the caPa~ ~ 1he Dec, Creek Debris Basin in order to w~fyv~ether th9 me'~xis used am consisi~iwi~ the s~adards idenlified in the Los Angeles Cotmty Dapartmaat of Public Works i~m~/~dlm~n Manualdatad D~xh. nb~ t ~1. t su!~-~- -?d s~le additlof~ v,~ t~ ca~,:n,tta~ the capacity af the basin and have reviewed tt~e resu~ of'the infz~'~ation you sent daled Apnl 24, 2000. you have concluded lhatlhe Deer ~ Debris Basinls n~t adequat~ to handle tha 1 deb~ va~ume of 2g2 acre-feat ~ defined by the Cofl~ of Enaineem bemuse Ihe basin vail hold 0t1~ 111 ~ofdeblis- I mcluested ~atyou mcalclJlata the capacltyoftha deb~ b.,~n using various, mom 1113eral ~ that may more a~7,umlalY ~ actual initow o<~:l~,la. Yourmsults~ even usiagihasa essumpiiona, ~s remdmum capac~ ~f fha b asia ina~.saa to al>3ut 136 acra4a~ aft~ reviewing your evalaailan of the ~apaclty of the baaln.and the upstream hydraulics, [con=ts'with your ~)nclusion that ~e we~amsideofthe basin will not cewlp_ let~_ _.ffil with debris and lhaithe baain oannot holdttAe lO0-year debris event aa defined _by_the Coq3s_~_Englneers. Allilough ~ Ii]ear Creek Debris Basin will provide a level of f~3d alx:l deb~a prote~rl Los A~geles District Co~s of Engineem Identified aslhe t 00'year deblis v°lurae that can ~ produced by the. Deer Creek Watershed. The amount °f debris that ia IIk~ll~°tt°w °ut °f~a basin for the 100-year event (In excess of 160 acre-feet) ~uld · ofi~edova~a~m~oodcora~facari~. LmAnga~sCeuntyhase~peria~cedever~auch O25 Mr. Douglas Hamat~n May~, 2OO0 Page 2 - coaf~gu~ ~at vmuld almolam ana'o, rala .P,t~l ~ Iv/auld be happy'm meatv/~ you tn clismam altmrative configurations. E you have any questions, please conMct Mr. Mlcaael J, BOnlander a~ (628) 458.-6147,- Monday through Thursday, from 6:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. HARRYW. STONE Director of PtlbE Wafts ~LANDER Head, Hy~ml°gi= Engineertng Se~i~n Wa~r Resources Division MJE:m~ 026 One of the original Corps design engineers says the basin is too small and will fail. DECLARATION OF ROBERT 13. KIRBY I, Robed G. Kirby, declare and state as follows: 1. I am providing the following declaration concerning the Deer Creek Debds Basin for which I provided the debds generation design parametem in the 1970s while an employee at the Army Corps of Engineers ('ACOE'). I have not been offered nor would I accept any compensation in connection with the review of the Deer Creek Basin or in giving this declaration. The statements made are of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would and could testify to the truth thereof. 2. I have retained copies of Design Memorandum No. 1 and 6 for the Cucamonga Creek Project, relevant portions of which I have reviewed in connection with my giving of this declaration. Design Memorandum No. 1 states that the debds basin should be constructed to hold a total volume of 310-acre feet. As discussed below, I believe this .estimate was too small. More importantly, the Debds Basin was not actually built to the design of 310-acre feet as it only holds approximately 130-acre feet. In other words, it presently has a maximum debris holding capacity that is 42% of what it should hold even if 3.27 over three hours is assumed to be the correct design storm. I therefore am very concerned that homes, businesses, and schools could be damaged and people could suffer if the problems discussed below are not rectified immediately. 3. I received my degree in ch/il engineering with a specialty in structural engineering from California State Los Angeles in the 1964. I have taken graduate courses in e, ngineering-related areas from the University of California, Los Angeles, the Url[gersity of Southern California and California State University, Los Angeles. I also 027 attended courses at the Hydrologic Engineering Center, which is at the University of California, Davis. Before and after graduating from college, I worked for the Los Angeles District of the ACOE beginning on April 25, 1961. I continued working at the Corps where I ultimately became the Hydrologic Engineer. I worked at the Corps until 1981. 4. I was the Hydrologic Engineer responsible for the Cucamonga Creek Project, which included the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel. Pdor to the Cucamonga Project, I had worked on other debris basins.' My responsibilities at Deer Creek included determining what the standard project flood was at vadous Concentration Points. Such determinations are necessa~/to ascertain the size of the channel. I also determined what the debds generation of a standard project storm would be for purposes of designing the debris basin capacity. BeCause I was particularly concerned about the steep terrain and its ability to generate la~e quantities of debds, I gathered as touch information as I could concern debds capacity. Since I am a native Californian, I also was familiar with the significant rains that had occurred previously. Little was known about debris production and most of our estimates were based upon empirical data, such as measurements from prior storms. This problem was discussed with and my work reviewed by Section Chief, Roberta La Rue, the Chief of Hydrology and Hydraulics, Albert Robes, and the Chief of Hydrology and Hydraulics of the South Pacific Divisin, Arthur Cudworth. 5. This investigation led to my updating the Enveloping Curve of Debris Inflow which is included as Plate 23 of Design Merooranduro ~. Plate 23 indicates that 130,000 cubic yards of debris per square mile would be generated by each 3.27" storm on the Dcc; Canyon watershed. This results in a projected debris generation of 028 482,300 cubic yards or 299-acre feet for the 3.71 square miles of the Deer Canyon watershed. My calculations did not include a safety factor. When developing the debris- enveloping curve, we recognized that it did not include ove~ows, because overflows were impossible to measure. In other words, actual debris production could exceed the figures shown on the debris-enveloping curve. 6. I personally do not believe that the original design estimate of 310-acre feet design was large enough, because it was based on figures from a single storm event whereas storms in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1960s were multiple events generating huge amounts of debris. (See Table 4 to Design Memorandum No. 1) 7. I learned of this matter on December 8, 1999, when I read about the dispute between homeowners and a developer in The Wall Street Journal. On April 15, 2000, I personally went.to the Deer Creek where I spent approximately five hours inspecting the construction and debds holding capacity of the debris basin. I paced off the surface area and determined the surface area to be approximately 435,000 square feet or less, Estimating the difference between the elevation of the spillway and the bottom of the intake tower to be approximately 13 feet, I concluded that the maximum capacity of the debris basin is 130-acre feet. These calculations were based entirely on my actual field observations and were made without reference to the drawings in Design Memorandum ~ or any as-built drawings. While these calculations are not exactly precise, this value is 42% of design capacity of 310-acre feet. In all instances, I erred liberally, meaning that my estimate represents the maximum capacity of the debris basin. The actual capacity may be less. 9. I am very disturbed by the under capacity of fl~e Deer Creek debris basin and the resulting consequences. If a storm or series of sto,'ms generstes more than the existing capacity of the basin, the excess debris will enter the channel and impair its capacity to carry water. This could result in significant damage to persons and property located beneath the channel. I strongly believe that these inadequacies need to be addressed immediately and all future construction halted until viable solutions are identified and implemented. To the extent that the Dccr Creek Levee provides additional debris holding capacity, I strongly believe that it would be irresponsible to remove the levee until the lack of capacity of the Debds Basin has been corrected. Even if the levee remains intact, it only provides protection limited to the property south of the levee. If the debris basin overflows, there is no guarantee that the debris and flood flows will not jump the Deer and Hillsides Channels and travel in a southerly direction down Milliken Avenue and/or easterly into the Day Creek watershed. 10. Dea'n Dunlavey of Latham & Watkins and Malissa McKeith of Loeb & Loeb assisted me in the drafting of this declaration. I provided them with my observations concerning the debris basin. They drafted an outline for me to review, which I then revised. The fact that they assisted me has no bearing upon the truth or accuracy of the statements. I make these statements independently because I was involved in the design of the basin and I am concerned that it was not built to the original specifications. I speak of my own free will out of concern for the safety of the public. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Rancho C~. ~fomia,on Apri124, 2000.~ , ~ Robert G. Ki~yt 030 Even though the Deer Creek Levee was listed in the 1972 Recommended Plan, no separate funding allocation was originally made. Corps personnel pointed out that there was no separate funding allocation made because the Corps intended to utilize the excavation material for fill. Corps personnel furnished the costing sheet at p 52 to support their statements? They further explained that this separate allocation was made in 1974 (1976) only because Cai Ttans decided to buy the Corps excavated materials for construction of the 1-15. The Corps calculated a substantial saving resulted as they could sell the fill to the state for much more than the cost of buying fill for the Deer Creek Levee later. The cost was projected as only half of what Cai Trans was paying. The Corp personnel said the Corps sold the fill from just the first Phase to Cai Trans "for about $300,000". By late in 1977, however, it was clear that the legal problems on the Norco Phase of 1-15 were not going to be resolved anytime soon. Cai Trans requested all available fill be stockpiled atthe County landfill at Milliken. The County did not want the fill stockpiled. The County was acting as the local interest on 1-15, but had a conflict of interest because they needed the fill too. The County wanted more than a million cubic yards to fill in the Turner Basins (except for Basin #9). Flood control funds to keep the Project going were a problem because it was taking 5 years to get the state to reimburse flood control for the "local contribution" costs. Flood Control needed about $6 million and there was resistance to a levy. The appraisal on the Turner Basins was for $750,000 unfilled and more than $5 million if the basins could be filled. Even though the County pressed hard for the fill the Corps refused. 031 '3Corps' personnel say part of this $431,000 was a double entry mistake because the construction (but not the fill) part of the cost was already accounted for in another $398,000 entry. I further understand that another $121,000 of fill was added on to this 431,000 equaling $652,000. This brought the total to $1,250,000 for the Levees cost. After the Cal Trnns sale fell through and the Corps went to deduct the the cost of the fill, the double entries were spotted and corrected. LATHAM & WATKIN$ ..o,.,,, =^,,,o..,. °00,,-20°. Decemberz~"" 1999 uoe ...,. ,, ,,.o..o., o..~,. ~ FACSIM~E ~ ~DE~ E~SS ~c Honorable B~b~a Box~ ~c Honorable Di~e F~ 112 H~ Senme Office B~l~g 331 H~ Senate Offi~ B~l~g W~hn~o~ D.C. 20510 W~Mn~o~ D.C. 20510 ~e Honorable Joseph Baca 201 No~ "E" S~et, Suite 202 ~ S~ Bem~o, CA 92401 Re: Deer Creek Debris Bm~ ~d Retention Levee De~ Senmom Boxer ~d Fe~e~ ~d Con~s~ Barn: I m ~g ~ to requem yo~ ~ce ~ emg ~ ~e ~y Co~s of ~g~m conduct a com~ehemive, mbimed m~ew of ~e ~r C~k de~s b~ N li~t of w~t is ~om today a~m ~1, debris production, ~d ~e peffo~ of de~s bmr. I flso request ~at you send a le~er to ~e Fede~ Emergency M~ement Agency ffE~), ~ques~g FE~ to condu~ im om in&pendem ~ve~gafion. ~s co~ndenee is necessitated by ~e a~ched leR~ ~m Colonel C~ll of · e ~y Co~s' ~s ~geles Di~ office. ~ou~ ~e le~er is &ted D~emb~ 16, 1999, it · d not ~ve at my office ~fil December 28, 1999. Colonel C~o~'s le~ is sup~s~ly re~onsive to ~e Nq~fies ~d requesm mMe of ~e Co~s on November 4, 1 ~9 ~d by you on November 16, 1999. ~e le~ is appfll~g bo~ ~ i~ ob~om ~s~m~mfion of~e ~y Co~s' om docmen~ ~d N ~e su~cifl m~er ~ wNch it p~m to exme ~ issue of ~m ~pomce to ~e ~siden~ of~cho Cucmongm ~e Los ~eles Di~ cle~ly is not capable of conducting ~ ~bimed ev~uafion of im o~ work. 032 ~' ' 1 ATHAM & WAT~IN$ T~e Honorable Barh~ Boxer The Honorable Dianne Feinstein The Honorable Joseph Baca December 29, 1999 Page 2 On December 8, 1999, Rob Alexander of Senator Boxer's office and Anne Hurst of Senator Feinstein's office participated in a meeting with the Secreta~ of the Army's office at the Pentagon. During tlmt meeting, the message delivered by Secrelary Westphal was that the Secretary was amenable to conducting a comprehensive, unbiased evaluation of the Deer Creek debris basin, provided that some means of funding could be found. The estimates we had been given by attorney Neil Purcell of the South Pacific Division for such an evaluation ranged from $150,000 to $250,000. My clients and I left the meeting encouraged that the Army Corps would look into the issue, but believing that it might take several months for funding to be made available. Colonel Carroll's two-and-a-half page letter arrived two weeks later, claiming to address "the two main issues discussed at [the November 4, 1999 meeting in San Francisco]: (1) the assertion that the Deer Creek Reception Levee is part of the Corps of Engineers Cucarnonga Creek Flood Control Project, and (2) the adequacy of the Corps' Deer Creek Debris Basin storage volume in light of current design practice and hyrological information." Describing Colonel Carroll's analysis as superficial is charitable. In one paragraph, Colonel Carroll attempts to establish that the Deer Creek Retention Levee was not part of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Project. To do so, he makes the unsupported argument that the "diversion levee at Deer Creek" referenced in Design Memorandum No. 2 is a reference to the levee separating Deer and Day Creeks. This assertion is simply ridiculous, for two reasons. First, as expressly noted at page XIV-1 in Design Memm-'~n~dum No. 2 and the materials I had provided to the Army Corps, the diversion levee is described as "west of Deer Creek debris basin." Day Creek is east of Deer Creek, and the separation levee between Deer and Day Creeks is east of Deer Creek. Thus, unless the Army Corps did not know east f~om west at the time it wrote Design Memorandum No. 2, the reference to the "diversion levee... west of Deer Creek debris basin" could not possibly mean the separation levee east of Deer Creek. Second, the cost figures set forth on pages XIX-7 and XIX-8 of Design Memorandum No. 2 discuss costs for two different components of the Flood Control Project - "a levee between Deer and Day Creek" which has a cost of $398,000 associated with it, and "a diversion levee at Deer Creek," which has another set of costs associated with it. Arguing that the Army Corps used the two different terms, and two different sets of cost figures, to refer to a single levee is patently absurd. In fact, Figure 3 of the first attachment to Colonel Carroll's letter is a "map showing Deer Creek improvements." The map shows the Deer Creek Retention Levee, located to the south and to the west of the Deer Creek debris basin, just as described in Design Memorandum No. 2.I ~ The Army Corps has been unable to locate most of the documents associated with the Flood Control Project. Indeed, despite numerous FOIA requests from my clients, the Army Corps has been unable to locate final versions of Design Memoranda 3, 4, 5, or 7, much less documents 033 The Honorable Barbara Boxer The Honorable Dianne Feinstein The Honorable Joseph Baca December 29, 1999 Page 3 The next paragraph of Colonel Carroll's letter reports that the Army Corps ·. conducted a "reevaluation" of the debris yield. While Colonel Carroll finds that the debris yield would be 292 acro-feet - significantly larger than earlier estimated - he concludes that the debris basin - purportedly 310 aero-feet in capacity - should only be expected to fail once every 111 years. To reach this result, the Army Corps did not perform the "comprehensive, unbiased evaluation" that you had requested but instead manipulated the data in a manner so as to just exceed the 100-year storm criteria. On November 4, 1999, we provided the Army Corps with detailed rainfall and stream flow figures. These figures were supplied by James Goodddge, an expert who served as the State of California's Climatologist for six years, and who worked for the California Department of Water Resources for 30 years. The Army Corps did not use Goodridge's rainfall figures nor did it attempt to explain why his figures should not be used.2 The Army Corps also did not even adjust its own figures appropriately. Specifically, it took water discharge figures for Day Creek, calculated the amount of discharge per square mile of drainage area, and then used that "unit discharge" figure in its subsequent calculations without adjushnent. The Army Corps' use of that unadjusted figure is improper and is biased in favor of finding the debris basin adequate. The bias results fi'om the fact that Day Creek has a larger drainage area (4.56 square miles) than Deer Creek (3.71 square miles). Smaller drainage areas result in larger unit discharges - i.e., larger discharge-per-square-mile-of- drainage-area figures - because the highest rainfall in a storm is concen*,mted in a relatively small area and rainfall diminishes rapidly from the storm center. The Army Corps has recognized this phenomenon. Thus, there should have been an upward adjustment in the unit discharge figure due to Deer Crock's smaller drainage area. The Army Corps attempts to appear reasonable by citing the USGS rainfall figures firom 1977 as a "reality check" against its estimates. The USGS figures, however, show a unit discharge approximately 12% higher than the figures used by the Army Corps (3,100 cubic feet/sec versus 2,770 cubic feet/sec for the 100-year storm). Despite the USGS's higher figures, the Army Corps inexplicably chose to use the lower numbers to calculate debris production. regarding the actual couslxuction of the Flood Conlxol Project. As such, Colonel Carroll l~s no legitimate basis for making any representation regarding the scope of this project. 2 Importantly, San Bemardino County's most recent calculation of the capacity of the debris basin is 257 acre-feet, not 310 acre-feet. Therefore, using the Army Corps' own figures and methodology, the 100-year storm, producing 292 acro-feet of debris, would overwhelm the debris basin. Given this current capacity of the debris basin, the debris basin could not be certified to withstand a 100-year storm. 03,1 - ' LATH~ & WATKI~S The Honorable Barhar~ Boxer -- The Honorable Dian_ne Feinstein The Honorable Joseph Baca December 29, 1999 - Page 4 Debris production increases at more than a linear rate - i.e., a 12% increase in rainfall will produce more than a 12% increase in debris production. Thus, had the Army Corps used the USGS numbers, even ill own faulBr methodology would have resulted in a calculation that the debris basin is undersized. There are thousands ofpeeple living in homes below the debris basin and levee. It is nothing short of reckless to ignore USGS figures that exceed the figures used to calculate debris production. If the Corps were to use the USGS rainfall figures or to revise ill own unit discharge figures to account for the smaller drainage area at Deer Creek, it could not escape the conclusion that retaining the Levee is the only way to certify the flood control project as capable of withstanding a 100-year storm. Perhaps recognizing the deficiencies in this analysis, Colonel Carroll attempts to appease local residents by asserting that the three deflector levees between the debris basin and the Deer Creek Levee "afford significant secondary flood protection in terms of redirecting any flood or debris flows which exceed the debris basin capacity back into the Deer Creek Channel." The suggestion that the deflector levees would increase flood protection by directing debris into the channel is nonsense. If debris is directed into the channel, the channel will clog, causing the flood waters to overflow the channel at the obstruction and inundate the residential developments below. If the deflector levees direct debris into the channel, flood protection will decrease dramatically, not increase. Colonel Carroll's casual assertion regarding the deflector levees also provides disturbing evidence of his lack of objectivity, because the assertion is wholly unsubstantiated. No one has done any study to determine the debris capacity, if any, of the deflector levees. Why is the Army Corps, therefore, stating that residents can derive some added protection and security from these structures? And why is there no mention of the established debris carrying capacity of the Deer Creek Levee? In 1984, FEMA certified the Deer Creek Levee, by itself, to the 100- year storm. Our expert consultant, Andrew Campbell, Project Hydrogeologist at Dames & Moore, calculated the debris carrying capacity of the Deer Creek Levee as 288 acre-feet. Retaining the Levee, therefore, effectively doubles the debris capacity of the flood protection infrastructure at Deer Creek. This is in marked contrast to the three deflector levees, as to which there is no evidence that they provide any protection. By conveniently defining for itself the "two main issues," the Army Corps sidestepped several critical issues raised at the November 4, 1999 meeting in San Francisco. For example, evidence was submitted regarding debris basin failures due to the recognized phenomenon known as "nm up." As described in the declarations of Dr. David Williams, who himself worked at the Army Corps for 15 years, because of the steepness of Cucamongn Peak, "a debris torrent entering the Debris Basin will have extremely high velocities. Even ffthe Debris Basin has adequate volume capacity, which is seriously in question, the debris torrent, by virtue of its high velocity, can have enough momentum to 'mn up' the approach slope of the spillway 03;5 The Honorable Barbara Boxer : The Honorable Diarme Feinstein The Honorable Joseph Baca December 29, 1999 ' Page 5 and overtop it." The Harrow Debris Basin, located on the same side of the San Gabriel Mountain Range, ~'ailed due to "run up" in only a 10-year flood event. Aside from the issue of"nm up," the Army Corps acknowledged that the debris basin will fail for up to five years after a burn in the event ora 100-year storm. In the yearn immediately after a bum, the debris basin will fail in the event of even insignificant storms. The Corps further acknowledged that the debris basin and channels will fail in an earthquake greater than magnitude 6.4. (The Corps has never provided any techrfieai basis supporting its contention that the debris basin and channels could withstand an earthquake of magnitude 6.4. Nalther the debris basin not the channel was designed to withstand that magnitude.) Should either a bum or an earthquake occur, there is no protection if the Deer Creek Levee is removed. Colonel Carroll's letter makes no mention of the fact that any debris flow and flooding following such an event would devastate the population below the Levee. In closing, I renew my request for your help in having a comprehensive, unbiased evaluation. The Los Angeles District of the Army Corps of Engineers has demonstrated that it is incapable of performing such an evaluation. As requested originally, FEMA is better suited to provide the requisite expertise and objectivity needed, as it ultimately is forced to deal with the consequences of catastrophic flooding. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Dean 13. Dunlavey of LATHAM & WATKINS Enclosure 036 NO CORPS LIABILITY 1. The Corps has total immunity under federal law for their mistake. 2. The Corps had not wanted to built at Deer Creek. A Secretary of the Army declined to built because of how dangerous it was. However, there was pressure from local developers and our congressional delegation. Only after receiving County assurances that the upper Deer Creek area above Highland would never be developed, the Corps did the Corps agree to keep Deer Creek as part of the Project. There was an agreement from Sidler specifying the open space/flood control lands as of the 1972 General Plan would remain undeveloped. Later these lands were designated mitigation for wildlife losses and a second commitment was made that they would remain open space(p151) Ten levees were added to the plan as additional protection and as part of the 359 acres of spreading ground mitigation. Any attempt to hold the Corps responsible is futile due to this. The County violated its assurances to the Corps. 3. Individuals at the Corps could be held personally liable if, at the time, they had know edqe there was a problem but reckless y disreqarded the risk. No such d sre.qard occurred in the past. Tom Hembre~ made a topographical map of Robert Kirby's basin design. Then the storms of 1978 came and damaged or destroyed Corps flood control structures in Los Angeles· Los Angeles was trying to redesign those damaged structures and did not have enough personnel to do the contract drawings. The Deer Creek contract drawing assignment was sent to Sacramento instead. Sacramento worked on the drawings but were unable to complete them as 60 staff were laid off. Then the drawing were sent to SPD. Evelyn was responsible for verifying the drawings were correct. While it should have been obvious to Evelyn that the debds basin had only a fraction of its planned capacity, this is an error or omission, not intentional or reckless disregard. 4. Present: While Koplin and Evelyn have been extremely careful in their statements so as to avoid liability. However, there is other evidence they personally know there is a problem and they are personally liable. ~13 688 3460; 02/26/99 4:48Pkl;]~tFax #542;Page 7/11 Sent by Flooddistrictcalculationsafterawildfire[ -- /are for a failure of more than 7 million /tons of debris in a 50 Year storm. And lyrs. later about a million tons failure. /Di[81~IS PI~ODUCIION ANALYSIS Is a failure of 5 million tons of debris the [Flood District calculations of debris] year after a bum & more than~,2 m, il!io, nl, f dis I generated by3'27"°frain(5400cubicfl'[sibility has be ]tons failure after 4 years..ne aeonsI the I~er sec°nd)' Less than a 25'Year rain peri [basin is still failing 10 years after a bum ! [County Hydrology Manual. / The following table displays debris production using the newest 1992 method. TABLE I YEAR BURN 4 YEAR BUR~ 10 YEAR BURN DEBRIS 1,489 A.F. 764 A.F. 383 A.F. PRODUCTION Most recent debris capacity calculation of Deer Creek Debris Basin was in October, 1994 and was 257 acre feet. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The following information is from DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CUCAMONGA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES. Under Paragraph 3 Recommended Plan item f it is indicated, "Turnouts along the channel for diversion of water to spreading grounds developed by local interest." Item g discusses esthetic treatment of the project which includes landscaping and planting to screen the project structures· Right-of-Way ..viii be landscaped with trees, scrubs, and ground cover for shade, screening and esthetic enhancement. Rest areas to be landscaped with tree clusters and berms for visual variety and to provide shade for picnickers. The debris basin outer embankment to be hydroseeded to provide grass cover. Trees to be planed along the base of the embankment. Item h covers Recreation Facilities. This section focuses primarily on Cucamonga Creek. The Creek ,,rill become the main artery connecting local and regional trails {hiking, biking and equestrian) from the San Gabriel Mountains to Prado Dam. Item h does not specifically mention Deer Creek. However, Plate 7 is a map labeled as GENERAL PLAN FOR RECREATION shows a proposed hiking-bicycle trail along Deer Creek Channel that extends from its confluence with Cucamonga Creek upstream to about Banyon Street. Paragraph 12, SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS. The February 9, 1971. San Fernando earthquake registered 6.6 on the Richter scale and was located 43 miles west of San Antonio Dam. The dam experienced a 0.084 g acceleration force during the earthquake- The same dam, on September i2, 1.970, 038 ~November 18, 1998 correspondence from San Bernadino County Flood Control District to the City of Rancho Cucamonga- there was no cover letter] The District issued a permit to the Foothill Fire Protection Oislrict in 1989 allowing them access to District RIW on Deer Creek Channel. A map in the Permit file indicates the route taken to gain access to District RIW was across the subject cut in the levee then continuing northeasterly for about 1,500 feet and onto the District patrol road adjacent to Deer Creek Channel. Information in the Permit file suggests that the cut/access road was existing at that time. According to the Fire Protection District this permit is no longer in use since there is now other routes available. 5. QUESTIOI~I. In the environmental study was there any requirement for water conservation or open space? Or any commitment by the District for water conservation or open space? ANSWER. There is a I:INAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CUCAMONGA CREEK ~[[~~, by the Corps of Engineers dated August 1973. In this statement there are references to local interests requesting turnouts for water spreading purposes. There is a letter to the C. of E. from the District dated July 25, 1973 discussing turnout locations on Deer Creek, Otherwise. statements in the report appear vague as to what is required and especially by who. 6. QUESTION. What are the possibilities that a 7.5 magnitude earthquake might happen this area? Could it cause a landslide that could block the channel? ANSWER. Feature Design Memorandum No.6 does n chance a 7.5 would occur. It is indicated that the mo can be expected in this area would be earthquakes o Flood District says it appears even usingI Afldreas Faults. Il is indicated the maximum event th the old outdated 1963 Tatum methodthe] Corps should have built debris basin to San Jacinto Faull would have a magnitude of 7.5 ant be 440 acre feet for a 3.27" ra nfall There is no information in any of the material being reviewed which discusses a landslide blocking the channei other then the information related to debris. 7. QUESTION. What burn criteria was used in the design? ANSWER. Feature Design Memorandum No.6 gives the following information: A debris estimate based on a major storm event was computed using recommendations provided by a Los Angeles District geologist as to debris potential and the method outlined in A New Method of Estimatinq Debris Storaue Reouirements For Debris Basins by Tatum, dated January and February 1963. Plate H-7 of Feature Design Memorandum No.6 is a chart adopted from Plate 6 of the A New Method of Estimatinq Debris Stetson Reouirements For Debris Basins by Tatum, dated January and February 1963. This chart includes the note 'Curves shown hereon are based on the assumption that the debris producing storm occurs 4 to 5 years after 100% burn in the area." Deer Creek Debris Basin was designed to accommodate 310 acre fee{ of debris. However, a cursory review of the chart, given....~A/---.. the 3.7 square mile watershed of Deer Creek it appears that 440 acre feet would be 7 ctoser then the 310 acre feet the C. of E. came up with. 033 ~bart gives th,e, rainfall frequency per theI Iflood district s calculations along with] Ithechannel flow· Here the Corps 200- [Year Storm is around a 15 year storm. ~F.~ C~EK DA~ Di~CH~G~ 3-HR DURATION RAINFALT- DEPTH FREQUENCY [~2~K FLOW 2-YR = 1.75 IN ........ > 2,900 CFS 5-1rR = 2.60 IN ........ > 4,300 CFS 1O-YR = 3.18 ~N ........ > 25-YR .~- 3.87 IN ........ > 6,400 CFS 50-YR = 4.40 IN > 7,250 CFS IO0-YR -- 4.90 IN 200-YR = 5.39 IN ........ > 8,900 CFS 500-YR = 6.05 IN ........ > 10,000 CFS FLOW REDUCTION--N=20 -- 040 /sShOws channel failure and flooding at} about a 10 Year Storm [ Channel hold only 5400 cubic feet per~ econd. See paee 44 J Standard of concrete channell :onstmction[ VII - STRUCTURAL DF. SIGN 7-01. GENERAL. The structural elements of the flood oontrol portion of the plan would be designed in aooordance with applioable provisions of the following referenoes: Reference Date Title F24 1110-1-2101 1 November 1963 Working a~resses for structural design. EM 1110-2-2902 3 March 1969 Design of miscellaneous struotures - conduits, culverts, and pipes. EM 1110-2-2502 29 May 1961 Retaining walls. EM 1110-2-2q00 2 November 196q SpillWays and outlet works. Standards of the American Association of State Highway and Tansportatlon Offioials. Applioable E.T.L.'s, ER's and UBC 1976. ?-02. UNIT STRE~SF~. The pertinent information on unit stresses used in the design of the proposed improvements is as follows: UNIT D~IGN STRESSES Conorete: Ultimate compressive strength (fo') 3000 psi Flexure (fo) 1050 psi Bearin~ (fo) 750 psi Modulus of elasticity (Ec) 3,165,000 psi Shear (v) 60 psi Reinforcing Steel, Intermediate Grade: Tension 20,000 psi Modulus of elastioity (Es) 29,000,000 psi Ratio Es/Et 9.2 Weights and properties Concrete weight 150 P.C.F. Water weight 62.5 P.C.F. VII-1 -. 041 ~orm 36 . Corps design memorandum gave channel 1956 .':llA, fl~iv'?/¢i~.h.t.¢r/oU-.., flows as + 85 feet per second. InCorps F/,),/~,.j~ post construction calculations flows are ~ditlon i~ obsolot~ [. [Ic~¢ C'~,~.pp 79+. Corps only certified to 60. ' ~1, ~-,d-~ ¢P~£'~' O/~NN~rL IFIDRAULIO DESIGN Shea~, /' of $ I Date//Ju~' * ~ ' ~,~,~.IARY OF PERTI 'N~NT DATA -°calit'y,~r~; 45,54.,~/.~ ~o .ST/I S~74~O Ro£erenoo. d Drawings Checkefl by S+~a[ion Hydraulic ~_ Dn D, V.~- ~ Inver%' Hall $.E. F.B. elen~nts ~.lope · E19v. ~t.-ft. ft. ---'~ = 3 ,-~'~.I 2~2,~0 ~.o z.~O ~.t. ./ qPI*PP' ~ ..... ~.~0 P, 3'. ~.~ P4~ ~fi¢ I0,~ 2.~0 ~. ~ ..- ~ ..... ~ .,.~ -,~.'., ~4:..~. ~~o.z 7.70 s. ,. ~ .... ~,s~:~.oo ~{~.P~ s.~ 7.7 7~..~ ~:.o.~,~ ~..~ .-..-. ~ ... ~ 7'). ? OP. bO.O '0..~ ~.~0 .49p~75.b~ I.~ 7~'~R~ 2t7~ '9.3 .p. ZO ~gO~oo. Oo '---~ ..... ~f~g 7.7 ,o.~" 2/4...oo .~.. ) ~,~/~0o. oo ~ ~. o :,?..~ ~,~.~...~ /o.0 ~ ;.od ,;i.< , ,i?&~qT, 0o o.o~,-~ & &2' ~.,) ~,7,9 2o~&.o', ]~. ~ P, 09 S.c. :~7~'~'°c ~ ~ . .9. o ~.~.~ ,,~4.,o~ ~. ~ :,.~o ~.~. 0.3 z~.~ ~:.~2 /l,o ...-. ~50/00.~o 0=~4o0 ] .... 9.. ~2./ ':;;././;,7 ll,O ,. = " .. . 2.34' o "' )OO.O9 dc lB. I --~ ~ 7,7 ,,~.~ ,:.'71.~o 1i, 0 - '. · · - · 1,:Ot~ g,tlat , ItS8 [Cfistiano's consultant on flows in feetI V*t. 3.dA Re..a.e .~.e, Ani:ysll ~te~r~ by: ~per second, TI~/OATE OF ~.JGY: 7:S~ ~ 4/1992 J U/S WATER £UL:ACE CA~ O STA 501~.~ >~>)C~AN~EL ~N~UT INFOP~ATION<<(( P3NN[~3 FR~CN FAGTO~ * .OtAO . >)>)> ~;F.~ ;~[;E~) = 6.56 . FL~W A,.~ S~.AR. F=.TI · 78.71 FLOE AVE~ V;L~t~FEET/S;C.i = ' 68.S0 Am/~(E~ V~LOC1TY HE.~IFZ;Tr * 73.~ ~ '~;~;rC ;%;~YIF;ETI: 70.662 CRiTiCAL-~TH FLOg [NFO~qTION: CRITICAL FL~W TCP-WiD~I~EETI = - 12.~ C~ITICAL FLO~ A~AIS~UA~ ~ET} = 221.40 C~iT!CAL FLCW AVERAGE Vr~...Yt~..,/~.C I = 2~.38 C~iTICAL ~2THIF~ETI: g~ HeAL FLOW Fii!i:Ji , ...... NkU~ ~UNu.) = 3826~,70 AV...A~.3 .......l~ r.O, V:..,, Y ~iA~lFi[?) = 9.230 .~...~ ...... I : MD5 0590 In its design doctanents the Corps againI ............. Igives Channel Capacity as 5400 cubic] ~ Ifeet per second and velocity as exceeding .... I' [79 feet per second. . -- ~ : ..... . ! It~, ~ ~ : .... ' ..... I-- liN. · gOO F~ ' L. I~OJ,6~' '" :' . ~ !In its' 'desi~ docments the' Co~s again[ MENT S : gives Ch~el Capaci~ as 5400 cubic feet per second ~d veloci~ as I ~.t exceeding 79 feet per second. ]The judge ruled the channel would hold] [15,000 cubic feet per second based on[ I the false, misleading statements from the [ The City attorney also represented to the I ICity. It only holds 5400-See page 44.1 judge that the "facility" would hold aI 200-Year event even though the City had I documents showing that the C?p_s design to a 3.27" rainfall was less than a 25- Year event. P.40 1. The Sizine of the l)~r Cre~ Debris Basin. ~" pebtioner'fir~t takes on ll~ sizing of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. P~a'. OB at 10- 11. However. the record contains substantial evid¢~:~ that thc flood control facility was adequately sized and properly designed. The Deer Creek Debris Basin is Iix:atari at the mouth of De~r Canyon. Th~ embanhnent co.isis of a compacted earthffll ~a--al:tl~. with a maximum height of 58 fe~ and ? a crest length of 1.857 'feet. A rectangular broademsted concre~ channel is Iocat~l ma the 8 side of the embankment fill and has a width ranging from 75 feet at the cre~t to $1 feet at the 9 dow~tream end. and a depth of 19.5 feet at the cre~ ~he channel has been deaigr~ to lm~ a 1-0 maximum probabl~ flood of 15,0(10 cubic feet l~r s~.ond. The Debris Basin has a capagity of 11 310 acre-feet of debris storage. The cnti~ facility occupies about 32 acres. 7 A.R. 1846. 12 This Army Coq~ project pvoc~ded only after in~pa~ation of Deaig~ $1~mtlons ~-3 anFmvironmenmllmpact Stamx~eman~,aDesig~Memomndam. Se~?A.R. 1844-1847. Aft~ Itt coi~truetion, the Count~ Flood Conlxol Dhl~ict ~ res-pomibillty for its ongoing /"' 15 and mai~te~. 6 A.R. 1570. Although ignored by p~tioner, in Auguat 1992 the Diat~i~.-t's 16 Director wrom the City Engineer to explain: 17 'in general, thc puq)ose of this conm-ucfion was to inuucelx and .co~uo. 1 wa~' flow includin~ earthen snd/meni at the mouth of Deer Canyon, and to pxowae a convcyance system for flows outlct~ng'the Dam. The Cows used/ts uomud hintt stamiards for the 20 Id.; emphasis added. 21 Likewise, in March 1991, for purposes of then developer Brock's ~ thai 22 llft the "AO' flo~l risk d~siguat/on on the Subject Pwpe~? th~ Army Cozps issued a '~ 20 February 1981 / SPLED-D Mr. c. J. Di Pietro Flood Control Engineer San Bernardino County Flood Control District 825 East Third St. San Bernardino, CA 92415 Dear Hr. Di Pietro: Reference is made to your 13 January letter ~ich forwarded a ~ '(. drainage feasibility plan for a new developmeqt east of Deer. Creek. The 'I!ydrology Design Hemorandum No. 1" dated April 1973 emt4blished Itilliken Avenue as the eastern drainage boundary for Deer Creek between Baseline Road and Foothill Blvd. Capacities for side drainage structures and the Deer Creek Channel ~esign discharge were based on Milliken Aven~ being the drainage boundary. Th~ Lewis Homes proposal would divert about an additional 500 acres of drainage into Deer Creek Channel through a system of retention basins. Their proposed plan is acceptable aa long as peak discharges into Deer C~eek Channel are not increased by the additional drainage area. Specificall~ the follo~*lng discharges cannot be exceeded: a. 130 cfa at Station 3v7+50 (Baseline Road) ARNO~'~ - SPLED b. 201 cfa at Station 298~0 (near Church St.) ~"'L ~2 c. 237 cfa at Station 266+50 (Foothill Blvd.) SPLED No additional side drainage structures can be added. SPLED-I Inclosed for your iniormation isa f~ster Drainage, and Flood Control Plan for similar type development in the Indian Bend Wash Project in Arizona. The same SPLED-! type of retention storage could be utilized in the Lewis Homes development. X2752 Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact lit. Dennis Marfice CF: w/o in.It (213) 688-2752. ~- Sincerely, ED Hydrology Sec ~ Br ~s Sec A PM Group 1 Incl NOR~I ARNO as Chief, Engineering Division 0 4 In 1969 the Levee protected nearly all the ] area beneath it even though it was only 9 feet high then. In 1970 the Corps raised the I,~vee to a height of 15 (P. 49) by adding 115,000 cubic yards. In 1979 i y7-1.:.31 ~,-., ,o -- through 1981 The Corps added another 325,000 to 365,000 cubic yards to the t ~.~ ~ca,~ ~ Deer Creek evee, ra sing ts he ght and riprapping the levee where the swale 't~ '. REVISIONS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY EA.K ~ DA~E ~ D[SCRm~IO. ~ ~: FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT The Corps Design memorandum[ ]describes the ~ecommended Plan and] ]includes a Levee west of Deer Creek[ ~ - CONST! [Debris Basin. The only Levee ~t~ thq[ 14.01 GENERAL. The recommended plan for CUcamongn C~ek consists ora concrete chnnneis wonid have · total length of approximately ~6 robes; 15 ~ on Cucamon~a Cxeek, 10nu~es on West Cucamonga Creek, 2 n~es on Demens Cn~k, 1 nn~ on Hm~ and 8 miles on I)oe~ Cheek. There would be 4debris hasins at the npsln~m at the eastern ed~ o£ Demens Creeks Debris Basin, and .nnoth~ mst 14.02 CONCREIv.. ~est is the Deer Creek Levee. The Corps noxv says that all references a. APProximatequanlit~-475S2100cubi~ to a lcvee to thc west really meant a levee to the. cast of the channel-the Day b. TI~ con~ ~ be d '~e~ed fo SeparatorLevee. HowevertheCorpshas :) of 3,000 la&L, exe~pt Ontaries ~ conduit been unable to locate any of the strength (f'c) of 4,000 p.s.i. :construction documents, and that statement contradicts not only the design c. The concrete would consist of wa~ sections are thin and the climate mild. The memorandum but docmncuts submitted[ 14.03 Ci~M~.NT. [to thc Office of Budget where costs are a. Portland c~ment would be availnbk ....................... California plants from 13 to 130 miles from the project site. b. Approximate quantity - 2,800,000 CWT. c. Type - I or H, Low Alkali. 14.04 AGGREGATE SOURC'E~. Ample quantifie~ of ~uitable al~n~,_ t~_ for ooncaete construction axe available for sot~ces pt~'viously approved for oth~ cc,~m~tinn and Claremont, from 5 to 26 ~ ft~m tl~ project _ot~j Information on ~ ~s,~-~ates is given in indio~ 5, 11 and 13 with the latest ~'visions for hilt-nde 34 deltas N, longitude 117 degrees W, of the Watetwayx Experiment Station Reptnt dated September 1953 and tiffed "Test Data, Concrete ,A~oo~egates in Continental United States, Technical Memorandum No. 6-370, Vohtme 1, Area 3, Western United State~ (From L~titude 31 to Latitude 40; from Longitude I!0 to Longitude 120}." Supplementin~ this data, an investigation was made in August 197 ! of the existing n~o~egata ~ources in the ~, of Cucamonga C~eks, both Ul~Sto~am of the City of Upland, California. A~ availaM~ commercial a~g~'gnte pits and plants wev~ investigated and two commercial sources were sampled, one eac~ from San Antonio Wash and Cu~tmonga Canyon Wash. Th~ were evaluated by the SPD Laboratory in January 1972. The comnswcial potential · construction at Norton and Marctz Air Force Bases. ~ hav~ also ~ used for Civil 050 ~l P~j~t. ~ debri~ bu~ ~t~ ~ t~ ~br~ ~ it ~ ~ e~. ~ e~la ~11 th~ o~ t~ ~~ to the C~ '[This costing is in partly a double entry ~rans and buy fill for the Levee. For/ [mistake which Occurred when the Corps[ example hot ~nly did Cai 'Frans pay the the Norco Phase of 1-15 got tied up in the{ [to }agreed to furnish all excavated debris legal challenge and the County refused t allow tel stockpiling because [fill to Cai Trans for 1-15 constructionl-as[ (.crps$291,000forthefill(60,000cubic I ounty needed all the fill themselves lards) from Phase ~of the channel dlowstockpilingofthefillattheCount /cfi~lblcn ~2ds~urner Basins. (1.2 million/ excavation bu~got fed~i'~'~ ~ndfill at Milliken. The County refuse ! . Y .... which meant they would need to buy fill fortheDeerCrcekLeveeinsteadofusingI Legal problems on 1-15 after Phase I chang, el excavation. It was more changed the terms of the sale. See p 53 [economo to sell the debris fill to Cal 2alTran~didnnthnvallthefillhecmme Date Prspared: 31 March 1976 District~ Los Angeles ANALYSIS OF PROJECT FEDERAL COST CHANGES Legend: Estimaee ae Initiation of AE&D (P) (In Thousands) Estimate at Initiation of Construc PROJECT: Cucsmonga Creek, Santa Aha River Basin, California ORIGINAL ESTIMATE ~ EFFECTIVE DATE: 26,300 (1 Jul 65 base) (ORIGINAL ESTIMATE FOR REAL ESTATE: N/A BASIS OF ORIGINAL ESTIMATE: 1968 F.C. Act (MD 323/90/2) Fiscal Year Appropriation: 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 +76T Effective Date of Estimate: 1 Sep 68 1 Jul 69 1 Jul 70 1 Jul 71 1 Jul ~2 1 Jul 73 1 Jul 74 Estimate Project Cost 30,700 32,800 35,100 37,900 40,700 44,000(3) 62,100 Change in Estimate (4,400) (2,100) (2,300) (2,800) (2,800) (3,300) (18,100) a. Price escalation { 4,116(1) 2,100(1) 2,300(1) 2,800(1) 2,800(1) 2,927(1) 4,326(1) b. Design changes .... 4,092(5) c. Additional functions added under general authority .... 876(6) d. Authorized modificatdons .... e. Post contract award and other estimating adjustments .... 7,710(7) f. Schedule changes .... g. Sundry. 284(2) - - 373(4) 1,098(8) h. Real estate .... IA $398,000 entry previously accounted Detailed Explanation Iforlevee costs. I (1) Reflects ENR Indices modified by SPD pries trend studies. (2) Reanalysle of design ~ffort on railroad relocation. (3) Estimate of 57,800 (1 Jul 73 base) presented in FY 75 Senate Recall Hearings. (4). Rent of GSA controlled bldg space (P.L. 92-313). . (5) Additional capacity Cucamonga Creek Debris Basin (538) I modifi~?tion tqCucamonga Creek Channel (212)i Revised San Antonio Height Diversion system (1,482); Deletion of Emons Creek water outlet (-50),~ddition of~'De~r Creek Levee (4~1)~. Addition of Deer Creek Char end protection (36); and addition of Hillside Diversion system (1,4~3)~ (6) Addition of recreation facilities. O52 crossing the channel.; would make them particularly visible. The debris basins would contain all three of the above types of planting schemes, as appropriate, for each specific site. 2-11. DISPOSAL SITES a. Six hundred and seventy-five thousand cubic yards of excess material would be removed from the channels during construction. Three hundred thousand cubic yards of that material would be placed on an existing Sa~ Bernardino County (Deer Creek) levee south of the proposed Deer Creek Debris Basin site and north of the proposed Hillside Channel. The remaining 375,000 cubic yards would be disposed of at an existing San Bernardino County disposal site, at the corner of Milliken Avenue and Mission Boulevard. These are optional disposal sites for use by the contractor, if desired. b. Operation and maintenance of the project would require periodic removal of accumulated debris from the debris basin. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District has agreed to remove and dispose of the debris, as required, to maintain adequate storage capacities in the debris basins. The county's disposal site at Milliken Avenue and Mission Boulevard would be utilized for disposal of all organic material and a limited quantity of other debris. Most of the debris removed would be placed on or adjacent to the existing Deer Creek levee mentioned above, on fee owned county right-of-way. The county has an ongoing borrow program where the public and other government agencies that need materials for construction would use the excess material placed adjacent to the levee. Original documents estimated the county cost of stockpiling an initial quantity <150,000 cubic yards of fill as 90¢ per yard The REC report reflects sim ar figures. With disposal sites near the channel at This entry is wrong in the amount of Milliken, Turner Basins, "the Doctor's debris/fill excavated from the channel. Parcel, etc., all of which had a significant The channel excavation was estimated in dollar value, it makes no sense to ha_ye xcess of 1,250,000 cubic yards-not the hauled the debris/fill all those miles up steep, 6+ grade to the Deer Creek Levee. 675,000 of the entry. Former Corps employees recall the stated intent of this entry was to block the County from "stealing" the material. The Corps has used this entry to insist the levee xvas not part of the Project but 0 just a convenieut disposal site. Given the value of the fill to Cai Trans an~l 1he ~' g I million c~ollar value to the County, that assertion makes no sense. None of the fill from Phase VII (7) xvcnt ] on theDeer Creek Levee. All the fill onI the Levee was from Chino, Mira Loma, [Ontario, o? UPland. II-? According to contractor Yeager's debris [ log, all the Alta Loma debris fill went to construct the 10 spreading ground evee FIRM FIRM The developer submitted information to FEMA in i99 ! saying the Debris Basin was a new change .but FEMA's map show that the debris basin was alreadT~ rellected on the 1985 map revisions. The developer's consultants indicate the [ levee capacity is 72,650 cubic feet per I second. Cristiano's replacement channelI is 474 cubic feet per second or less than ,-u~u & LO~B 213 688 341~10; 09/~8/98 2:02PMi]pJ~ji~#402;Page 2/2 ' i~tes tr[bu~a~ ~= ch, n~r:h proper~ line ~Lch Is ~o be carried across ,xisCtug block v&iL co Tacks~e~ $cCe~c. Ic shoold be nocc~ ac :his tiaa chac ~4&i~ or ~eoC Creek ~a~e~. ~e~ore concoction u[ chi Bis~n ~hl ~a~c~ levee vis thc only b~rrier co f!ovs ~co~ the At chis Ci=a chore is no recent copo&~aphy &vailible, ~chou~ l~ the near ~c~e ~o Ci~ o~ Rancho Cuc~on~4 vi.ll have up~ce~ Cope available Upon ~f zcc~a~ f~ou paths, al~hou~ ior the ~oses o~ chLs repo~c va ~t~l rake the ~sc cons~actva a~roach and us~ c~ ~6~ coposrip~y. For P~a~t flays oflsice, the f~vCe vhen ~he reminder par=el Is barzle~ In mlli{&ctn~ ~ea/ure~ csn ~e {uilyzed ac ~ac c~8 ~o c~nvey flor{ ~r0~ the I R[~TS ~ CONCLUSION ?e; clcy requiremeflcs ~OO yesr ~ows are c&~culiced &s 4 wore; case . _ ;:~i:lcn, ~O ~36 c:Lbuc&~ Ic~es &eneraCe approxi~tl~y ZSlcffs ~n a ~OO year e'/e~t. ~ exisZ/n& levee ~s au 8pproxL~ce capac$~'o~ 72&SOc~s (see pg. 1~) lr.i is :he:'e~oco ao:e chin adeq~co. ~or ~ iran not:~ o~ the trace and aesC :! :he Levee reference is =ado co the hyCrolo~ report by Associace~ Entir. eers f0: Trac: t2332-1 coap~cced in April. 198~. Fro= ch~s previous report L~:~tion vas :o cat~ :bile [lees do~ Tackscem Street which has 4 capaci:y of ;* :r:buca~ :o the proposed sloe [co~ notch of the Tr&c:.Csee ~sice :r.:ercep~eG by the onsLce facl~,~es.' ' CG~cu~aclons &~d ~L~I~ 2eitutes vtl~ bo ~ece~nld upon developamenc o~ the re~in~r parcel, fo: :he 055 ASSOCIATED ENG..IEERS 316 East E Street P.O. Box 9419 (714) ~18 ~P.~ I ~D · ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,.~. ~=o.c~ ~.~ 7Z&~o~ > ZS~~ a~ ~ .... The developers consult~ts cst~atc ~c capaciW of~e Levee as 72650 cubic . . feet per second ~d ~ more ~ 257 acre feet. That is double ~e capaci~ of 056 ! The levee really has no bearing on the FEMA designation.~ 2 And I haven't seen any documentation to show that was 3 the case. 4 ' Rx~erring to the levee, itself, no one 5 really knows r.- there is no documentation or 6 indication - - we don' t know how the levee was 7 constructed. We have no idea the capacity of the $ levee, the strength of the levee. It appears to have 9 no foundation. But, again, nobody knows. ]0 It appears to be made of material 1! mounded up, but for what purpose it was not certain. ]2 ~ We don' t know if it was for flood protection. There 13 wasn't any thing there at the time. It might have been 14 ' poor water percolation. We simply don' know. 15 COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ: It may have been some 16 kind of Indian burial moun- ~.IL: I don't think it was that at all. In testimon,y to the City Council City 1 Engineer O Neil stated he had no idea ol]In 1986 the county, who had been if the Levee if the Levee was for flood / protection. It is unclear why he made ~ levee, in essence abandoned it. It is FEMAMap(.p.54)creditingthe~.eve¢ I~rty. As far as I'm aware, there is no to a 100-Year Storm was in his illus. Further the1984 LOMR documentation i~1-_~n~-~ins that levee. So there is and Hydrolo~ studies (p.55 & 56) from Lc~. mc~. Ihisfiles no maintenance oone on [nar ±evee Dy any puD±~c 23 agency. It's not a public facility. It's not owned 24 by a public agency. It sits on someone's private: 25 property. 190 057 H. Evelyn stated that the levee was a convenient disposal site for Project's debds. However, the value of this material was documented from Cai Trans payment to the Corps of $291,000 just for the material excavated from Phase I. Cai Trans wanted all the matedal available as side fill even if it had to be stockpiled at Milliken for the Norco Phase of 1-15. The County wanted more than a million cubic yards of the matedal to fill in the Turner Basins. A hundred acres of two parcels in Ontado just South of Philadelphia Street requested 200,000 cubic yards of fill. The value of the fill to the County or to Cai Trans was millions of dollars. All the sites just mentioned were adjacent to the excavation. Yaeger's excavation log for Phase VII shows none of the Deer Creek excavation above Foothill was used on the Deer Creek Levee. The fill for the Deer Creek Levee came from Chino, Mira Loma, Ontado, and Upland. Hardly as convenient as any of the other sites. In fact the trucks going to the Deer Creek Levee went right by the Turner basins to get there. Corps personnel and others such as Dr. Williams who are familiar with Corps practices say the intent of that reference was that the height of the Deer Creek Levee would continually be raised to offer even greater protection. ICT ENVIRONHE AL 825 ~ ~ JOHN M BERNARD Dec~mbe~ 4, Z980 F~ie: [-350/].0~ U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Office P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Attention: Noman Arno, Chief Engineering Division Re: ZQne 1) C~camonaa Cree[~ Phase VII, C/E Improvement ~roject Reimbursement Agreement No. A801/10012 Gentlemen: Forwarded herewith for your execution are six (6) copies of the Reimbursement Agreemen~ between the United States of America and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District regarding certain work to be accomplished by the District in the above referenced project. The agreement has been executed by the San Bernardino Count~ Flood Contol District Board of Supervisors and the six (6) copies are forwarded herewith for execution by the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, District Engineer. Upon execution, please keep two (2) executed copies for your files and forward the rest to this office for further handling. Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Mina S. Ghaly, Chief, Federal Projects Division at (714)383-2278. Very truly yours, C. J. DI PIETRO, Flood Control Engineer Ruben V. Montes Asst. Flood Control Engineer Planning - Engineering RVM:LJF:kb Encl. as noted Construction and Operations · Planning and Eng]neerlng · Fede~ll Projects AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE DISTRICT CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, CUCAMONGA CREEK, CALIFORNIA THIS AGREEMENT entered into this ~,~+h day of ~)~em-~e~r , lgSO, by and between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (hereinafter called the GOVERNMENT), represented by the Contracting Officer executing this agreement, and the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (hereinafter called the DISTRICT), WITNESSETH THAT: : WHEREAS, construction of the flood control improvement known as Cucamonga Creek Project in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California (hereinafter called the PROJECT) was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved August 13, 1968 (Public Law 90-483, 90th Congress, 2nd Session); and WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has proposed to perform certain work which falls within the work required under the Authorized Project; and WHEREAS, the above referenced law embraced the recon~endations of the Chief of Engineers in the House Document No. 323, 90th Congress; that authority be granted to reimburse the DISTRICT should the need arise for the DISTRICT to perform part of the PROJECT in advance of Federal construction. WHEREAS, Chief of Engineers has by Second Indorsement, dated 2 September, 1980, authorized the District Engineer, Los Angeles District, to execute this agreement in accordance with all of the foregoing; ASO1/10012 Page 1 of 8 0'6 0 __T/u c. i NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed between the GOVERNMENT and the DISTRICT that: Article l: Work to be Accomplished The DISTRICT, through the GOVERNMENT office in Los Angeles, will coordinate the final, selection of bridges to be constructed by the DISTRICT crossing: a. Deer Creek Channel at Archibald, 4th and Turner, 6th Street, Baseline, Highland; and b. Hillside Channel at Haven. Article 2: Manner of Performing the Work ~ The work will be carried out in separate contracts by contractors administered by the DISTRICT and to be completed prior to the construction of the Corps of Engineers' channel. Article 3: Review of Design and Inspection Prior to commencement of work, the designs, detailed plans and specifications and arrangements for prosecution of the work shall be available to the District Engineer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Office, for review and approval. Any subsequent changes in the plans and specifications for the work or in the method of accomplish- ment shall be submitted to the GOVERNMENT District Engineer forreview and prior approval. The GOVERNMENT District Engineer or his designee is authorized to inspect the work at any and all times. A801/10012 Page 2 of 8 Article 4: Basis of Reimbursement The amount of reimbursement shall be determined as equivalent to the channel cost at the time the DISTRICT constructs that portion of the channel. Article 5: Limitations on Reimbursement a. Reimbursement for the work performed by the DISTRICT shall be '~ depend~nt upon the appropriation of funds applicable thereto or funds avail- able therefor, and shall not take precedence over other pending work of higher priority at the same or other improvement projects. b. Any work undertaken by the DISTRICT prior to the effective date of this agreement shall not be subject to reimbursement. c. No reimbursement shall be made until~the GOVERNMENT District Engineer, Los Angeles District Office, has determined that the work subject to reimburse- ment has been performed in accordance with the agreement. d. This agreement shall not be construed as {i) authorizing the GOVERNMENT to assume any responsibilities placed upon the DISTRICT or any other non-Federal body by the conditions of project authorization, or (ii) as c~mmitting the GOVERNMENT to reimburse the DISTRICT if the Authorized Project is not undertaken or is modified so as to make the work performed by the DISTRICT no longer applicable. e. Reimbursement shall not be made for any work which does not conform to the description set forth in Article 1 above. f. The amount of reimbursement to the DISTRICT for the work described herein shall in no event exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000}. g. The amount of reimbursement to the DISTRICT is not subject to A801/10012 Page 3 of 8 interest charges, nor is it subject to adjustmen~ to reflect changes in price levels between the dates of completion and reimbursement. Article 6: Expiration of Aqreement This agreement shall expire and become null and void if the work described herein is not undertaken within three (3) years of the effective date of this agreement and completed within two (2) years thereafter. Article 7: Prosecution of Work by Contract In the event the DISTRICT prosecutes the work by contract, all bids received and the proposed provisions of any contract shall be subject to review by the GOVERNMENT prior to award. Any such contract shall contain all applicable provisions required by Federal ~aw and Regulations including, but not necessarily limited to, applicable labor and equal opportunity provisions. Article 8: The DISTRICT Further Agrees To: a. Provide without cost to the GOVERNMENT all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project. b. Perform without cost to the GOVERNMENT all alterations and modifica- ~ tions'of highways, roads, street, highway bridges, utilities, and irrigation and limited drainage facilities pertinent to the project. c. Deposit funds with the GOVERNMENT to cover the cost of constructing outlets from the proposed channels to permit the diversion of streamflows to spreading grounds for percolation into the underground basins. ASO1/lOO12 Page 4 of 8 d. Hold and save the GOVERNMENT free fro~ damages due to the con- struction works. e. Hold and save the GOVERNMENT free from damages arising from water rights claims resulting from construction, operation and maintenance of the project. f. Operate and maintain all works after completion, including the removal of debris (detritus) to maintain adequate storage capacities in the debris basins, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary'of the Army. g. Prevent any encroachment that would reduce the flood-carrying capacities of the channels and levees or that would reduce._t~_debr~s-stora_g.~capacities of the debris basins. h. Comply with the requirements of the Oniform Relocations Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894, approved. January 2, lg71). i. Give to the GOVE~4ME~T a right to enter upon, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, lands which the DISTRICT owns or controls, for access to the PROJECT for the purpose ofinspection, and for the purpose of operating, repairing and maintaining the PROJECT, if such inspection shows that the DISTRICT for any reason is failing to repair and maintain the PROJECT in accordance with the assurances hereunder and has persisted in such failure aftera reasonable notice in writing by the GOVERNMENT delivered to the DISTRICT official. No operations, repair and maintenance by the GOVERNMENT in such event shall operate to relieve the DISTRICT of responsibility to meet its obligations as set forth A801/lOOl2 Page 5 of 8 in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, or to preclude the GOVERNMENT from pursuing ~any other remedy at law or equity. \ Article 9: Examination of Records by Comptroller General a. The DISTRICT agrees that the Comptroller General of the United States or any of his duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of thiq~e (3) years after final reimbursement under the agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of the DISTRICT, involving transactions related to this agreement. b. The DISTRICT further agrees to include in all its contracts hereunder a provision to the effect that the Contractor and all subcontractors agree that the Comptroller General of the United Stm~es or any of his duly authorized representatives shall, until three (3) years after final payment under the contract or subcontract, have access to and the records of such Contractor or subcontract, involving transactions relating to the contract or subcontract. The term "subcontract" as used in the clause excludes (i} purchase orders not exceeding $2,500 and (ii) subcontracts or purchase orders for public utility services at rates established for uniform applicability to the general public. c. The periods of access and examination described in {a) and (b) above for records which relate to {i) litigation or the settlement of claims arising out of the performance of this contract, or (ii) costs and expenses of this contract as to which exception has been taken by the Comptroller General or any of his:duly authorized representatives, shall continue until such litigation, claims or exceptions have been disposed of. ASO1/10012 Page 6 of 8 Article 10: Covenant Against Contingent F~es The DISTRICT warrants that no person or selling agent has beenemployed or retained to solicit or secure this agreement upon an agreement o~ under- standing for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the DISTRICT for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the GOVERNMENT shall have the right to annul this agreement without liability or, at its discretion, to subtract from the reimbursement price the full amount of sudh commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Article 11: Officials Not to Benefit ~ No member of or any delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit. A801/10012 Page 7 of 8 Article 12: Effective Date This agreement shall take effect when executed by the District Engineer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract as of the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT County Counsel San B&rnJr n Fl%d Control District NOV ~ 4 19BO ATTEST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .'"'-, 0/ /',.k-- A Secretary, Board of Supen~fsors ~olone~ Gwynn A. Teague San Bernardino County C/E District Engineer Flood Control District Contracting Officer A801/10012 Page 8 of 8 OG' gates would be provided across the opening. A typical access ramp is shown on plate 16. 6-08. .DEER AND DAY CREEKS SEPARATION LEVEE. a. There is now a levee system separating the Deer and Day Creek flows. The original separation levee terminated approximately 3,200 feet below the hillside. After the 1970 fire, local interests built four diversion levees to contain flows from Day Canyon. The two westerly levees, about 2,900 and 2,700 feet in length, closed the 3,200 foot gap mentioned above. The levees are in series and overlapping each other. They are located so that if the uppermost levee is overtopped, the next levee below would intercept the overflow from above. F~aximum recorded peak debris laden flow was 9,~50 cfs. This peak discharge plus debris flow was estimated to be near Standard Project Flood flow. b. The original separation levee is 25-30 feet wide across the top, with side slopes of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, and the height varies from 10 to 15 feet above ground line. The two diversion levees are 20 feet wide across the top with the same side slopes as the separation levee, and their height is about 10 feet above ground line. The flowage side of the levee was excavated 6 to 8 feet below the ground line for material to build the levees. c. Field investigation and computation indicated that the flowage cross-section has the capacity to convey the Standard Project Flood discharge. Flow from the canyon now enters the uppermost levee at am angle of about 30 degrees. This would probably cause overtopping. It is proposed to excavate an approach channel to direct the flow parallel to the diversion levee. See plate 29 for plan of levee system and p r~q p_os ed e_xP~vation · 6-O9. SIDE DRAINAGE. See Plate 29 on p. 70. The Army Corps represented that th{ equirements wnu] I Levee referenced in the Design, and (b)accom~I Memorandmn to the west was actually thl~ ~sts. Individu .......... I ~ ................ Day Creek Separation Levee to the eas for 25-year frequency discharges provided blt with $39~.000-+-$431,000 in c~t._ year frequency peak discharges were determined associated with it. However, the desi~ memorandum is ve~ specific abou referring to that Levee as the Day Canyon would be gated, if the inlet sill elevation is (P. 70) and the cost is calculated at onls.~rface elevation, to prevent the channel flow ~6 0OO Firstitisvervimnrobablethatthcms' Excess runoff traveling downstream, which , . . _ /al storm drainage system, eventually would be Co s could not ~stmgmsh east Irc I rp ' ' n~,. brid~es and condition of ground contours, west ,n the Reconunended Plan (p, 5 0]he channels and flow over the channel walls. land further improbable that a $800,000q t to the channels would be drained with pipes costing error would occur on a $6,00 I ! . )~. Pending not immediately adjacent to the mod,ficat~on (P 69) I . - ,ot to local Jurisdiction. The subarea vi- 068 Unit Account Number Item Quantity Unit Cost Amount Day Canyon Modification 15. Excavation 2,900 CY 1.~0 4,060 Subtotal ~,060 Contingencies (15%) 6~0 Total construction cost - Day Canyon Modif. 4,700 BO. Engineering and Design (15%) 900 31. Supervision and Administration (65) ~00 Total Federal Cost - Day Canyon Modification $6,000 Costs associated with Separator lLevee to the east from Plate 29. I 069 XV-28 H. Evelyn stated that the levee was a convenient disposal site for Project's debris. However, the value of this material was documented from Cai Trans payment to the Corps of $291,000 just for the material excavated from Phase I. Cai Trans wanted all the material available as side fill even if it had to be stockpiled at Milliken for the Norco Phase of 1-15. The County wanted more than a million cubic yards of the material to fill in the Turner Basins. A hundred acres of two parcels in Ontario just South of Philadelphia Street requested 200,000 cubic yards of fill. The value of the fill to the County or to Cai Trans was millions of dollars. All the sites just mentioned were adjacent to the excavation. Yaeger~s excavation log for Phase VII shows none of the Deer Creek ·. excavation above Foothill was used on the Deer Creek Levee. The fill for the Deer Creek Levee came from Chino, Mira Loma, Ontado, and Upland. Hardly as convenient as any of the other sites. In fact the trucks going to the Deer Creek Levee went right by the Turner basins to get there. Corps personnel and others such as Dr. Williams who are familiar with Corps practices say the intent of that reference was that the height of the Deer Creek Levee would continually be raised to offer even greater protection. OV 1 Developer's consultant told FEMA the / ' . __. _ .... flow would never exceed 120 cfs even ~ = , ]though the Corps diagram at p 74 gives 4,qt4. , . I theflow as 430 cfs ..... about 350% [ dOB NO ~ · ,~ ~-, :.,o~. ?OUP "Y' - ~':,%"~MG,,o,~ ...-. .......... =:_.__... · ~IrN~, ~l pL.~d~',%'ING d, ENGINEERING * ,~OlO/& ISJ -~JI . .' ~. r~ ~, ~c~ I ~'1" , ~1~', ' ~ I~ . ,~ ..... .[-~ ~ / ~r~t~ ~~ ~, ~t ~E~,s request ~. 73) Devel°per consultant calculates the macram [ disch~ge ~om ~e Bas~ ht~e tower [116 cfs. 072 Federal t mc igency Ma ageixxent Agency Wnuhm~on, D,C. 204, 2 Case No.: 91-09-47P Re: Deer Creek Debris Ba~ and Channel Cofl~unity: City cf Rancho Cucemon~e, CaXlfornia REquired te Support i Request glued l~sura~ca Study (~)1 TAr dig& Listed below mul~ be trOvlded be[ore ve can proceel in FXSt~XW4 revtitofl. t. gvtdonee tha~ the Chili gxecuC£ve O~icnr (CEO) o~ oho County o~ up revision request, Z. H~rautic analysis ot the ilar throush Cbt 48-1nth ~Fo uhich ~be OZCO~C (~d depth ef ~Xoodtn6 ~r~ng ~he XOO-year evenc, 3. A topoi~aphic map dead;ting t~e !O0-ye~r floodplain deltneati0n., th4 aniLyltl described ~a I~e~ 1 results in s depth et ftoodinl to or Stealer than I 073 There is an elevation error on this document. However Deer's taller tower would be at least Cucamonga's 350 cfs or 300% more discharge than Cristaino's consultant told FEMA. , .T, R.z ISPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL joa?!%_ 825 East Thld S r~t · Sa~ a~ne~dino. CA 924150836 * 1714l 387-2800 F.x No. i714) 387.2667 TITLE~E~T~ · O it0UTE T0 3une 11, 1991 FEDE~L EMERGENCY ~AGEMENT AGENCY 500 "C" Street, S.W. F~le: 1-502/1.01 Washington, D.C. 20472 4(FED)-4.O1 Tract 123~2 A~ENTION: WILLIAM R. ~C~, Acting chief, Risk Studies · Division, Federal Insurance Administratiom REFERENCE: FILE - 65-PRE - c~E ~91-O9-47P - DEER cREE~ DEBRIS BASIN AND CHANNEL - CITY OF RANCHO CUC~ONGA, CA Dear Mr. ~cke: This is in response to your letter dated April 15, 1991, regarding the above referenced ~. The san Bernardino county Flood control District is O concurrence with the proposed ~ re,est that woul~ change FEMA flood hazard designations on District rights of south of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. It was also re~ested to address the existing 48-inch dia. that can discharge flows into the spreading grounds area. Based on info~ation shown on U.S. A~y corps of Engineers, ~s Angeles District construction drawings for the Deer Creek Channel'and Debris Basin, District File Nos. 255/13, 23 and 24 and in -cUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PR~E~, FEA~RE DESIGN MEMO~NDUM NUMBER 6, DEER CREEK, PEMENS ~D ~IL~IDE DEBRIS BASINS AND cH~NE~," Morse Consulting Group prepa~e~ the attached calculations that this office reviewed approved. Those calculations show that during a Standa~ Project Flood less than 120 cfs could be outletted into the spreading ~rounds. The outlet structure has a base width estimated velocity of 10 fps, the 12-feet and using an will be less than one foot. It is assumed that the flows would continue to spread, but accurate topo info~atiom not available. ]which is mom ~ 3 i~ s0mc ~rc~s not h 20 cfs ~c "sppc~s rc~n~blc . ~ ~]css than ] foot. d{sch~gc ~ m0rc ~ 20~ of ~t MDS Page 2 JUne .11, 1991 .. REFERENCE: FILE - 65-PRE - CASE ~91-09-47P - DEER CREEK DEBRIS BASIN AND CHANNEL - CITY OF RANCHO cUCAMONGA~ CA Since the District does not presently have facilities to contain these flows to percolate them back into the ground .water basin~ .the turnout is kept closed. The District is the process of r~taining a. consultant to prepare a golf · 'course master plan for District property in this area. As part of the plan, percolatiOn ponds will be included. These ponds vii1 be designed to percolate the mean average rainfall, with an ove~flow channel going back to Deer Creek Cha~nel. Should you have any further questions concer~lng this matter, please feel free to contact me at (714) 387-2515. Very truly yours, O -- P E chief. KENNETH -UT~G~D , ' ' ' Water Resou~3~s Di¥ision KDG:Jm Enclosures as noted. Morse Consulti~g to provide. cc: KAM David Entsminger, Morse Consulting Grou~ Document Name: ~208/5184 MDS 0245 [Estnnates fire cycle as 10 to 40 years [ng'n¢¢nng il f an average 20 ~ae~rtofi~vCeYCal%}s aa~un~d ~ tgs: [the debris basin a p 'ty ~ more 1500 acre feet to be certified per / county fi lures. ' The effects of fire on the generation of debris flows in southern California Wade G. Wells II Pactfic Southwest Forest and Range Expe.,~ment Stanon Forest Service. U~S. Department of' A.~.culrure 4955 Ca~von Crest Drive Riverside. California 92507 ABSTRACT Debris flows following fire are a common, but poorly understood, problem in southern California. Research to date suggests that they result ~rom greatly, accelerated rates of surface erosion by both wet and dry. processes during the days and weeks following a fire. Significant amounts of hillslope debris are delivered to stream channels during the fire by a process c~ed dry ravel. An important feature of poaW~e erosion is the rapid development of extensive rill networks on hillsiopes. These rill networks are linked to a layer of water-repellent soil that forms a few millimeters below the ground surface during the fire. These rill networks result from numerous, tiny debris flows that occur on the hiIlslopes during the early storms. The rill net~-orks form rapidly, often in a matter of minutes, and provide an efficient means for transporting surface runoff to stream channels. This helps explain why postf~re debris flows often occur during very small storms and after short periods of rainfall. INTRODUCTION Every year southern California faces the unusual problem of sponse of the unique cond/tions of the posffire envh'onment to the debris flows from freshly burned watersheds. This problem arises earty storms. from a unique combination of factors involving the region's vege- tation, physical setting, and climate. First, the native vegetation, BACKGROL%qD California chaparral and its a~ociated ecosystems, is subject to periodic fires. As a given site can potentially~~ A review of available I/teratm'e reveals t~t the relafio~hip years (Hanes, 1977), fires can be expected to occur somewhere in between fires a~d floods w~ recogn/zed at least by 1930 and southern California almost every year. Second, the area is one of pos~ly ~ much as 10 years carl/er. Eaton (1935) was the first to high tectonic activity where steep, chaparral-covered mountain recognize that these floods were actually debd~ flows. He dis- slope~ are drained by steep, short, bedrock-controlled channels, cus~[ the flcxz:~g from burned watersheds that occurred on Finally, because of California's Mediterranean climate, the peak January 1, 1934, in the towm of Montro~ and La Cresc.~nta near foe season occurs immediately before the winter rainy season. Los Angeles, California, a~d cha. racterized these floods as a series Thus, it is not unusual for the early rains to fall on barren, freshly of debris flows. bm'ned slopes. From Eamn's descril~ons and f~om the published discm- Postfire debris flows occur most commonly on smaller wa- sions accompanying his paper, it is evident tlmt this phenomenon tersheds. They are unusual in that they can occur in response to was recognized a~d undemood by workers from the Los Angeles rather small storms and do not require a particularly long period area. but not by those tmfamfllar with the area and its flooding c ~ecedent rainfall. They occur during the earliest postfire problems. Thr~ discussions that supported and elaborated on bis s_ .~ and tend to diminish in frequency as the rainly senson findhags were by enghaeers flora the area (Baker, 1935; Binney, progresses. This suggests that the debris flows are a typical re- 1935; Pickett, 1935). Most other d/.sc'ussions either disputed his 10s 077 106 [~[ G Wells I£ findings or focused on other aspects of his paper. 'Cwo foresters, did an extensive study of the effects of fires on peak flo~s ar Kotok and Kraebei (1935), who were closely associated with the annual sediment production. This was a regional study that co then-recently established San Dimas Experimental Forest in Los ered virtually all of coastal southern California from 8an Angeles County, were also familiar with the area and understood Obispo to the Mexican border. As a result of this study tht its flooding problems. Ihey agreed with Eaton's views but did not compiled a series of rabies showing expected future peak flou call the flooding a series of debris flows. Rather. they described it and se.diment production from burned watersheds in their stuc us "the sequence of fire and flood." Ihis was soon shortened to area. Ufffortunately, this study was never ~ubllshed. although fl' "fire-flood sequence," and bemuse of the active re.search at San methodology used in compiling the tables is described in Sectic Dimas for the next 30 years, it became the most common term in 22 of the Handbook of Hydrology (Chow. 1964). Even thoug local usage, the study deals extensively with fires and flooding, there is ever Et seems that Eaton may have been ahead of his time. or that indication that the authors did not consider the flows to be de~r debris flows, as a distinct phenomenon, were not widely recog- flows or anything other than ordinary floods. nized in the 1930s, because Eaton is rarely cited in subsequent articles on postfire flooding. In their later paper on the La Cres- RECENT DEBRIS FLOW STUDIES centa floods, Troxell and Peterson (1937) cited Eaton's work but treated the floods as alluvial flows of water-borne debris and not Work by Davis (1977) again suggests that many postfir as actual debris flows. Their descriptions of the flows accurately flows are debris flows, lie analyzed the records of t 2 large reset reflect what we know today about the actual behavior of debris volts in the Los Angeles area and estimated the bulking ratios c flows, but they did not identify them as debris flows. Their exten- sediment in their flows, lie concluded that bulking ratios teede~ sire discussion of the mechanics of flow and sediment transport to remain nearly constant over a wide range of flow rates (tw~ clearly shows that they thought they were dealing with alluvial orden of magnitude) in a given drainage. High flows tended tr flows and with sediment that moved as suspended and bed load carry the same proportion of sediment as low flows, and eact in these flows. However, they also described "walls of water" 8 to drainage had a characteristic bulking ratio. Davis noted that post. I0 ft high and flows whose surface was "greatly raised in the fire flows were an hnportant exception to this trend. In the wa. center of the cross section." This last description (Troxell and tersheds he studied, Davis found that bulking ratios ranged frorr Peterson, 1937) generally agrees with more recent descriptions of about 0.005 to 0.025 (0.5 to 2.5 percent sediment by volume) deb~ flows, normal flows. For postfire flows, he found bulking ratios of 0.4. tc After 1937, most of the work on postfire flooding in south- 0.6 (40 to 60 percent by volume)! ern California was done by USDA Forest Service researchers at A connection between fires and debris flows was agaie. the San Dimas Experimental Forest. This reseamh was guided by demonstrated in 1978 when a debris flow was obse~'ed and the philosophical concepts of soil conservation and focused on photographed in a recently burned watershed near Los Angered. acceterated erosion after fire and on increased peak flows. A California (Wells, 1981). Carter Canyon, a small (31 ha) drain- report by the Division of Forest lnfluenc~ Research staff ( 195 t) age in the San Gabriel Mountains above Sierra Madre, Califor- described dramatic increases in erosion on study plots following a nia, was burned by the Mountain Trail Fire on October 23, 1978. fire in November 1938. The San Dimas Experimental Forest OnNovember 11, 1978, adebr/.sflowcontainingS00to700m3 Staff (1954) also published an eyewitness account of what was of sediment was observed in Carter Canyon during a small certainly a debris flow that occurred during January 1954. in aa (38 mm) storm. The flow occurred during a brief burst o[' heavy area that burned in November 1953. The debris flow occurred rainfall near the end of the storm and came down a channel in during darkness and was again de~"'ibed as a debhs-laden flood which there had been no previous flow. As it emerged from the and not as a debris flow. canyon and entered a debris basin, the snoot of the flow w~ Scott (1971) descrilmxt the debris flows of January 1969 in about 2 m high and could have been described as a "wall of Glendora, California, and, while noting that most of the moun- water." Figure I shows the actual debris flow a few seconds ~er rain slopes above GIendora had bu. med in the summer of 1968, it entered the debris basin. During the winter of 1978-79, Carter he did not make a strong comaecfioo between the fires and the Canyon was monitored, and at least two subsequent flows were debris flows. Rather, he cited the extremely large storms of that identified from bank und ch~,,,,el deposits, although they were period as the principal cause of the flows. Later work by Wells not actually observed. Dmmg that year, Carter Canyon produced (1982) suggested that large flows are more strongly linked to fires 3,100 m3 of debris, most of it as debris flows. than to even the largest storms. The problem of postfire debris During the fall and winter of 1984-85, an experiment to flows is not confined to southern California. Brown (1972) re- investigate the effects of burning on small watersheds was done at ported high peak flows and sedimentation rates from freshly the San Dimas Experimental Forest about 32 km northeast of burned watersheds in Ausu'alia. From h/.s account, it seems clear Los Angeles, Califomia. Four watersheds ranging in size from 15 that these were also debris flows, to 30 ha were preSCribe-burned on October 29 and 30. Studi~ of By the early 1940s, the connection between recent fires and debm movement both on hillslopea and in channels were among flooding was clearly recognized. Rowe and others (1949, 1954) several conducted in conjunction with .the fires. Obsidians and ~;~'!i~ Yade G. Wells, II, U.S. Forest Service, 110 N. wabash Ave, {!!: ~ ~t~lned. Pat~ Is p~es~ted to illustrate the sedimen~ discharge ::~ :~. > ~ATAWH ERO , (~p ref H]40:64~020) with rl~ established on the burl~ ~"~.' ' surface wbtch bec~me buried in 1975 with Waipaua alluvia. ');~ Fron 1975 t0 1978 tbe channel degraded. ':..~'~ · .. ~ 3O6 INTRODUCTION 100 percent. Figure 3 shows an example of these slopes in The coastal mountains of southern California present an Carter Canyon near the town of Pasadena in the Los Angeles interesting sedimentation problem in that periodic brushfire~ ~tropolitan area. The slopes in this picture actually range appear to play a major role in the erosion processes from 80 to 90 percent. operating on their slopes. Pour factors combine to create The mountains are mostly Mesozoic granite and a complex this problem: extremely steep slopes, easily-weathered parent of Frecambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks. As a rule, material, highly flammable vegetation, and the area's these rocks are poorly consolidated and weather very rapidly. Mediterranean climate. Aa a result, sedimentation rates are usually not weathering- This paper is primarily concerned with work that is limited, and there is always abundant sediment available for currently in progress. Therefore, much of ~he evidence transport. Soils are shallow, very coarse textured, and presenteg is qualitative rather than quantitative. The data rarely show any profile development. Because of tbis and which are presented are of a preliminary nature and are sti)! because of the extremely steep slopes, one of the most inconclusive. As a result, the hypotheses presented have common erosion processes is one called dry ravel. Dry ravel not been fully tested and are subject to considerable revislss, Is simply the unconsolidated flow of dry soil particles under the influence Of gravity. Many of the slopes in the area DESCRIPTION OF T~IE AREA exceed the unconsolidated angle of repose for the soil on them, The mountains of California's southern and south-central coa$~ ~o that only small disturbances (even wind) are required to generally trend from northwest to southeast following the yeti ~nitlate tbis process. On many of the hillslopes, this p~ocess active San Andreas Fault. Immediately north of tile Los is responsible for over half of all sediment movement Angeles Basin is an area called the Transverse Ranges where (Anderson ,t ~l., 1959, Kram~nes, 1960, Kranunes, 1965). the trend shifts to east-west. The information presented her~ The stability of slopes in this area is largely maintained is mainly from work done in one of these Transverse Ranges, by the vegetation growing on them. Over half of tile area is the San Gabriel Mountains. These mountains lie north of the covered by a highly fla~mable complex of evergreen-sclerophy~l Los Angeles metropolitan area and are the main source of its Shrubs called chaparral (Wells'and Palmer- 1979). Chaparral sedimentation problems (Fig. 2). is a vegetation type this is not only adapted to periodic The San Gabriel Mountains rise to heights of about 3000 fire, but is possibly even dependent on fire for its m~intenance metres from a base of about 200 metres. Slopes are extremely (Hanes, 1974). Muller et ~l. (1965) estimate that steep, averaging 60 to 70 percent and frequently exceedillqa given stand of chaparral will burn every 10 to 40 years, and in southern California, many areas have burned as many They also concluded that these accelerated erosion rates as five times slnce 1910.~ decreased rapidly over time and returned to normal in 8 to 10 The climate of the area, like all Mediterranean climates. is characterised by hot, dry supers and cool, wet winters. For smaller catchments and individual hill slopeS, these The driest months are July and August, and the period from rates appear to be even higher. Several unpublished reports August to November is one of hot, dry desiccating winds cal]~ i from the files of the U.S. Forest Service show increases of Santa Anas. These foe~n-type winds which blow across Califo~tl~ over two orders of magnitude after a fire. Data from one of in a south-southwesterly direction can create conditions o[ these reports is reproduced in Table I as an example. This extreme fire danger in a matter of hours. The rainy season table compares runoff and sediment delivery from two groups of begins in December and lasts until mid-April with January an~ 0.008 hectare plots on the San Dimas Experimental Forest near February being the wettest ~onths. Plants begin their spring Glendora, california (Fig. 4). The Fern Canyon group consisted growth about mid-February and continue through June. ThuS, of three plots on a 50 percent slope facing northwest. The southern California is presented with a yearly cycle of a Tanbark group consisted of nine plots on a 35 percent slope fire season, then a rainy season and, finally, a growing seaS~ facing east. Both groups of plots were established in 1934, ' and the data are for the period from October 1 1935 to BACKGROUND September 30 1946. Tbs Fern Canyon plots were burned on The accelerating effect of fires on erosion rates has been November lB 1938. recognised for more than 50 years. Records kept by the U.S. ~ 'The overall fire effect is evident from the data. Both Forest Service show that studies of this probtem had been Bediment delivery and runoff increased after the fire, but the proposed as early as 1927. The first quantitative study aPPe~: increase in sediment delivery is much greater. It is to be one p~lblished by Rowe e~ a]. in 1954. Working with interesting to note that the Fern Canyon plots recovered (returned rainfall records and reservoir data, they concluded that ~ to normal) by the end of the third year. This is much sooner sedimentation rates for large (~5 km2) catchments could be as than the time reported by Rowe e~ al. (1954) and is more in much as 35 times normal during the first year after a fire. agreement with the findings of Brown 11972) for burned catchments in New South Wales, Australia. He reported tha~ 1. Wells, W.G. and W.M. Brown (In Preparation). Effects of EQL Rep. NO. 16, Environmental Quality LabOratory, Calif. In~ time is related to basin size. of Tech., Pasadena, Calif., appendix D (section D4) . ~- ~ TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF RAINFALL FOR FLOOD-PRODUCING STORMS JANUARY 1969 STORM Sta. 1/18-22 1/23-26 1/18-26 11/14-18 2/7-12 1/12-18 1/21-23 2/27-3/4 12/29/1933- 2/12-16 4/4-8 12/17-23 1/14-19 2/18-21 12/22-26 2/14-18 Ho. Station Location 1969 1969 1969 1965 1962 1952 1943 1938 1/2/1934 1927 1926 1921 1916 1914 1889 1.__8884 10 Bel Air Hote~ Max. 24-hr. 4.84 5.48 5.46 3.00 5.14 6.04 7.38 6.83 9.96 Max. Day 4.84 5.48 5.28 1.98 3.80 4.02 6.59 6,83 5.67 Total 9.42 8.79 18.2! 5.54 12.90 10.82 10.74 12.6~J 11.35 32 Newhall Max. Day 3.16 5.02 5.02 4.88 5.23 3.97 7.64 5.38 5,55 3.63 3.11 6.02 2.87 Total 7.11 8.39 15.50 9.61 13.56 10.67 14.:~ 10.75 8.21 9.79 8.25 13.45 9.02 53 Colby's trax. 24-hr. 7.65 Inc. Inc. 3.99 8.05 4,96 20.23 11.56 9.35 8.70 trax. Day 7.51 12.40 12.40 3.99 7.35 4.76 15.38 10.95 8.01 7.34 8.26 13.85 8.81 7.40 Total 12.40 19.27 31.5---~ 8.94 14.99 14.17 27.40 18.81 11,64 16.28 23.53 29.00 18.50 22.50 57 Camp Hi Hill Max. 24-hr. 11.52 15.56 15.56 7.77 6.12 8.57 22,00 15.96 13.40 8.52 (Opid's) trax. Day 10.07 15.56 15.56 6.61 6.12 6.29 16.61 15.28 9.10 7.89 12.52 Total 21.01 24.16 45.17 19.22 20.31 20.96 33.66 27.27 17.93 19.39 24.16 33.95 85 tat. Baldy laax. 24-hr.10.38 13.85 13,85 7.37 4.05 5.29 19.27 13.80 7.68 Patrol Station trax. Day 10.38 11.04 11,04 4.95 2.60 5.29 15.37 11,67 5.36 9.05 6.50 10.65 Total 20,08 28.10 48.18.. 12.23 10.61 12.72 28.41 23.53 10.85 17.71 16.72 28.38 185 Glendora laax. Day 2.53 6.00 6.00 1.31 2.44 3.95 5.44 6.70 8.20 5.42 5.77 3.50 5.80 6.75 4.05 3.25 Total 8.38 9.22 17.60 4.55 6.91 7.36 11.20 13,72 16.24 11.09 10.20 9.23 14.02 13.05 8.07 10.23 224 Long Beach laax. Day 3.17 2.15 3.17 1.86 '2.90 2.11 3.00 3,70 2.32 3.17 3.09 1.81 1.38 1.24 Total 4.65 4.41 9.06 4.38 5.27 3.92 5.36 7.2c~ 3.94 5.14 4.85 3.98 4.95 3.24 235 Henniger Flat trax. 24-hr. 6.00 10.98 10.98 6.63 5.30 5.13 14.96 9.13 9.19 Max. Day 5.80 10.76 10.76 5.43 5.30 4.97 11.56 9.50 6.96 Total 12.87 15.68 28.55. 11.98 10.65 13.35 20.12' 18.17 11.74 259 Chatsworth laax. 24-hr. 2.94 4.59 4.59 5.62 5.44 5.05 8.41 6.33 laax. Day 2.85 4.16 4.16 5.23 4.06 3.46 6.9~1 6.10 Total 6.84 7.96 14.80.. 10.22 13.07 12.22 11.68 10.68 338 Mt. Wilson Max. Day 7.95 11.96 11.96 6.26 7.91 5.46 14.85 12.57 9.40 5.89 6.80 11.00 6.38 6.38 7.93 Total 16.64 18.67 35.31 15.91 16.99 11.47 29.60 26.23 15.48 14.46 14.62 23.03 13.40 19.40 13.86 XXI - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Under provisions of the authorizing legislation, the project would be operated ~aintained by local interests. The annual cost for operation and maintenance Of the longa project for debris basins and channels is estimated at $323,000. The lown of these costs is as follows: $135,000 ~el and debris basin structures $114,000 ; removal $ 74,000 ation facilities Debris removal from the debris basins is required when the basins are 25 percent ire full. On the average this will occur about every 5 years. Disposal sites have not designated; however, estimated costs of disposal sites are included in the cost ~te. It is anticipated that much of the material will be used as fill material on ely owned land. There never be boulders in the! should Ichannel- This is due to an improper desig~.i I & location of the spillway. It can plug the I · [channel or cause the channel ,vails to fa:'!.. [The Corps says the basin fails in about al 3" In 3 Hours. Cristiano consultants[ estimates show the problem.[ ' ' ' '"" ? '~ In December 1999, fl~e Army Corps L~ [£~-' .:;3CiIG9 , . 175 calculated that 2.97" of rain in 3-Hours -- ~ .,,r would generate 292 acre feet of debris. Think office debris generated by 20"+ of · in 24 08'5 limato~ The former state c infall ~s about 7" in p, $8 AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES GOODRIDGE State oi California ) ) ss County o! Mendoclno ) I, JAMES GOODRIDOE, declare and state as follows: 1. I worked for the California Department of Water Resouces for 30 years. From 1978 to 1983, I served as the State Climatologist. An Important part of my work was in developing procedures for analyzing rain records for hydraulic dost;in used by the Division of DamS and for the design of stormwater culverts by Caltrans. 2. My approaCh to design storms is one based on actual records o! rainfall and stream flow rather than lhird party works such as those published by the National Oceanic and Almospherk: Administration maps or . County Flood Control maps. 8y relying on actual records, I use the most up,to-date data sets for flood studies. The use of recent data is impoflant because of the upward trend in flood producing rainfalls In the lsat several decades as described in Impact of Climattc Variation On Flood Control Planning in California attached as Exhibit A. I have compiled rainfall depth duration frequency data on several thousand CalifOrnia weather records. 3. The stream41ow records I used for the evaluation of the Deer Creek Watershed are from the United States Geological Survey as published on CDROM by Earthlnfo inc. The rain records primarily were from Climatological Data, a monthly publication of the National Climatic Data Center, The rainfall records for this study also include records from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District and the Los Angeles County Public Works Department. These agencies have produced carefully quality-controlled records that are broadly relied upon with confidence for engineering design studies. 4. Attached as Exhibit B is a sample of the rain records relied upon by this study. The methods I use to analyze rain records are described in Historic Ratnst~?l~ts in California. published by the Depa~h,,eflt of Water Re-sources. To determine a design storm, I combine the results of many records in a region to avoid the situation where a small sample unduly Influences the outcome. This is a method utilized by the State of California Department of Water Resources and it is the procedure that has been long recommended in spillway safety studies. Such design storm averaging is the approach used on Exhibit C Analysis of 3 Hour STorm kt Deer Canyon. This was developed further on ExhibR D a Suggested Design Storm for 1 Day Storm on Deer Creek. O$7 was :33 inches of runoff in one day on January 26, 1969. The peak flow on January 25, 1969 in Day Creek was 9450 cubic feet per second. Th. is translates to 2053 cubic feet per second per square mile. The 33 inches in one day is the highest rainfall I have ever observed in my 50 years of reviewing rainfall records. 9. Strean~llow measurement,= are made in cubic feet (or cubic meters) per second. I have divided the flow volumes by the drainage area so that stream-flow and rainfall are expressed in co~m~on units, in order to help visualize the rainfall and runoff I~ers. 4070 cubic feet is 8070 or $6,850 acre inches. 96,800 acre inches divided by 4.$8 square miles or 2931 acres is 33.04 inches of runoff in one day. I know of no dally California rainfall that is higher. Day Creek and Cucamonga Creeks also had very large floods on March 2, 1938. 10.1 have ;viewed excerpts from the Army Corps of Engineers Design Memorandum for Cucemonga Creek which indicate that the Army Corps calculated that the 200-year storm for Deer Canyon was 3.27 inches over three *hours. This calculation ia substantially less than the 100-year storm based upon the actual rain guage records which would not have been available to the Corps in the t950s and 1970s. Under any circumstances, 3.27 inches is substantially less than my estimate of the 7.06 inches for the 100-year 3-hour storm for Deer Canyon. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Alftdavit was executed by me on the 1st day of November 1999 in Mendo¢ino, California. SIGNED AND SWORN BEFORE ME: DATE: [~t ~r~e,-~c~jL.,~ 089 Analysis of 3 Hour Storm in Deer Canyo ~t 34.1~ 34.~33 34.1~ 34.~ ~.~ 33.~ 34.~6 ~.~ ~.3~ 34.3~ 34.2~ ~329 34.~3 I~ng -I 17.525 -117.~ -117.~2 -117.~1 -I 17.627 -I 17.~2 -117.~9 -117.~0 -117.~4 -I 17.691 -117.0~ -1174~ -117,~ Elev 13~ ~7~ I~ ~ ~ ~5 ~75 ~ 47~ ~ 5~ 3~ 4~0 M~ 18.~ 27.~ 18~ 17.33 16.~ 14.~ 29~ 12.34 IO.~ 25,~ 33.~ I 1.7 ~.72 20.72 Avg 0.~ I,~ 1~ 0,87 1,31 1.14 1.74 0.87 0.79 I.~ 1.61 0~ l.~ 1,25 8tdev 0.~ 0..~ 0.59 1.16 0.39 0.41 0.79 031 0,30 0,~ 0.55 036 0.~ R~ ~ ~ 29 18 17 ~ 17 27 32 45 ~ 17 57 i~hes RP2 1.,~ 1.~ I,~ I.D5 1.19 1.~ 159 0,79 0.69 1.11 1.41 0.82 1.38 ~5 1.47 2.31 2.19 I.~ 1.76 1.52 234 1.17 t.~ 1.67 2.13 I.~ 2.08 RP ID 1.78 ZS0 265 1.~ 2.13 I.M 2.~ 1.42 1.29 2.~ 2.65 L~ 2.~ RP~ 2.16 3.~ 3.22 2.29 ~.59 2.~ 3.~ 1.72 1,60 2.57 3.~ i.~ 3.21 RP~ 2.~ 3,~ 3.~ 2.~ 2,92 ~.~ 3.~ 1.94 1.~ 2.M 3.74 2.17 3.~ ~ I~ 2.70 4,25 4,02 ~.~ 3,~ 2.~ 430 2. ~6 2,05 3.29 4,2D 2.~ 4. I I ~ 2~ 2.~ 4 ~ ,L41 3.14 3.55 3.~ 4.72 2.36 2,27 3,65 465 2.69 4.55 ~ ~ 3.29 5.18 4.~ 3.~ 4.~ 3.~ 5.~ 2.62 2.~ 4.10 5.22 3.~ 5.1 ~ RP 1~ 3.55 5,~ 5.29 376 426 3.~ 5.~ 2.~ 2.~ 4.45 5,~ 3,29 5.~ ~ I~ 4.37 687 6,~ 462 5.~ 4.~ 6.9~ 3.~ 3,49 5.~ 7.12 4.13 %~P Uni~ are ~n~ of m~n a~ual p~op~mti~n (~P) Ave~e RP 2 0,~ O.~ 0.~ 0.~ 007 0.~ 005 0.~ 007 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ ~ ~5 0.~ 0,~ 0.[2 0.~ O, I1 OI0 0.~ 0.09 0,10 0.~ O.~ 0.11 0,~ RPI0 0,10 0.10 0. I~ 0.11 0.1~ 0.~2 O. 10 0.12 0.13 0,~ O,~ 0.13 0.~ 0.1~ ~ RP25 O. 12 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.16 O. 10 0.10 OI6 0.~ 0.133 RP~ 0.13 0.14 IL20 OI5 O. 18 0.17 0.13 0.16 O, 18 D. 12 0. Il 0.19 0.11 0.15~ RPI~ 0.1,5 OI5 D,22 ~.17 0.20 0.19 ~[5 OI7 O,~0, 0.13 0,12 RP2~ 0.16 ' ~.17 ~.~ 0.18 0.~ 0.20 0.~6 OI9 0.~ 0,15 14 ~ RI'~ OI8 0.19 0.27 0,21 ~.25 O.~ OAS 0.21 0.25 O. I6 0,15 0.~ 0.15 ~1~ O,2D 0.20 0.29 0.~ 0.26 0.~ 0.19 O.~ 0.28 0.18 0,17 0.~ 0,16 ~ ~ I~ 0.~ O.~ 0.36 027 032 030 0.~ 0.~ 0.35 0.22 0.21 035 0.~ ~ Assumpfi~d I) Average t~mfff of ~r Cyn = 12 inc~. 2) consumpli ye ~ of naavg vggi~ion = 30 inch,s, Average ~nud ralnl~ll ~ 42 inche~ ~ ~fem ~ ~e return ~ri~ in y~s, l'he return ~ in t~ avem~ ~d~ in y~m ~lween eyeing of a giv~ magnilude. J~ Suggested Design Storm for 1 Day Storm on Deer Creek [~ng -I17.475 -117.~6 -117,29 -117.5~ -117.102 ,I17.~ -117.5~ ,11T476 -117,691 -117.59~ -!17.5~ -117.472 -117.5~ -117.474 [at 34.312 34,392 34~8 34.42~ ~.~ 34.571 34.1~ 34.312 ~,021 34,1~ 34,1~ 34,~5 34.~2 ~.~1 l~,. 3t 18 ~8 ~0 41~ ~ ~8 18~ 3118 ~0 122~ 13~ 1115 ~9 2760 MAP 17.74 t0.16 35.~ 7.~ 37.32 19.~3 20.65 18.13 15.27 17.57 ~.43 14.52 15.~ 35.1~ Incgm RP2 3.39 1.97 4.79 1.61 5.02 3.~ 3.51 3.~ 2,53 3,~ 3.05 2.31 2.53 5.72 RP5 5.~ 3.22 7.82 2.63 8.19 4,~ 5.~ 5.~ 3.~ 4.30 4.92 3.~ 4.08 $.91 RP l0 7,~ 4,~ 9.92 3.33 10.38 6.29 6.85 6,~ 4.~ ~. 13 6. 14 4. I~ 5,~ I RP25 8,~ 5.16 12,~ 4.2~ 13.15 7,~ 8.~ 8.32 5.89 6.14 7,~ 5.~ 6.34 ItP~ 1025 5.96 145~ 4.~ 15.18 9.21 9.~ 9,~ 6.~ 6.8~ 8.~ 5.0 7.24 RP 1~1 I 1.60 6.75 16.42 5.5} 17.19 10,42 10,79 10.~ 7.~ 7.58 9.78 6.~ 8.11 17.~ RP~ 12.93 7.52 18.31 6.15 19.16 11.62 11.91 Il.&5 8.~ 8.~ 10,81 6.85 8.~ 18.~ RP~ 14(~ 8.52 20,72 696 gl69 13,15 13,29 12,~ 9.14 9.14 12.10 7.~ 10~ 21.19 RP I~ I5.~ 9.30 22.62 7.~ 23.67 14.35 14.42 13.92 9,~ 9.~ 13.14 8.21 10.89 RP 1~ 20.25 11.78 ~.67 9.(~ 30.01 18.19 17.~ I7.19 12.25 1201 16.35 10.~ 13.~ ~,~ %MAP RP2 OI9 0.19 0.13 022 0.13 0.15 ~,17 0.20 0,17 0.17 O. 15 0.16 0.16 0.16 RP5 0,31 0,32 0.22 0.36 022 0.~ 0.27 0,3~ 0.26 0,24 O.~ 0.ZI 0.~ 0.~ RP I0 0.39 0.~ 0.28 0.45 0.~ 0.32 0.33 0.37 0.31 0.29 0.30 0.~ 0.~ 0.31 RP25 {I.~ O. 51 0,35 0.~ 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.~ 0.39 0.35 0.37 0.34 0.41 039 ~' RP 50 0.~ 0.59 0.41 0.~ 0.41 0.47 0,47 0.52 0.~ 0.39 0.43 0.39 0.47 ~ RP 1~ 065 0.~ 0.~ 0,75 0.~ 0.,~3 0.52 0,58 0.49 0.43 O.~ 043 0,52 0.49 RP 2~ 0.73 0,74 0.51 O.~ 0,51 0.59 0.58 0,~ 0.~ 0.47 0.~ 0.47 0,~ 0.~ ~ RP ~ 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.95 0,~ 0,67 0.~ 0.71 0.~ 0.52 0.59 0.52 0.65 0,~ ~ RP I~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.63 I.~ 0.~ 0,73 0.~ 0.~ 0.65 0.~ O.~ 0.57 0.70 0.65 ~, RP I~ 1.14 1.16 0.80 1.31 fl.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0.95 0.~ 0.~ O.~ 0.69 0.87 0.81 JDG ~agol Suggested Design Storm for 1 Day Storm on Deer Creel ~ -~17.~2 -117,~ .11T614 -117.6~ -117.651 .11T651 -117,~9 417.~5 -IIT675 -117,267 -117.65 l~t ~.26 34.~37 34,274 ~.1 34.~ 34.~2 34,086 34.052 34.~ 34,~63 34.133 34.136 ~ev 3~ 4275 ~5 1170 ~ 986 I I~ ~ ~3~ 11~ 1610 MAP 29.45 3~.58 34.26 16.~ 12.~ 16,81 17.69 17.38 26.K3 ~6,31 20.45 19~81 21.02 Inches RP2 5.82 5.55 5.08 2.~ 2,11 2.K3 281 2.~ 4.10 2.17 3.10 3,13 3.40 RP5 K52 8,72 9,32 3.59 3,31 4,~ 3,91 4.51 6.~ 3.49 4.61 4.~ 5,30 RP 10 10.29 10,79 12,~ ~.~ 4.10 5.16 4.~ 5.51 7.38 4.36 5,59 5.62 6.~ RP~ 12.~ 13.35 15,51 ~.~ 5.~ 6,29 5.~ 6,75 9,01 5.43 6.~ 6.~ 8.13 RP~ 1~,03 15.19 17,~ 5.6~ ~,76 7, I1 6.18 7,~ 10.19 6,20 7.67 7.71 9.27 RP I~ 15.55 16.~ 20.35 6,~ 6,~ 7.~ 6,~ 8.~ t 1,34 6.95 8.51 8.~ 10.37 RP2~ 17.~ 18.72 22.69 6,80 ~,10 8.68 7,41 9.35 12,~ 7.~ 9,34 9.39 RP~) 1889 ~.~ Z$.~ 7.~ 7.~ 9.~ 8,18 10.~ 13.~ 8,59 10.37 10.42 12,82 RP I~ 2039 22.67 27,~ 8,~ 8.59 10.43 8.79 11.26 15,~ 9.33 11.21 11.26 13.91 RI' 1~ 25.03 ~.12 35,~ 9.82 10.~ I2.~ 10.70 13,90 18.61 11.61 13.79 13.~ 17.33 RP2 0.20 0,17 0.15 0.15 0,16 0.17 0, t6 0.17 0.I5 0,13 0.15 0.16 0.17 6,~ RP 5 0.29 0.27 0.27 0,21 0.26 0.25 0,22 0.26 0.~ 0.21 0.23 0. Z3 0.~ 10,~ RP 10 035 0.33 0.35 0.25 0.32 0.31 0,26 032 0,~ 0,27 0.27 0.~ 0.32 13.33 RP~ 0,42 0.41 0,45 0.30 0.39 0,37 0,31 0.39 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.39 16.~ RP~ 0.~ 0.47 052 0.34 0,45 0,42 0,35 0,~ 0.38 0.38 0,37 0,39 0,45 18.~ RP I~ 0.53 0,52 0.59 0.37 0.~ 0.47 038 0.49 0.42 0,43 0.42 0.43 0,~ 2!.~ RP ~ 0.~ 0.57 0.~ O.~ 0.55 0.52 0.42 0,~ 0.~ 0.47 0.~ 0,47 0.55 ~.22 RP~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.75 0.~ 0,61 0.57 0.~ 0.~ 0.52 0,~ 0.51 0,~ 0,62 ~.~ RP 1~ 0,69 0.70 0,82 0.~ 0.~ 0.62 0.~ ~,65 0.~ 0.57 0.55 0.~ 0.67 ~. 18 RP 1~ 0.85 0.~ 1.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.76 0,61 0.~ 0.69 0.71 0.67 ~ 0.70 0.~ 35.~ JDG Page2 I I FROM LATHA~ & gATKiNS OC (gED) 11. 3' 99 19:26/ST. 19:18/N0, 4861487146 P R~off ~p~ ~on Frequency for ~y ~ ~ E~w~da ~yis By ~ ~gc ~ = 438 ~ ~ / 2931 AC Mfim~ MAgi' I 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 l~ 20 30 ~ 1~9 ~ 36 45 ~ 53 55 58 ~ ~ 70 ~ 153 57~ 1930 18 32 ~ ~ ~ ~ 74 81 ~ 1~ 142 227 720 1932 ~ 124 1~ 193 216 237 ~1 2~ 355 415 517 ~ 1933 11 · 20 24 ~ 32 35 38 · 41 ~ ~ 111 201 1938 ~ I~ 16~ 1~3 1~ 1~O 2035 2[37 2~ ~ 3~0 3983 6114 1939 103 1~ 142 152 1~ I~ 176 179 216 ~3 331 a50 1576 i~ 58 71 ~ ~ 1~ 12~ 139 152 I76 201 273 511 1~ 13 ~ 34 43 ~ 5~ 74 ~ 118 1~ ~ 356 916 1~7 74 ~ 124 1~ 169 1~ ~6 ~7 321 367 ~ 751 1 ~ t7 23 29 34 37 ~ 51 57 ~ ~ 95 ~ ~ 26~ 1~9 12 I8 ~ 29 ~ 37 ~ 43 ~ 52 ~ 13t 271 1952 59 ~ 121 14Z I~ 1~ ~ ~3 357 4t3 549 ~ 1767 1953 7 13 19 ~ ~ 35 ~ 49 53 ?I 92 1~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ 83 ~ 93 ~33 t~3 165 I~ 2~ 3~ 638 1955 8 I 1 13 15 18 21 26 29 35 39 aS 70 ~7 1957 ~ 50 ~ 4t ~ ~ ~ 79 95 t~ t35 2~ 365 1959 lOl 126 1~9 ~ 155 161 I~6 191 215 226 2~ !76 395 t~1 5 g ~ 12 t4 16 19 19 21 23 26 35 1~3 21 M ~ ~ 47 51 56 ~ 63 ~ 75 89 t~5 6 11 14 17 19 20 23 ~ 33 42 53 ~ 1~7 3~ 363 3~ 503 539 563 ~ 635 ~ 7~ ~ ~ 2~1 1~ 21 30 3g ~ 51 ~ ~ 74 105 132 1~ ~3 ~9 I~ 27 ~ ~ 75 ~ 98 118 135 173 203 ~1 359 FRONt LATH.AM & %YATK!NS 0C (~YED) 11. 3' 99 19:27/ST. !9:18/*'0. 4861487146 P 34 Pamofl' Depth ~ F~ f~ C~ Cr ~ Upl~d 095 Analysis of 3 Hour Storm in Deer Canyon 8 8 8 ~ ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ Elev 13~ ~0 I~ ~ 2~ 555 4275 8~ 47~ ~ ~ 3~ 4~0 ~ M~ 18.~ 27.~ 18.02 17.33 16.27 14.~ 29.57 12,34 lO.~ 25.~ 33,77 Il,7 34.72 ~ Ava 0.~ L72 1.~ 0~ 1.31 ].14 20.72 ~ Sider 174 0.~ 0.79 1,26 1,61 0.~ l~ ~ 0.~ O.~ 0.~ 1.16 0.39 0.41 0~ 031 0.~0 0,58 0.55 036 0.~ 0.52 o ~ ~ 29 18 17 20 17 27 32 45 ~ 17 57 34 E Inches ~ ~2 I.~ I.~ I.~ 1.~ [.19 1.~ l.~ 0.~ 0.69 l.ll 1.41 0.82 1.38 ~5 1,47 2.31 2.19 1.55 i.76 1.~ 2.~ 1.~7 I.~ 1.67 2.13 1.~ 2.~ RP l0 1.78 2.~ 2.65 ]-~ 2.13 I.~ 2.~ 1.42 1.~ 2.~ 2,~ 1.53 2,~ ~25 2A6 3.~ 3.22 2.~ ~,~ 2.~ 3.~ 1.72 I.~ 2.~ 3.28 1,~ 3.21 RPS0 2.~ 3.~ 3.~ 2.~ 2.92 2.~ 3.~ 1.~ I.&q 2,~ 3.74 2.17 3.~ ~ 1~ 2.70 4.~ 4,~ 2,86 3.~ 2,80 4.~ 2.16 2.05 3.29 4.20 2.43 4.11 ~ ~ 2.~ 4.~ ~,41 3. 14 3.55 3,~ 4.~ 236 227 3.&5 4.~ 2.69 4.55 ~ 3.29 5~18 4,~ 3.~ 4.~3 3.~ 5.~ 2.62 2.~ 4,10 5.22 3.~ 5.11 RP 1~ 3.55 5.~ 5.29 3.~6 4.26 368 5.~ 2.~ 2.78 4.45 5.~ 3.29 5.~ ~ ~ 10~ 4~7 6.87 6.50 4.62 5.~ 4.~ fi95 3.~ 3.49 5.59 7.12 4.13 6.~ ~ %~P Unim ~e ~r~nt of m~ annual p~ipirafion (MAP) m Average ~ ~2 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.07 0.~ 0.05 0.~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ 0,~ 0.~ ~ ~5 0,~ 0.~ 0.12 0.~ 0.11 0.10 0.~ 0.09 0. I0 0,07 0.~ O. ll 0.~ 00~ ~ ~10 0.10 0,10 0. I5 0.11 0,13 0,12 040 0.12 0.13 0.~ 0,~ 013' 0.~ 0.1~ ~ RP25 ff12 0.12 0.18 0.13 0,16 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.16 0,10 0, I0 0.16 0.~ ~ RP~ 0.13 0,14 0.~ 0.15 0.18 0,17 0.13 0.16 0.18 0,'12 O. ll 0.19 0.11 ~ ~ RPi~ 0.15 0.17 0.20 ' 017 0.13 0.12 fill ~ ~ 0,~ 0.16 0.14 ~ ~ 0la 0.19 0.29 0.21 0.25 0.~ 0.18 0.21 0.~ 0.16 0.15 0.26 0.15 m ~1~ 0.20 0.20 0,29 0.22 026 0.25 0,19 0.~ 0.~ 0.18 0A7 0,~ 0.16 m ~ l~ 0.~ 0.25 0.36 0.27 0.32 0.30 0.~ 0,~ 0.35 0.~ 0.21 0.35 0.~ Assumpfioad 1) Average ~H~f of ~r Cyn =12 inch., 2) consumpti ye us6 of native v~8i ~io~ = 30 inc~& Average anm~ miqfa~l = 42 ~ ~ refe~ ~ tho tatum ~fi~ in ~. The tatum ~fi~ Ja ~ average ~ in y~ ~tw~n event~ ~ a giveo magniiqde. California Stations Reporting 10 Inches of Runoff in One Day Based on Average Daily Flow · . Max Da P k Peak U05 I1 [.196000 JlainesCrm'Tujunga LosAngeles -118.27134.264 2430 I 2 58.02 14,36 10.84 35(} 142 118 1943 I 23 005 II 096Ofi0 Ha/nesCYnrTujunga Lr~ Angeles -I 18.27134.264 2,:130 12 58.02 14.36 11.[5 360 74 62 1944 2 22 F30 II 521500 Ir',dianCmeknrHappyCamp Sisldyou -IZt.38241.835 1189 120 IO3.43 78.29 [5,61 30,700 39,003 325 1965 12 22 FO0 I1.~32500 SmithRiver DelNorle -124.05441.7Ig9 90 609 112.57 83.26 10.99 180,000 228,000 374 1965 12 22 YOI I1 067000 DayCrm. gtawanda San ~,emardlno -117.5393-:1.185 2870 458 34,?.8 12.35 33.04 4,070 9,450 2,05.3 [%9 I 25 Y01 11073470 CmamongaCl-nrUpl~nd SanBcrnard~do -[17,531 34174 , U04 Ii 10401V3 Topa~Cfra-roRa!lga 2360 f0.1 34,28 10,80 149! 4,050 14,100 1,396 1969 I 25 LO*~ Angeles :' -118.56934.~67 2,r~ 17.9 22.60 4,46 1~22 4,920 t2,200 682 1969 I 25 TI21! 138500 Sisqu~Rnr:~sc~tscc' l~adlaBatbata -t20.16~734.8~0 9624 '&19 37.49 13.~2 12.26 14,800 21,400 477 1969 1 ~'5 XI910256500 SnowCrhrWhilcwatcr RJversi0c -116.680 33.84i 200 !08 24.58 1074 1202 3,490 9,~ 917 1969 ! ~.3 YO1110758CO SanliagoCYatModjcska Omge: -117.64433.420 1210 13 2612 7. gig 10.27 3,$90 6~520 502 1969 ~ 24 U02 Il l17600, CoyoteCln~OfikView ~/enmra -115~371934.4[7 577 132 25.28 11.55 1216 2980 8,000 606 1978 3 4 Fg0 11463170 BiggulpherCYalThcG.yscr~ Sonoma ~122.80138,798 1420 13.1 71,98 46.03 11.13 3,920 5,703 435 1986 2 17 Fgo I1463170 BigSulphetCratTh~Oeyaers So~qoma -122.8OI 38.798 1420 13.1 71.56 46.03 10.64. 3,750 7,550 576 1995 ~ 9 Column headings: : : Mmxlmum :13.04 SO Mi = Whtetl~h~ s[z~ in ~ar* n/it=s ' ·. MAP = mean am/ual ~cipilatioh MAR = mean ~aual mar/r MDR = Maaimura Daily'Runoff cfa = Max Day Peak Flow ia Cubic Fe~t Per Seaond, Baesd oa Average Daily Flows as rrl~rted by USGS cfs= Inslantaneo~ Peak CSM = Cubic feet per seCOnd ~¢c square dl lc.. I&19~9 aOM ~t~ &WATK:NS OC (gmD) ll. e'aa ~o ': ' Impact of Climate Variation On Flood Control Planning in California By Jim Goodridge Box 750 Mendocino CA 95460 .. Prepared for the 1999 California Weather Symposium Sierra College, Rocklin CA, June 26, 1999 Abstract lfthe rainfall climate were a stationary time series, one 50-year p~rriod would be as good as any other for defining flood thr~ts. This is not the reality. The more recent 50 yea~ is considerably weuer ~han the previous $0 years with important lessons for flood conwol planning. Rainfall data of the last 100 years were cratmined on several scales if storm duration for long term trends. These included the maximum one-day, ten and thirty consecutive days and the annual total ram. On each time scale there is a notable increase in rain in the last half of the records. Flood consol planners need to have curreut and reliable hydrologic records to forecast trendin§ flooding potential. Engineering design feeds offthe agra ser~ that are compiled for current weather and flood forecasting; but with an added burden of needing weJl-documented and long historic records. Knowledge of both the historic scene as well as data trends are critical To understanding flood fla-,a.ts. The realities of climatic variation need be rooted in observafiou. The increased climale variation in California is related to sea sm'face temperature nnd ocean current5, Forces associated with ocean carrents and upwellin§ are examined. Their impacts on both rainfall and mmperamn: trends are studied. These forees include Solar constant variations and thermohaline cycle invigoration and length of day variations, The impact of obsm'ved climate variation on older llood con~rol prOJects is that based on current hydrologic records they are undersized for their intended level of protection. Why is the weather changing? W* have lived with the concept of climate as a stationary time series since Dr. Reichelderfer's time. It's time for a fresh look. The source of weather and climate is solar energy. The reality of climatic variation has to be rooted in observation. Solar radiation has been measured at ground level for many years. The energy output of the Sun is about 1366 Watts per square meter at the top of the a~nosphere. Clouds and water vapor reduce this energy at ground level by 50 to 90 percent. Ground surface measurements of solm energy trends are therefore not helpbal in assessing I ..-093 ?RO~ L^TbIq~ & ~ATKINS OC (~ED) 1I. 3' 99 19:20/$T. 19:i8/N0. 4861487146 variation in solar output. The Smithsonian Institute supported nearly a half-century of unsuccessful solar constant investigation at places like the top of Mount Whitney and Table Mountain early this century. The ground bast solar energy measurements have an accuracy at best of only a few percent. The Solar Constant has been measured successfully from above the atmosphere aboard orbiting satellites since 1978. These measurements have varied from 1365.6 to 1366.7 watts per square meter. The solar constant measurements were found to vary as the ' Wolf Sunspot Numbers. The correlation coefficient between the Solar Constant and sunspot numbers (~2) is .9 indicating that 95 % of the anatmn in the solar constant is described by sunspot numbers. N^, A solar c~. ns.tant index was developed for this study for the period 1700 ~o 2006. v,a-q, esm'nateo solar constant values from several satellites were used for 1977 to 1998. Correlation was made with the measured sunspot numbers for 1770 to 1976 and bom the NASA projected of sunspot numbers for the 1999 to 2006 per~ods. The solar constant has been the highest since 1770 in the recent 50 years (See Figure I). The additional heating on Earth from a higher solar constant can only cause a greater evaporation from equatorial Oceans, more atmospheric water and therefore more clouds. More evaporation means a higher salt concentration on the surface of the equatorial oceans. A greater water density due to increased salt of the surface waters of the equatorial oceans means an invigorated thermohaline cycle of Earth's oceans (See Figure 2). An invigorated thermohaline cycle results in more upwelling of cold ocean bottom water of the Asian Coast at about latitude 40°N. This upwelling if real would be evident in the sea surface temperature pattern of the North Pacific Ocean. Figure 3 is a map of the Pacific Ocean North of Latitude 20o. The main feature ora 51-year thermal history oftbe North Pacific Ocean is a declining temperature lxend. This covers the 51 years from 1947 to 1997. 'Ibis temperature trend in the North Pacific vahes from about -5°F per century offthe Japan Coast to +3 ° per century offthe Central California Coast. An invigorated thermohaline circulation could result in higher sea levels on the California Coast that would reduce upwelling of cold water. The upwelling index o f the NOAA Marine Fishery group supports this concept as shown on Figure 4. The upwelling index is actually computed on daily. This generates Iht too much data to visualize long term trends · so the plots of F~gure 4 are a nine-year running average of the annual averages. The trend at 39°N and 125°W Shows a sharp peak in mid 1970's. Thc sea water temperature al Bodega Bay is shown on Figure 5 with an upward lxend of about 3°F per 100 years and a notable upward trend starting in 1971. The San Diego records on Figure 7 illustrate a relalionship between sea level and air temperature. Nine-year averages of trend-adjusted sea level and trend adjusted air temperature records look remarkably similar in their long-term trends. 2 FROM LATHAM & WATKiN8 0U (iYED) 1I. 3' 99 19:21/$T. ~9:18, .X0. 4861487146 P 9 Tropical storms represent the connective dissipation of heat of sea water over about 80'F. Whiner sea surface temperatures mean an increase in ~e frequency d tropieal storms. Tropical ~ frequency of thc Eastern North PacitSc Ocean luts increased from about 10 per year to about 1 g per year over the last 50 years_ The number cd tropical storms per year is shown tm Figure 6. Air temperatures at c, onmfl ~ites ate highly correlated with th~ ~a surface ~emperature as shown on Figure I!. The land based air temperatures at California stations ' ' were correlated with the sea surface temperature at a five-degree grid point centered at 35'N and 125'W and shown on Figure 9. The areas of high correlation with sea surface temlx, ratur~ are ~jacant to the coastline. Interior valleys show little or no correlation of nit and seawater temperature. The high sea surface temperatures could have influenced urban heat islands studies, a.s most large California cities ate aajacent to the Pacific Ocean. The degree in which the sea surface te,.,perature influences the urban heat island smdi,~ of Figure 10 Tl~e annual total rain history of California has been modeled using 39 rain long- term records that were complete for the period 1876 to 1998. These wen: averaged are pltmed on Figure 11. There is an upward trend in nSi_~ data set. The recent increase in wet years is evident since there were 6 years over 40 inches in the ~ half of the record and only one in the first haft. A nine-year mnulng average of the coefficient of variation (CV) was used on Pigtue 12 to model the trend in wet yesr ftvquency. The increase in CV at'mr 1975 (from Figure 12) corresponds with an increase in sea surface tem.nerature fct thc Northeast Pacific Ocean (shown on Figures 3 and 9). The C-'V increase corresponds as w~ll with the dec. tease in the upwelling in_d,5_.x shown on Figure ~t and the increase in sea surface temperature shown on Figure 5 for BOdega Bay. The increase in CV furthei- con, spends with tl~ increase in tropical storm frequency shown on Figu~ 6. The increased variation m California rainfall seems de£mitcly related to sea surface temperature and ocean curren~ and hence with the increase in the Solar Constant. An increase in severe flooding is also associated with th~ increase in CV ns shown in Figure 13 where the number of 100e-year rainfalls in California has increased along with me CV. Douglas Hoyt nnel Kenneth Schatten in their book The Role of the Sun ia Clim,t~ Change used a 45-year running average of Weft Sunspot Number~ to their studies. This sngge~ a similar investigation using California rain records. Them was a 1930 study for a rainfall index for Los Angeles based on proxy records at the Old Spanish Missions extending back to 1769, by H.B.Lynch. When a 45 year CV based On rainfall combined Lynch record and the Los Angeles rain records was prepared. It was comlmred to the 45 year rtmnlng average of the solar constant series. A plot of the Solar Constant and Los Angeles rainfall index shows interesting peak in the present era and about 1550, m shown in lqgure 14. 3 lO1 FROM LATHA~ & WATKINS OC (WED) lt, 3'99 lg:2I/'$T, 19:!8/'NO. 486i487146 P Il) (~mmgcs in ~¢ rola~onal velocity of Em-& arc an cxprnssion if the engular momellmm of the combined ~ ~ am~osphere sy$l~n~ The tolal :m.~e Of thc ennoephe.re i.,, ebotu thc ~uivalcnt of a bell of Iced ~0 mi~es in diamct~. Thc lc'n~& day variations (LOD) a~ monitore~t dsily ~ mildlonths of se~-d~ by thc Naval Obscrvaso~ who have IclndJy supplied dat~ fo~ th~s study. Variation in ~¢ east-west w~nd compon~'n~t is ~-l:~u~ibl~ for over ~ {3~nt of va.,~ation in thc The co~dcnce betwecn thc variation in LOB and ocean upwelling off thc California Coast (as seen on t~igur~ 15) s~lggc~t~ a wind driven sysfem rather than a simpic thcrmohalinc drivcn system. This is because of t.~ doll~innnc~ 03[ atI~o~pl~-~ric in LOD variation. A decrease in oceanic upw¢llin§ in thc mid 1970's off the California Coast follows the mid 1970's decrease in the LOD variation in. The thermobelinc drivcn system provides the cold water in thc Western North Pacific Ocean. The dominant la.vfiug trend in cold water suggests higher barometric pressure in fl~¢ wesk Thc warm ~cmpcratures of the Eastern North Pacific Ocean suggests long lasting low baromeuic prr, ssures in that region. The pressure differences could dtiv~ the winds reflcctin~ in the variation in the LOD statistic. A decrease in oceanic upwelling is therefore indicates an increase in ~a surface t~mp~ture (as seen on Figtuv 16). An increase in s~a.stn'facc ~cmpcrature off our coast means an iacrease air tempcrat~e trends in California (as seen on FiBure 8). The increa.~ in tropical storm frequency in the North-east Pacific (as seen on ~gerc 7), thc increased variation in total ruiltfal] and the number of extreme f'ainfnlls (as seen O~l ~,ure 13) are all associated wi& ~ higher SST in the North-east Pacific Occnn. The conclusions from this study are that California rainfall and temperature variability a~ in response to an increa.~ in the "solar constant" and Re observed atmospheric hcatiug is from sca surface tcmperatllre and increase .n_nd urban thcrmal pollution and not a "global ~reenhou~e effect~. The upw¢liing of cold water on thc Asian coast is quite clearly driving our We~t Coast tempcrautre s upward and inere.~in$ our sever storm frequency. 5/18/99 102 FROM LATHA~ & WATKiNS OC (WED) II. 3' 99 19:22/ST. 19:I8/N'O. 486i487i46 TaMe! Trends Extreme Rainfall in California Storm Linear Trend Period of Number of Duration a b Record Stations Maximum 1 Hour -0.96 0.00075 1940-1998 97 Maximum 6 Hours 0.43 0.00048 1940-1998 98 Daily -1.05 0.00175 1898-1997 83 10 Days -3.44 0.005 1898-1997 83 30 Days -7.33 ' 0.0081 1898-199"/ 83 Annual -4.33 0.0146 1898-1997 83 Annual 10.2 0.0084 1876-1998 39 A stationary time series would have a slope "b" of "0" Stationary with respect to what? In this case Flood Control Project Development. FROM LAT~M & WATKiNS OC (WED)Ii. 3'99 19:22,/$T, i9:IS/NO. 4861487146 P I2 .- 104 FgOM LATHAM & WATKiNS OC (WED) Ii. ~'99 19:22/ST. '9:~8/N0. ~"~ .... ,oot~o,~o P l: Figure 2 Used without Penmssion Frem: Meteorology Seventh Edition By Richard A. Anthes Published By Prentice Hall 1997 105 FROM LATH.~V: & WATKiNS OC (WED) il. 51 Year Trend in North Pacific Sea Water Temperature 1947 to 1997 Colder Warmer $1.5 67 106 FROM LAT P'.~M Up .We~ng Index ~m No~ ~e~n W~ C~I 107 7tOM LATiuM & WATKINS OC (WED) Ii. 3' 99 19:22/ST. i9:18,/N0. 4861487146 .- 108 FROM LATFLa~ & WATKINS OC (:,rED) 11. 3' 99 19:23/ST. 19. 8;Nv. 4861487145 P 17 California Air Temperature Vs. Sea Surface Temperature at 35°N 125~W · . 42 · ,7 i ~ 2 Dam for 1948 to 1997 .,t - o. / o0-., I 40. ~. ,, 0 o ~ .s-.$ [ :, o 0°°%°°0 ~9- '\ ° ° / ,, oo .. :.-..-..[ 35'N 12~,* W t~ o o x'!. / ;o Figur~ 8 109 FiOM LATI4~M & WATIiNS 0C (~ED) I1, 3'99 i9:23/ST. I9:lS/N0,~e,~6~487t46` ' ,P 18 Sea Surface Temperature at 30°N & 125°W 62 1940 1950 1960 ~gum9 .- 110 FROM LATHAM & WATKiNS OC (WED)ll, 3' 99 19:2J/S,., 19:18/N0. 4861~0714o P GLOBAL WARMING An Urban Phenomenom in California Temperature Trends at 107 Statons for 1909 to 1994. Stratified by 199~ Poplllafion of the COunty whe~ station is located. 62' Avera~ of 51 1900 1920 1940 19~0 l!~O 2000 Y~ar The apparcm 'Global Wam~.g' is in reality urban wa~e heat alfecting only ufo~n areas. To ~k~ the wodd~ ~nl~ in aries is like t~t. lng it a~ ,h., s/re cf & f~g ~ t:igu~ 10 111 FROM LATIUM & WATKiNS OC (WED)ll, B'99 !9:23/ST. 19:IS/NO. 4861487146 P 20 California Av~ag¢ R~in 1876 to 199~ 112 FROM LATHAM & WATKiNS 0C (WED) 1!. z' Q ~ 9, 19:23/S'T. 19:18/N0. 486[487146 California Rainfall Variation and .Severe Storm Frequency Compared ]3~ on ~e Iverag~of~ mia ~conia wiOa data fro- 1898 ~o 1997. .< Year .-113 FROM LATH~&f & WATKiNS OC (WED)l!, ~'99 19:24/~T. I9:I$/N0, 4861487146 P 22 Variation in Rainfa//at Los Aagel~s Compar~ wi~ thc ~o1~ Co~t 1~0 to 1~ ~gure 14 114 FROM LATt~M & ~ATK[NS OC (~ED) ll, 3' 99 19:24/ST, 19:[8/N0, 486[487146 P 25 Depth l)ur,afloo Frequ~cy I'or i~.~ning Sl~.hi-~ 117 & ~/ATKINS OC 0YED) 11. 3' 99 19:24/ST, 19:t8/N0. 4861487146 P 26 YOI D Little Creek RS Rainfall Depth Duration Freqnency for Lytle Creek RS DW~R # Y01 5218 00 Saa Bcraardino County LatRud~ ~4.231 ° ~ by DWR DLA 8am Longin,~lo - 117.474° Dam F~om: Climatological i)ala 2N/6W-26 Elevation 2760 Maximum. Rainfall For lagicalt~ Numh(~ Of Coa~cugve Days 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 15 20 30 60 W-YR 1981 232 4.44 5.13 5.~3 5.68- 5.68 6.05 6.75 6.75 6_75 8.35 - .14.98 20.3~ 1982 630 10.01 10.56 11.44 IZ21 12.51 13.86 1336 14.13 19,14 20.65 23_95 42.55 1983 8.41 10.73 12.20 15~95 18.27 1938 19.55 19.56 19.58 20-01 23.2.2 40.81 76.17 1984 3.60 5,50 5.50 5.51 5-51 5.51 5.51 5.52 6.24 6.24 9.20 1430 20.92 1985 4.65 7.10 8.92 9~92 123-7 12.~,7 12.3-7 12.69 17.31 17.74 18.34 23.24 32.30 1986 4.59 5.84 5.84 6.34 8.55 9.05 10.15 10.15 10.36 13.89 16.21 26.37 45.61 1,'~7 ~ 4.04 4.~. 4.80 430 42~0 43Q 4.80 4.80 430 4_92 7.19 16.07 1988 3~O 5.50 5.50 5.50 5,50 5.S0 5.R8 6.54 6.92 6.92 7.29 12_36 35-09 1989 2.90 3.61 3.89 3.9:/ 3.97 3.97 3.97 6.t4 6.23 6.35 7.85 12.39 19.17 1990 5.18 5.27 5.27 5.79 7.23 7.24 7.79 7.84 7.84 7.84 8.23 14.49 20.30 1991 8.2.5 14.,15 14.30 1435 1435 14.88 14.93 14.93 16.01 20.33 2830 29.13 33.01 1992 6,00 11.02 13.22 1339 13.49 .15.24 15-76 17.61 18-01 18.01 22.78 33,81 48.19 1993 990 10.10 13.i30 t4..42 18.32 24.52 2'g.90 25.70 37.72 37.72 44.81 66.26 86.54 19o~ 6.98 6.98 6.98 6.98 8.78 8.78 8.78 8.78 10.68 12.31 13.17 17.84 23.85 1995 8.55 11.80 14,80 18.00 18.80 19.43 25.05 26.95 ,*'/.78 28.18 34.89 43.~, 71.75 1996 7.00 12.10 13.35 13.35 13.35 13.35 13-98 15.03 15.06 17.54 20.77 23.71 ,~2.61 1997 4~&5 6.62 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.82 7.82 12.27 14.39 14-.79 25.89 37.21 1998 6.44 10.54 55.08 1999 Average 5.61 7.59 8.49 9.22 10.12 10.70 11.38 .12.05 13.14 14.00 16,29 ~ 35.13 Stdev 3.02 3.86 4.34 4.98 5.77 6_43- 7.t2 7.12 7.90 8~21 9.49 13.99 17.97 RecMan 21.61 24.63 25.80 28.67 33.77 37.63 42_27 4.2.30 44.19 44.47 49.44 66.54 89.02 Rea Mia 136 2,52 2.52 2.52 2.52 3.53 3.53 3-57 3.57 3..92 4.44 6.04 11.21 Z 6`13 4.66 4.00 4.15 4.63 5.07 5.50 5.17 4.86 4.54 4.37 3.82 3.71 Y~ Rec 52 52 51- 51. 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 50 68 CV .539 .508 .511 .540 .570 .601 .626 391 .601 .586 .552 .613 .512 Reg CV .466 .482 310 308 305 .4_97 .494 .435 .486 .479 .465 .502 .413 ~ 1.2 1.3 13 1.2 1.2 1.2 LI 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,4 1.0 FIC 1.14 1.07 1.04 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RP2 5.72 7.26 7.88 8.41 9.09 9.44 10.10 10.89 11.85 12.66 14.74 19.67 32.18 RP5 8.91 11.09 12.07 13.13 14,50 15_41 16.68 17.45 19.13 20_23 23A9 32.67 48.75 RP 10 11.00 13.6.5 14.87 16.21 18.03 19.31 20.92 21.60 23.72 Zi. DI 29.01 41.51 59.21 RP25 13.58 16.82 18,34 20.01 22.39 24:t2 26.09 26;60 29.27 30.78 35.68 52.58 71.84 RPS0 15.43 19.13 20.86 22.74 25,52 27.58 29.78 30.16 33.21 ~..b'"/ 40.42 60.66 80.81 RI" 100 17.23 ZL38 23.32 25.40 28.57 30.94 33.36 33.558 37.01 38.82 44.98 68,36 89.46 I~P200 18.99 22~58 25.73 25~q 31.55 3A_?.4 36.83 36.90. 40.69 42.65 49.40 76.35 97.83 R.P500 21.19- 26.36 23.76 3-1.23 35.26 38.3-3- 41AO 40.95 45.18 47.3.2 54.80 86.24 108.06 RP 1000 22.97 28.58 31.19 33.86 38.28 41.66 44.65 44.3Z 48.91 51.21 59.29 94.07 116.56 RPIO000 28.46 35.53 38.79 41.97 47.58 51.92 55.41 54.48 60.17 62.91 72.82 118.90 142.19 t 1t2~99 118 & WATKINS OC (WED) 11. 3' 99 I9:25/8T. I9:18/N0. 4861487146 P 27 Y01 O Lytl~ Cte~ RS R~infall Depth Duration Frequency for Lytle Creek RS DWR # Y01.5218 00 San l~*raardiao County La~.. _ae_ 34.231 ° Amalysis by DWR DLA 8am Longitude -117.474° Data From: Cllmmological Data 2N/6W-26 l~va~on 2760 Fee~ Maximum Rainfall For ladica~l NumberOf Concecmiv¢ Days I 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 15 20 30 60 W-YR 1951 5.60 5.09 5.27 642 7.67 7.85 735 7_85 7.85 7.85 7.85 9.99 26..80 1932 4.00 5.20 5.60 5.60 5.60. 5.60 6,60 9.70 11,15 13.t5 15.75 20.67 3631 1933 12.34 1934 11.21 1935 17.77 1936 24.19 1937 52.68 1938 34.16 1939 3830 19~0 28.30 1941 75.78 1942 31~17 1943 46.82 1945 44.50 1946 32.00 1947 38.11 1948 25.71 1949 437 5.12 5.41 6,59 7.14 7.17 7.17 8.17 1201 12,01 13.20 23.75 26.70 1950 435 5,45 5.92 5.92 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 6.82 6.82 1035 12.55 9677 1951 958 2,52 2.52 2,3.2 2.52 3.57 3,$7 3.57 3.57 4.21 4.44 6.31 14.42 1952 7,85 11.06 11.11 tt.ll t4.55 17.76 t7,81 17.8t 18.82 23.87 23.87 30.68 ~6.75 1953 5.44 5.4A 5.44 5.44 5.44 5.44 5.44 6.09 9.04 9.04 9.73 17.94 22.85 1954 8.~2 9-15 9.15 9.15 9.15 10_55 15-1.8 1_5.18 16.46 16.46 21.80 7,4.20 35.82 1955 3~0 3.60 3.60 3,60 3~0 3~11 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.92 5.8/ 9.20 23.15 1956 7.70 10.01 1L93 1t.93 11.93 12.4I tt,93 11.93 11.93 11.93 13.43 27.15 23.22 1957 5.40 5.40 5.49 6.79 6.79 7.69 7.69 9.9~ 9.94 10.56 12_66 16.65 23.56 1958 8.11 9~3 10_43 I0.78 -t0.81 10.8.1 1335 13.58 15.10 16,85 2L15 36.03 56.03 1959 435 4,88 6.17 6.70 6.70 6.70 lO.0O 11.82 12.56 1237 12.57 16.97 19.24 1960 3.50 5.03 5.36 5.36 633 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 7.04 8.42 10.94 18.5~ 1961 1.86 2_77 3.11 3,53 3.53 3.53 3.53 4.84 4.84 4.84 6.07 7.60 13.09 1962 431 4.97 4.97 635 7.68 7.78 8_gg lO.OI 12.99 13.88 1..5_11 20.66 34.70 1963 5.60 576 5.76 5.76 5.79 5.70 5.79 5.79 6.88 6.91 6.91 10.00 17.58 1964 2.66 5.14 5.14 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.t6 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.22 6.04 20.11 1965 2.85 5.25 6.13 6.67 9-83 9.83 7.85 11.96 12.26 12.26 12.93 13.2~ 22.70 1966 7.80 9.10 11.80 12.30 12.33 12.33 16,12 20.12 22.80 22.80 24.15 34.04 39.14 1967 435 7.69 9.29 10.82 15.37 15.37 15.37 15.58 15.64 15.69 24.15 34-04 45.83 1968 3.28 Z55 6.02 6.23 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.62 8.13 8.20 9.73 10.97 21.93 1969 21.61 24.6~ 25.80 28.67 ~.'/7 ~/.6~ 42.27 42.30 44.19 44.47 49.44 66~ 74.02 1970 3.12 5.22 7.0.3 7_05 7_27. 9.03 9.03 9_04 9.21 9.21 1134 14.16 1~.62 1971 4.:/0 6.54 6.59 &90 7.22 7.22 7.58 7.58 7.76 7.92 15.45 15.50 24.65 1972 4.72 8.53 9.50 1t.45 12,42 14.00 15.26 15.26 15.60 15.80 15.96 16.8. 19.69 1973 8.05 10.51 11.19 11.19 11.87 12,76 13.44 14.12 1435 16.30 18.77 211.74 4~.87 1974 5.47 10.54 15.29 15.50 15_50 1530 t5.M 16.05 16.05 1631 16.69 17.68 34.63 1975 5.02 5.79 7.76 8.02 8.61 9.09 9.09 10~26 10.38 11.06 11.53 16.72 29.88 1976 4.84 6.73 7.55 9.96 11.85 13.72 13.72 13.72 13.72 13.72 18.77 19.02 29.54 1977 3.97 6.13 6.88 6.88 8.02 8.07 8.57 10.34 10.39 10.39 10.63 11.22 25.14 1978 9_20 15.82 16.40 20.18 24,11 24.16 2523 2.5,33 26.>-7 26._57 28.49 5337 89~Og 1979 5-60 874 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.1l 9.11 10.26 11.99 1332 17_80 23.47 47.71 1980 6.30 9.70 14.10 17.90 17.90 17.90 17.90 17.90 17.90 24.44 26.00 4339 50.71 Page 1 1 lF/d99 119 Even at the time the debris basin was constructed, the Corps figures were not reasonable, according to tl~s 1972 NOAA map ~9 121 " 122. :" "' ARTHUR BRUINGTON 14 Sunlight Irvine, California 92612 (949) 854-9553 April 2, 1999 Mr. David Freeman Department of Water & Power 111 North Hope SWeet Los Angeles, California 90017 ar Mr. Freeman: I am writing on behalf of the homeowners who oppose the removal of a 40-£oot high, 2000~foot long levee along Deer Creek in Rancho Cucamonga. For approximately 30 years, I worked at the Los Angeles County Flood Control District where I ultiraately was the Chief Engineer where I served in that capacity from 1970 to 1979. For about 16 years of that time, I held policy-making jobs in the flood control and sediment control arenas of the organization. I have a civil engineering background with Bachelor and Master's Degrees from Caltech. At one time, I believed that the existence ora debris basin was enough to protect people. Unfortunately, I witnessed firsthand what happens to debris basins in Los Angeles County when there is a significant fire-flood sequence, and the severe damage to life and property which results. Based upon my experience, I know that debris basins can be overwhelmed, and therefore believe additional downslope protection is needed. The existing 40' high levee at Deer Creek provides that additional protection. Since the Deer Creek Debris Basin was designed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the late 1960s, more severe sediment flow events have occurred than the basin was designed to handle. I am personally familiar with the severe sediment overflows which occurred twice in 1969, and again in 1978 in the northerly reaches of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The terrain, vegetative cover, and meteorological factors ,ne are sim/las to those affecting the mountains containing Deer Canyon- Up to then, Mr. David Freeman Depa.rtlnent of Water & Power April 2, 1999 Page two the design of debris basins in Los Angeles County was based upon standards similar to those used for Deer Canyon. In the Fall of 1977, several watersheds in the mounlains surrounding San Femando Valley had completely burned. In February, 1978, after moderate rainfall had occurred for more than twenty-four hours, terminating with short period (5- to 30-minute) intensities having a 25- to 50-year recurrence interval, very severe sedimen$ flows exited from the burned watersheds. In one case, the mount of sediment was estimated to have exceeded the capacity of the debris basin by 50%. In two case~, development had been allowed to occur downstream of the basin in a manner which relied entirely upon the adequacy of the facility. The damage to homes and infrastructure from overflowing sediment was extensive. Many homes were damaged beyond repair. Based upon this experience, I concluded that the design of development downstream of a debris basin must include a protected facility to handle sediment overflow that will occur in severe events beyond the design capacity of the facility. As a matter of public policy, I believe that such secondary containment for development downstream of debris basins is absolutely necessary. The alluvial cone feature so evident at the foot of every canyon emanating from the San Gabriel and San Bemardino Mountains, including Deer Canyon, is startling proof that massive fire-flood sequences have happened in the past, and there is no reason to expect that they will not continue to occur in thc future. The existing levee serves the purpose of collecting sediment/debris overflow now on the westerly side of the Deer Canyon Channel in the reach below thc debris basin. If all or a portion of the levee and swales are removed for any reason, it must be replaced with an adequate facility serving the same purpose. The 3' x 6' Wapezoidal channel that the developer proposes to partially build on property controlled by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is not intended to capture debris and is not such a strucB~re. Since the Depaament would be allowing the developer to remove portions of the levee and fill in the swales on its property, the Depmiment could expose itself~ and the City of Los Angeles, to significant liability when a debris overflow occurs. Because debris flows do not happen on a regular basis, many people are not familiar with just how devastating they can be. 12 4 Page3 145243_1 doc. Mr. David I)epanment of Water & Power Pn~ lhr~ I v, ould be happy to cnee! vqth you and discuss these motters f'ur~her or you should l~cl I~ to call mc at ~49~5~9553 or c-mall Io nbruin~on~c~npu~rvc-~m. Ve~ truly your~ AH:Imf Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:34PM;Jelrax~#gBS;Page 13/19 DECLARATION OF N. THOMAS SHE~HAN, I, N. Thomas Sheahan, declare and stale as follows: 1. I am a vice-president and Principal Hydrologist at Dames & Moore. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and Geography from the University of Missouri, a Certificate in Advanced Groundwater Hydrology:: from the Massachusetls lnstimte of Technology (MIT), and a Juris Doctor degree ifrom the UniYer~ity of La Veme. I am a Registered Geologist, Registered Geophysic!st, Certified Engineering Geologist and Certified Hydrogcologist in California, and I al-rtl admitted to practice law in the State of California. Attached hereto is a tree and correcl: copy of my Curriculum Vitae. This declaration, like the previous teslimony I provide, d to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, is made in support of Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") challenge to the Lauren DevelOPment residential project. I have personally inspected the area in the vicinity of the Deer 2reek Basin, Deer Creek Channel, and the existing levee and swale system, and have revieWed technical documents regarding the geological, geotechnical, and hydrogcological aspects of this area, I am not a party to this action. The statements made herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I would and could testify to the troth thereof. I will be available to ~stify and respond to questions at the August 20, i997 Hearing. 2. I previously testified and will testify again tO the lbtlowing opinions. The removal of the levee and swale system creates significan~ addilional risk to down slope properly and residents. The levee and swale system withsiood the 1969 floods, the Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:34PM;]p.~ax #985;Page 14/19 largest flooding event in 30 years. Exhibit "A" is a copy of a Map reflecting the impact of the 1969 flood on the area, and the protection afforded by the levee and swale system. Aerial photographs also graphically demonstrate that the levee was virtually unbreached despite significant water and debris tlow. 3. Removal of the levee and swales is panicuiarly unwarranted in light of new information that calls into serious question the integrity 0fthe Deer Creek Debris Basin. As 1 testified previously, two potential landslide areas ~xceeding 100 acres exist. in the hills jusl to the east, and outside the catchment area, oftl~e Debri~ Basin. If these landslides should be re-activated for any reason (quakes, heavy~ rains, or burns resulting in hydraphobic soil conditions), 'Jae Debris Basin Spillway Channel will not hold this much debris and the debris will fill the channel causing the remainder to continue to flow southerly toward the existing levee. Dr. David Williams Ph.D, an expert in Debris Basin design, shares this opinion and has provided a declaration to:; the City Council. Any overtopping of the Debris Basin places in serous jeopardy the new Lauren hOmes and, if the levee and swales are removed, places the existing homes downslope of the existing levee in serious jeopardy, also. 4. Other important changed circumstances concerning the integrity of the Deer Creek Debris Basin include the new (1996) information from the Southern California Earthquake Center ("Center") on the probable earthquake magnitUde of the Sierra Madre- Cucamonga Thrust Fault which passes through, or very close th, the bas'e of the Debris Basin, and crosses the spillway channel. The Army Corps originally designed the Debris Basin in 1980 to withstand a 5.0 quake. According to the Declaration of Dr. Thomas ~ 2 [ ~1~)/~7 NHN:col Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 668 3460; 11103/gg ~:34PM;J~.Jdr_.g~_#gB5;Page 15/19 Henyey, Ph.D, Director of the SCEC., James Dolan of the Center trenched the Cucamonga fault in 1996 and concluded that the probable magnitude was as high as 7.5. An earthquake of this magnitude would result in significantly mor~ damage than the Army · . Corps origin011y estimated in 1980. 5. Additionally, Dr. David Williams has testified that the Debris Basin design is now obsolete, and that new design criteria was developed in the 1990s to improve the integrity of debris basins. He concludes "Based upon my own personal observations and these [Army Corps] new s~andards, the Debris Basin appears to be undersized. This is another post-1990 changed circumstance that must be considered." Williams Declaration at Paragraph 2(b) at page 3. 6. I have reviewed a geotechnical analysis performed by RMA Group ("RM_A"), consultants for Lauren Development, that purports :~ to compare thc relative safety of thc levee and swale syslem to Lauren Development'~s replacement berm and channel. RMA's conclusions are misleading and incorrect for several important reasons. In each of the instances discussed below, RIVIA elected to use different factors for the replacement berm and concrete channel than the factors which they applied to thc levee. Had they compared "apples to apples" instead of their skewed amdysis comparing "apples to oranges" the results would be significanlly different: the calculated safety factors for thc levee would be higher and the safety factors for the proposedi?eplacement berm would be lower. (a) RIVlA utilized a higher water table for the levee than for the berm without any explanation for this discrepancy. Such an approach arlificially t~/~of97 I~: cgl 'If, ent by: LOE[3 & LOEB 213 686 3460; 11/03/99 3:35PF~;J~IFex #985;Page 16/19 increased thc load on thc levee. Calculations must be equalized to truly evaluate thc two structures. (b) RMA reduced the total load of soil ion the replacement berm and levee by removing the quantity of dirt in the concrete channel. In the levee, they conveniently have added an earthen bluff that increases the soil load. Again, no justification or explanation exists for adding the bluff. (c) In attempting to find the most critical failure surface for the replacement channel, RMA should have provided a g[eatar range for the downhill and uphill extent of the failure surface, as they did for the levee analysis. By using a larger range, RMA would likely have found a more critical failure surface, thereby reducing the safety factor calculated for the replacement berm. Instead, RMA used a small range fo! the berm. On the levee, however, it used a broader range. Again, unless the assumptions are equal, the entire comparison is flawed. (d) RMA used a steeper water-table gradient for the levee that adds water to the levee creating an additional load. ?. lhe replacement berm and channel is 20 fe~t high; the ex/sting levee is 40 feel high which is 100 percent higher. Further, RMA has ;'ct evaluated the integrity of the levee relative to the overall velocity reducing swale system which also will be destroyed. The levee and swales are an integrated whole and mint he considered as such. 8. There are several significant defects in POMA's replacement berm designs, 4 =iSent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:35PM]]jinx #gB5jPage 17/19 The safety factor of 1.40 is not enough. Static minimum design is usually 1.5. Based upon the findings of the SCEC, :.RMA has not used the appropriate earthquake standards. RMA used a 0.15 coefficient, however, a 0.30 .or 0.40 should have been used, because acceleration due to a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the Cucamonga Fault (the cment of jolt When the quake occurs) is probably 0.5 to 0.7. Thus, the tree ground acceleration may be four t]mes higher than what RMA used. If that had been taken imo account, that is, a higher earthquake load coefficient, the safety factor for the replacement berm would be significantly lower. 9. My conclusion, based upon the above, is tl~at the Developer has not introduced any credible, non-biased, scientific evidence to establish that the berm and channel are sufficient mitigation to removal of the levee. Moreover, RMA has not, and cannot, state that the berm and replacement channel can handle the volume of Debris Flow and flooding that would occur if the Debris Basin failed. Onc.e again, the 40+ year old levee has a demonstrated record of withstanding the most serious flood of the past several decades, i 10. I have reviewed materials from RMA and fi'om the Hewitt and McGuire firm that indicated that the levee is no longer effective because of a minor breach at thc top of Paddock Street, This is very deceiving. The entire levee is several thousand feet long; the area of breach is only about 200 feet. Moreover, any breach can be easily corrected (and should have been corrected) by thc iproperty owner. These arguments are red herrings without any technical basis. Similarly, thc argument that thc #~2~B. PO2 s 13 0 by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:35PM;]e/Fex #985;Page 18/19 levee was breached in 1969 is easily rebutted by simply looking at the topographic maps and aerial photographs attached for your information. Had the levee not been in place, it is obvious that all of the structures beneath the levee would have been seriously damaged in the .1969 flood. 11. It is my professional opinion that thc levee and swale systems continue to keep the people and property downslope of the levee safe from flooding and debris flows. Removal of the levee and swale system increases the risk of damage to property and to the families in the area. The trapezoidal channel proposed as a .substitute does not provide protection. : 12. The area at issue is zoned for open space find recharge. The Army Corps of Engineers actually designated the subject property as a recharge area as part of its overall Debris Basin project. For whatever reason, the San Bemardino County Flood Comrol District has not implemented the Army Corps' recharge mitigation measures. The Debris Basin was designed with a Ibur-foot pipe at the lower inlet to allow for releases of water into the area. This is one of several water-release valves which 1 undersland the Flood Control District intends to shul olT due to the Lauren Development and other proposed developments. The elimination of potentially thousands of acre feet of recharge waler on an annual basis potentially reduces the qua~ntity of groundwater available to the Cucamonga Water Agency and the San AntoniolHeights Water Agencies in the event that their allocation in the basin is reduced. As is generally known, California is facing a federal requirement to reduce its allocation of waters from the Colorado River. Groundwater (particularly groundwater recharged from mountain I As rnsttcrs stand now, it is my uncletst~ndin$ thnt the Ci~ is ~i~nB ~c rcduc~, of _ ~ ~ ~e ~ without ~in,ting w,~ l~l ~t~r ~enci~ of ~e Regionol.~a~er 4[ ~i~ C~! ~. ~e ~silu~ m implement t~ A~y Co~' recha~c mitigation -- 13. For ii! o~ ~ ,~ve ~n~, including ~ ch~ged cir~msmnc~ ~j~ ~s ~ m ~t ~ ~ ~d ~fc~ of~ public ~ ~ pmt~l valu~l)le ' 10[ wst~~m~ ~= ] I. I ~ under ~fld~ of~u~ ~t ~e forego~ is ~ ~d con~ ~ ;~ 12 13 ~ ~ d~l~tf~ is ~ut~ ~ Au~ 20. 1~7. al ~O, Cnlifomh ~: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:58PM;Jet~x #993;Pa§e 1/4 DECLA)~ATIO~ OF E~UC~ COLLI~S: I, Bruce Collins, declare and state a:s follows: 1. I am a Senior Engineer at Dames ~& Moore, one of the largest geotechnical firms in the world. Ii. have a Bachelor of Sciences Degree in Civil Engineering and graduate s~udies in hydrology from the University of Calilornia and waste water treatment from Oklahoma Sta~e University. In my over 35 years as an engineer I have had extensive experience on iflood control and drainage issues. I was project hydrologist and facilities design engineer for developing a comprehensive master ~lan for flood control and'storm drainage for metropolitan Re~o. Also, I was project manager of the Major Urban studies Pla~ for Metropolitan Spokane Water Resources and Flood Control, Sea%tls District, Army Corps of Engineers. The statements made herein are in support of the opposition of Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") to the Lauren Development Project. T~e statements made are of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would and could testify to the truth thereo~. 2. On June 10, 1597, I performed a isite inspection and evaluation of the Deer Creek alluvial fan ~erimster drainage containment levee. Lauren Development is propOsin~ to remove a substantial section of the drainage swale and embankment which now provides a protective barrier for flood waters and drainage originatin~ across ~he broad alluvial fan of Deer Creek after it leaves the point where Deer Canyon comes out ofi the mountains. These changes would alter the level of flood control protection t~by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:59PM;J~I¢~x #9931Page 2/4 The Perimeter Swale and Levee Are Sti~l Valuable Flood Protection Structures. B. I~ has been presumed by Lauren Development that the construction of the Deer Creek Debris Basini and doncre~e channel has rendered the perimeter containment ~wale and embankment obsolete, thus rendering its removall as no conseqx/ence to local drainage. This presumption fails to r~cognize the benefit of this perimeter containment drainage Structure which is supplementary to the Deer Creek Basin that serves to concentrate the surface water flow o~ Deer Creek and directl it into a Concrete chan~el. _D_espits the Deer Creek Raein~ home °whets a~'~ .residents on the other side of the swale and levee would be_ significantly less safe if the levee is to b_e~ b~eached and i~ tbs drainage swale is filled in. · _.The Perimeter Swale and Levee prov%[~e~ Sec°Ddar¥ Flood and Drainage Containment.. 4. In assessing the value and benefits to the ! residents of RC-V/Haven View Estates provided b~y the perimeter !' swale and levee, it should be recognized that the Deer Creek Ii: Debris Basin only collects and directs _surface Wate~ into the concrete drainage channel and that there is a s~bsnantial quantity of subsurface flow through the alluvia~ fan and surface drainage originating below the basin now being ~ntercepted by the ~- perime~er swale and levee. An inspection of the Deer Canyon debris dam site and adjacent area indicates that the debris dam has no significant storage capacity -- a maximum depth of the retention basin being a depth of 15-18 feet at the low flow Intake structure. Th~ spillway discharges Lo a~ lined .concrete 13 4 Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460~ 11/03/99 3:59PM;]~,J~r~x #993;Page 3/4 rec[an~ular channel which conveys flow down across the alluvial fan which spreads across ~he Deer Creek-Day Cre~k break in slope as these waterways come out of the steeper mountainous terrain above. Additionally, approximately 200 acres of land below the debris basin are tributary to the perimeter.ditch and levee. spoke to Mr. Ray Lenaburg oX FEMA's San Francisdo office. The FEMA Zoning is now dependent on the levee's existence. Mr. Lenabur~ states that ~he developer would have to prove that the perimeter swale/levee is no longer essentia~l to providing the 100-year ilood level of protection. This proofl would have to include the complex hydrologic evaluation of su~rface water runoff not intercepted by the debris basin and the potential for artesian zesurfaoing of flow through the alluvial fan. Seism$c Vulnerability ~hould Be Recognized- 5. In addition, the existing levee and perimeter swale provide an even more si§nificant benefit ~as a ,last ditch" containment barrier in the event of potential f~ilure of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and surface flow interception structure due to damage from an earthquake. In this regard, it should be clearly recognized that virtually all structures in Southern california are subject to earthquake damage vulnerabilicy,~ but that in particular there has been recent redelination Of a significant fault line in very close proximity to the debris basin. This higher level of seismic risk may not have been considered and is a factor that must be evaluated now, in light ~f more detailed data from recent seismic studies in this area. ~ P~I~,,~ 3 .g347. LOEB & LOEB Page 5/5 Job 383 Juq-ql we~ la:D3 1997 ~ 3 l~e~af~t t~ th~ad~acen~clownhill - The Deer CanyOn ~eetn does ~oC func:&on aW · :!sod · the basin. %ts pwimez'f function is :c collect ~u~fece wa~er at ~ ~ the mouth of Deer Canyon and collect it into · concrete channel 10 G. In conclusion, i~ ia the opinion of Da~ee & Moore 11 that ~he ver~a~enifi~nt benefit o~ the e~ieting per,mete: swale 13 relative to the permit~9 of development o~ land which , 19 the this facilit~ eheuld be pro~l~ fxom breach, itllin~ is t~e and correct and :hat this declaration wai executed San:a A~, Califo~ia on dune 11, 1997. Sent by; LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:31PN1;]p..jt[i~,~_#985;Page 2 DECLAP,3%TION OF DAVID T. WILLIANS 1. I am the president of WEST Consultants, Inc., a San Diego based water resources engineering firm. I received a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of -. california, Davis, and an M.S. in Environmental Civil Engineering at the same university. I also received a Ph.D. in Hydraulics and Sedimentation from colorado State University. I am a fellow of the American Society of civil Engineers, an~adjunct professor at San Diego Etate University in the civil Engineering Department, a certified Professional Hydrologist, a Certified Professional in Erosion and sediment Control (CpEsc), and a california registered professional Civil Engineer- I have over 25 years of experience in wa=er resources, with a specialty in flood hazard evaluation. I currently supervise over 20 engineers who conduct flood related studies for the Az-my!Corps of Engineers, California Department of Transportation, and F~deral Emergency Manage~nent Agency. I a~u f~m41iar with the Corps of Engineers' procedures as I was emp]gyed by the~Corp for approximately 15 years. I am also ~amillar with FEMA regulations and, in fa¢~, I teach FEMA remapping procedures as part of a course on hydraulics engineering ior the American society of Civil Engineers. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of my curriculum vitae. Because I am teaching such a FEMA course in Portland, Oregon, I am not available to testify at the Rancho Cuca~onga City Council hearing scheduled for AUgUSt 20, 1997. I have personal knowledge of the statements made:herein and, 08/20/97 N~:gtl Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:31P[4~]etF~x #985;Page 3/19 2. This declaration is made in support of Cuca~ongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CUR~") challenge to the Lauren Development Project. I have had the opportunity to personally evaluate the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the property between the Debris Basin and the levee. I also have walked the levee. I have reviewed documents and understand that the proposed residential development by Lauren Development involves removal of an approximately 48' high and over 2,000 foot long, levee and multiple swale system bu£1t in the 1950s. This levee and swale system has effectively served to hold back water and debris flow from downslope structures, including water and:debris flow during the 1969 floods. The effectiveness of the levee can be seen on aerial and topographic ~ape already submitted in the record. 3. In my professional opinion, I have concluded that removal of the levee and swale system (and the ¢onstrucuion of a residential development) ·will place both the new residents and the existing residents downslope of the levee ~n substantially greater risk of flooding and debris flow than currently exists notwithstanding the existence of the Deer Creek Debris Basin upslope. I base this conclusion on the following factors. (a) The Debris Basin was desi~ned to withstand a 5.0 magnitude earthquake. Attached are excerpts from the Army Corps' design m~moranda for the Debris Basin. Subsequent studies conducted by the Southern California Earthquake Center ("SCEC") M~44~1 .PO] 16~11.~*07 ~ ~L 3 8 Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 6BB 3460; 11/03/99 3:32PM;]~x #985;Page 4/19 realistically produce a 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake. I hame reviewed the declaration of Dr. Thomas He~yey, Ph.D, Director of the SCEC and this declaration has been submitted in the record for your consideration. (b) The volume capacity of the. Debris Basin was based upon the Tatum method developed in 1963 by the Los Angeles Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps published ~pdated criterion for Debris Basin design in 1992 which could si~nifica:tly change the design volume. Based upon my own personal observations and these new standards, the Debris Basin appears ko be undersized. This is another post-1990 changed circums~anceithat must be considered. (c) In 1994, WEST Consultants ~erformsd a study of the Harrow Debris Basin in the City of Glendora, County of Los Angeles. I was directly involved in that project. The Harrow basin overtopped during the 1969 flood, which at this location was a ten year precipitation event approximately one year after a bur~. Although the available volume of the Debris Basin was adequate, computations showed that the ,,runup" iof the debris due to momentum was approximately ten feet, cauein~ the debris to go over the spillway by four feet which, in turn, iplugged the downstream concrete cha~nel resulting in overtqpping of the Debris Basin and substantial damage to downstream property. The Deer Creek Debris Basin has similar watershed basin slope characteristic of the Harrow Debris Basin. Th~ spillway crest is Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 11/03/99 3:32PM;]C.i~OA #985;Page 5,f19 cleanup, according to the plans) is at approximately 2845. About 25% of the volume from small events is allowed~to fill before clean out is required. This would allow the material to fill up to about elevation 2850. If an event ei~/lar tO the Harrow Debris Basin event occurred, the debris would go over%the spillway by three feet. The downstream chan~el was desiqned based upon "clear" water and debris in the water would significantly decrease the capacity and spill over or cause it to plug up completely - also causing it to spill over. (d) In the 1950s, the local flood control agency constructed a series of swales and levees designed to slow the debris flows and convey them to a controlled outlet point. The flood of 1969 caused a debris torrent which was largely controlled by the levees and swales. The levee and swale syste~ protected the area and the homes downslope of the levee. The developer intends to remove this levee and use ithe spoil to fill in the swales. Although the levee and swales were built before the construction of the Debris Basin, the Army ,Corps considered them as an integral part of the project and re6o~ended that material that would accumulate in the Debris Basin actually be used to fortify the levee. Re,oval of the swa!es and levees would weaken the protective nature of the Corps Debris Basin project. I also understand that the developer iclaims that the levee is no longer effective because of a appr6ximately 200 foot breach at the top of Paddock Road. This is a Small fraction of the overall levee and can easily be repaired and 'has minimal ;2 and the e~ale eYSt0m to p~ov~de eecondary Prot. ection Co the do~elo~e re~denta. ~ ~tent~a~ Z~d~ a~ea. exceed~ 100 acze~ ~t are 10 levee and S~le ay.~em. ~is ~uld ~ particularly dan~o~u8 fog 12 levee ~d swales onc~ the 1~ i~ destroyed and i.s .- the City. ~e da~e to life and p~oper~y in ~he ev-nt nfa dobris ll~ i.. serious. Oiven t~ changed 19 ~ei~ criteria), the City ~et re.ire turth~r study and ~0 21 mitigation measurerm P~lor tO placin~ its citizens at risk, 1 declare ~d~ ~alty o[ ~riu~ ~hat the foregoing 32 iS t~ a~ cor~ct and tat t~m declaration i8 signed Portland, Oregon ~n Auger 20, 24 2~ 2a 09,.15/1cy~8 21:19 213-688-3927 LOEB &- 1 SUPPLENiENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID T. WILLIAMS, PH.D., P.E. 2 1. I am the president of WEST Consultants, Inc., s San Diego based 3 water resources engineering firm. I received a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from 4 the University of California, Davis, and an M.S. in Environmental Civil Engineering at 5 6 the same university. I also received a Ph.D. in Hydraulics and Sedimentation from 7 Colorado State University. I am a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 8 an adjunct professor at san Diego State University in the Civil Engineering 9 Depa,l, ment, a certified Professional Hydrologist, a Certified Professional in Erosion 10 ' and Sediment Control (,CPESC), and a California registered professional Civil 12 Engineer. I have over 25~years of experience in water resources, with a specialty in f 3 flood hazard evaluation. I currently supervise over 20 engineers who conduct flood 14 related studies for the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of t 5 Transportation, and Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1 am familiar with the 16 Corps of Engineers' procedures as I was employed by the Corps for approximately 15 17 ,ars. I am also familiar with FEMA regulations as I teach FEMA remapping 18 procedures as part of a course on hydraulics engineering for the American Society of 19 20 Civil Engineers. I authored the Reservoir Sedimentation Chapter in the U.S. Corps of 21 Engineers Manual on Sedimentation investigation and the HEC-6 user's manual for 22 the Army Corps Hydrologlc Englneerir~ Center. I previously submitted a declaration 23 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on August 20, 1997, concluding that new 24 information not available to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles (ACOE) 25 at the time the Deer Creek Debris Basin ("Debris Basin") was constructed 27 necessitates a serious safety review before the secondary containment levee is 28 5 ¢.9f15/1998 21:13 213-6~8-3927 'LOEB ~ LU~.:~ .~-~u r~w I removed. This new information included the existence of landslide areas above the 2 Debris Basin channel that were not identified or addressed by the ACOE at the time 3 of the Debris Basin Construction. Further, the magnitude of the Cucamonga Fault, 4 which runs virtually beneath the Debris Basin and directly under the channel, is 5 significantly higher than the ACOE's projections when the Debris Basin was designed. 6 base these conclusions upon my review of the original Design Memorandum 7 8 developed by the ACOE in connection with the Debris Basin, which is too voluminous 9 to attach and which is a'vailable to your staff. The statements made in my original 10 declaration are incorporated by reference. 11 2. This declaration is made in support of Cucamongans United for 12 Reasonable Expansion (CURE) challenge to the Lauren Development Project. I have 13 ~ersonally visited the Debris Basin, the adjacent levee, and the property down slope 15 of the Debris Basin. Based upon my significant experience with hydraulics and 16 sediment transport, which spans over 25 years, I have concluded that removal of the 17 existing secondary levee and construction of homes in its location places future and 18 existing home owners in danger. Therefore, I urge the City Council to hire qualified 19 Debris Basin experts to thoroughly evaluate the vulnerability of the Debris Basin prior 20 to approving the Project. 21 3. The volume capacity of the Debris Basin for the design event was 22 23 based upon the Tatum Method, which was developed in 1963 by the U.S. Army 24 Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles. Subsecluent to the construction of the Debris 25 Basin, the ACOE updated the Method and released the publication entitled "Los 26 Angeles District Method for Prediction of Debris Yield," in February 1992 (revised in 27 143 2 6 ~B/!5/1998 21:13 213-~SB-3B27 I August 1992) a copy of which is attached es Exhibit 'A". Since the 1963 publication, 2 23 years of additional flood information (and resulting debris production) was 3 collected and used to update the coefficients of the debris production equations in the 4 1992 publications. Significant floods have occurred since 1963 which provide 5 important information; in particular, the floods of November 1965, January 1969, and 6 February 1978. In statistical analysis, when large events occur, the information 7 8 gathered is used to update a frequency study, i.e., the relationship of how frequent a 9 certain phenomenon such as debds discharge occurs, as the information can change 10 drastically. For example, suppose a 50 year flood event produces 10,000 cubic yards 11 of debris using frequency analysis based upon measurementS available prior to 1963, 12 Subsequently, three significant flood events occurred with the resulting debris 13 production measured and used to update the frequency relationship. Using the 14 15 updated frequency relationship, the 10,000 cubic yards of debris would now be 16 related to a more frequent event, for example, a 20 year flood event. In turn, the 17 debris production of a 50 year flood event would be higher than the original 10,000 18 cubic yards. Based on the new information and statistical analysis, the debris basin 19 no longer provides the orlginal design level of proteCtion; in actuality, there is a 20 greater risk than originally anticipated. When the volume capacity is exceeded during 22 a flood event, the debris torrent goes up and over the basin spillway and can overtop 23 end tax the embankments that are on each side of the spillway. Since the channel 24 downstream of the spillway is designed for "clear" water, this debris torrent can easily 25 overwhelm the channel, overflow into the adjacent area, and subsequently damage 26 the property and endanger the lives of the people down slope of the debris basin. 27 144 3 7 0~/15/~558 21:i$ 213-~88-3~27 4. The above phenomenon occurred at many locations in the San 2 Gabriel Mountain Range in 196g. The Deer Creek Debris Basin similarly is located in 3 the San Gabriel Mountains. To protect down slope and future homeowners in 4 Rancho Cucamonga, a qualified engineer with Debris Basin experience must re- 5 compute the design capacity based upon the updated information and check it 6 against the actual capacity of the Debris Basin just before maintenance excavation is 7 This analysis has r~t been conducted by the ACOE, the San Bernardino 8 9 County Flood Control District, FEMA, the City Engineer, nor Lauren Development's 10 consultants. Without such an analysis, the City is placing its families in the same 11 position as those who were caught in Debds Flow down slope of other San Gabriel 12 Mountain Basins that failed. 13 5. Another phenomenon for which the Debris Basin was not 14 15 designed is what is termed as "run up" over the spillway. Because of the steepness 16 of Cucamonga Peak, the area just upstream of the Debris Basin, a debris torrent 17 'entering the Debris Basin will have extremely high velocities. Even If the Debris 18 Basin has adequate volume capacity, which is seriously in question, the debris 19 torrent, by virtue of Its high velocity, can have enough momentum to "run up" the 20 approach slope of the spillway end overtop it. As a result of the property damage 2t 22 and loss of life in 1965, 1969 and 1978, the Los Angetes County Department of 23 Public Works required an analysis of "run up' for one of their Debris Basins before 24 permitting development of the area down slope of the basin. Attached as Exhibit "B" 25 is a copy of the American Society of Engineers (A$CE) paper entitled "Overtopping 26 Prevention of the Harrow Debris Basin in Los Angeles County," presented at the 27 ASCE Water Resources Engineering 98 conference, which documents the analysis. 28 145 8 aa 21:13 213-p85-3927 in this paper, the Harrow Debris Basin was deemed to have adequate volume 1 2 capacity (50 year design flood) when a 10 year flood event caused the basin to 3 overtop by a combination o! debris volume loss and "run up" phenomenon. This 4 overtopping caused the downstream channel to "plug up" and spill onto the adjacent 5 land, causing damage to the property down slope of the debris basin. The Harrow 6 Debris Basin is uncomfortably similar to the Deer Creek Debris Basin since it is along 7 8 the same side of the San Gabriel Mountain Range. The similarities are supported by 9 the fact that the 1992 ACOE debris method showed high correlation between debris 10 yield and watershed parameters when analyzing the area that enCompasSes both 11 Deer Creek and Harrow Debris Basins. Such an analysis has not been performed by 12 the ACOE, the San Bernardino County Flood Control D{strict, FEMA, the City 13 Engineer nor Lauren Development's consultants. Evaluating the "run up" capacity of 14 15 the Deer Creek Debris Basin is a critical step that musl be undertaken by the City 16 ~rior to placing its residents at risk by approving the Lauren Development project. 17 6. In light of the previously mentioned concerns, a complete safety 18 and impact Study should be performed on the Deer Creek Debris Basin, its t 9 downstream channel, and potential effects of the down slope areas. This study is 20 recommended due to the seriousness of the potential damage to life and property. I 21 22 should also emphasize that the perimeter levee proposed to be removed was rated 23 by FEMA to a 100 year flood event in 1983. Attached is correspondence from FEMA 24 to the Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga dated September 4, t997, confirming this fact. I 25 previously testified that the small breach in the levee can be easily repaired and does 26, not detract from FEMA's rating. An earthen levee can be easily maintained. 27 28 14f ,:n-lS-1998 5, t6PI4 FI:tOW WES'[ CONSUL't'ANTS ?. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true end 2 correct and that this declaration is signed at San Diego, California on September 13, 3 1996. Because o! the short notice prov[ded in connection with the September 1~. 4 1996 meeting. I cannot ettend the meeting es I am performing studies for the 5 University ~' W~.co~$in; however, I would be wi[iing to speak with any of the City 6 Council Members. their counse[, or Lauren Development, it~ counsel 81'K:I consultants 7 to di$~use lhese serious issues ~urther. The consequences o{ the City failing to g conduct the abo~e ~tudies are serious and these regommendafions shOuld not be 10 ignored- I persollelly would not con~ider living in the homes being constructed or the 11 existing homes gNen my assessment of the dangers. 12 . ' 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 Z5 26 27 .21~ 10 909 980 2645 DA~$ & MOORE pE~/,ARATiOI~ 0g ~NDREW 3, CAMI~i~ELL, R-G- C.H.G, I, PmdrcW i. Campbell daclarc and ~ta'tc as followS: 1. I am a Project liydrngeolo$1si at Dames & Moore. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Geological Sci~ncez from California Polytechldc University at' Pomona. I am a Registered Geologist and Cci'dried Hyclxngeologist by lh¢ Sla~ of Califonda. A cu~ent copy of my Currlcul~m Vita~ is ~ched to this declaration (Sec Atlachmcnt i). This declaration is rmidc in suppo~l of Cucamongans United for P,.c=sonable Expansion ("CURE") challenge to ~hg L~urgn Development rcsldclllia[ project. I hay= personally observed the levee and swales below the Decx Cregk Debris Basin. I have al~o reviewed City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading Plans for Tract 14771 prepared by Morse Consulting Oroup, date stampgd Feb. 25, 1992. 2. I have reviewed US Army Corps of]Engineering Featwe Design Memorandum No. $ l~s~ing dcsi~ fcatu~s of the Deer Creek debris basin. This memorandum lists debris produciion at this location Io be 310 ac~e-fe,-~ from ! major storm. 3. I have calculated the volume of debris thai could be held by the storm ~ain improvements piarm¢ct to run along ibc northern boundary of Tract 14771 as approxhnat=ly 78,660 cubic feet or 1.$ acr~-feet. I made this calculation using mgasuxemcnls mad= from th~ above mentioned C_ffading plmx.s. The planned irapezoid-shaped storm dram is shown as aPP~oXamaigly 2,020 feet long, 3.3 feet deep, 6.0 feel wide a~ the bottom and 17.6 feet wide at thc top. 4. I have calculatgd {he maximum volume of debris, which could be contained by ~ levee and swalas on T~acl 14771, as approrimately 12.~4 million cubi~ feet or 288 acre-feeL Tables showing ~he d~termined results of my calculations arc attached ~o this decla.mlion (See Atiachmgnl 2). The method I used to calculate ibis volume and my assumptions are dczczibed in tim following lnm~raphs, In calcu!,~in_o ~hc maximum potcntlal fill voltmle which could occur on Tract 14771 as it c~tly cxi~, I assumed debris would originai= upgradieat from and parallel thc levee- 112 1'48 swale system during a failur~ of Ibc D~r Cr~ debris ~ ~d s~v=re flo~ Debts ~uld ill t~ Io~ ~ of ~e I~eg ~d rig to the el~afion at ~e bo~ of Tm~ 14771. ~ ~s elev~on is hiE~ ~ ~= lev~, k ~ot be sus~ ~ ~e cn~ pm~, by ~uld slo~ to~s th~ lev~ at fl~e ~i~t of thc ~ Cr~k ~lu~l f~. I m~d ~e slo~ of ~c alluvi~ f~ ~ be 7 deg~ ~om ~e U~ S~ O~logi~ S~gy C~nga Pc~ 7-1/2 minu~ q~glC. ~c u~ S~.Of a ~b~s flow wo~d ~ ~ defined ~ ~t clevatlon proj~g ~ a 7-d~e~ s[~ up ~m ~ top of~ ~vc~ion lev~ ~ ~c cl~ation ~es ~c clcvagon al &c =o~ ~Y of ~c U~t. In my opi~on, ~s is con~a~vc c~ of msxlm~ top of t~ debris fill as debris could con~iv~ly ~ilc ~sh~r ~ t~s city,ion ~ ~iH lo ~c I co~c~ ~-south-~e~ing ~o~ s~facc citation pro~tles ~om ~c tr~ bo~d~ ~u~w=d to ~e n~t side of Iht diversion levee. Profiles were cons~cl~ go~ ~e pro~ sub~ion ~, ~ong ~c lot boodles bc~ccn ~u~ ~d at ~c ~l ~d e~ ~d~ of Tract 14771. ' I co~cted a to~ of ten p~fil~ at a n~ly ~fotm sp~ing avcra~ng 220 I~el. I ~ ~c ccn~ou~ of exilling ~po~hy on ~ ~ Map of ~ 1477l to ob~ ~ clcva~o~ u~d in pro~e. ~ ~n elevation profil~ ~ ~h~ to ~ ~cl~ion (S~ AXac~t 2). ] · cr~ co~ ~c l~c rc~n~g the top of ~im~ pooh, al debris fi~l ~in ~e For c~ah profile, I ~cn ~cula~d ~c cmsa =~iion~ ar~ ~we~ ~e debts fi]l l~e ~d ~= Ground ~=e l~e v~ a s~atloll of ~i~ mca app~ox~alio~. To obtain thc c~=~ =~go~ =~ b~e~ ~e ~ ~e ~d ~ ~ s~facc, I ~culalcd thc =ea of ~ividu~ ~id~ sl=~s foxed by c~ vc~ica) lines upw=ds horn ~c ground sml~g at cash ~u~ clcvag~ to ~e fill ~. I ~ed ~c hog~ntal flis~ ~cu ~mo~ l~c~ ~ &c hci~ht of ~e ~p~oid ~ ~c ~s ~ic~css at e~h ~ccessive ~n~ c]cv~o~ ~ ~e ~ ~ape~id b~=s. ~c ~ol~c of a trapezoid is a~'~c b~g 1~ m~gplicd by ~e height. I ~en c~c~a~d &c ~oss-~clion~ =~ of N~, I ~c~ated ~e vol~c of dcb~ ~cen ~h profile ~ a's~il~ ~ezoid~ approX. To ob~ ~e voice of ~ dcbr~ fdl ~n each profile, 1 c~c~a~d ~c vol~ of a ~ezoid~ ~ dc~ ~n suc~s~e profile. To c~culaM ~c pg~ ~]u~, I m~lied ~ ~st~cc ~a eacll l)~file by ~e avc~c cross ~on~ ~ of each. ca~ ~ ~ b~dinS ~o~le. I ~en c~flt~ the 113 volume of put. aria] d~bri~ fill on the Tract by summing Ibc prism vdumes contaiucd betwegn each profile. I have comp4u~d the thrc~ volumos calculalgd for 1) the pl~a.¢d storm drain (1 .g acre-lc, ct), 2) thc maximum poten~Lal debris volume con~ainable on the T~:act within the levee-swale sys~m (2gg acre-feet), and 3) ~hc debris production from one major ~torm in Deer Creek (310 erie-feet). Tlxe volume, of ~¢ pier, ned stoma dra~ ks insignificma! compared to the volume ~tcbris '&at c~U[d be Sea.areal bom a large storm ece~t and Ge maximum volume that could be gor~nincd by thc currcuj leveg.~val¢ system. The rmucU~um debris volume could b~ contained by' thg c~rrenl levee-swale ~tcm is nearly as ]gge (93%) as the of debris that could be ggnea~tgcI by one largg storm event- dr, clare undgr penalty of perjury that thg foregoing is ~'u¢ and correct a.nd ti~a! this declaration is executed or; September 15, 1998, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.. 150' 114 Response' to the Los Angeles District's Memorandum .for the Record, Dated August 4, 2000 Regarding the Exponent, Inc. Evaluation of the Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity NB10184.000 September 18, 2000 EXponent` Failure Analysis Associates, Douglas L. Hamilton, P.E. 3187 Redhill Avenue Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 979-9966 www.ex.p_~nent.com EXponent. MEMORANDUM · September 18, 2000 RESPONSE TO THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD DATED AUGUST 4, 2000 REGARDING THE EXPONENT, INC. EVALUATION OF THE DEER CREEK ~ · DEBRIS BASIN STORAGE CAPACITY. The following are specific responses to the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers' (District) August 4, 2000 Memorandum reviewing the Exponent Report entitled · Evaluation of the Debris Storage Capacity of the Deer Creek Basin dated April 27, 2000; and to the August 3, 2000 technical review of the District's memorandum prepared by Mussetter Engineering, Inc. (MEI). These documents are reproduced in Attachments 1 and 2. We have not been provided with the attachments to these documents. · GENERAL COMMENTS The District's August Memorandum responds to issues raised in the Exponent report. The Exponent Report focuses primarily on the debris-holding capacity of the basin and the consequences of its overtopping. The District's August Memorandum does not provide a · complete evaluation of the Deer Creek flood control system, nor does it provide a plan for dealing with the deficiencies identified in the Exponent Report and the MEI Technical Review. The deficiencies create a serious problem for the adequate performance of the flood control system and pose a threat to public safety. Additional engineering studies and a work plan are needed immediately. The District's August Memorandum concludes that: (l) the debris deposit configuration assumed in the original design is unrealistic; (2) the basin's actual storage capacity is about half of the 310 acre-feet assumed in 1979; (3) the effective design debris storage space for a realistic deposition pattern is closer to 162 acre-feet, or the Corps' 33-year · debris flow volume; (4) the Deer Creek outflow channel must convey all of the excess debris that overtops the basin's spillway; and (5) upslope engineering is needed to help the debris to deposit in a more uniform pattern within the existing debris basin. Attachment 3 shows a rendering of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the various features referred to in this report. · In November 1999, the District prepared a study estimating the "100-year" debris flow volume that would come out of the Deer Creek watershed and enter the basin to be 292 · 1 acre-feet. As discussed in our original April 2000 report, significant disagreement exists about both the method used to develop the debris estimate and the rainfall parameters · used. Although Exponent was not requested to evaluate whether the parameters used to develop this estimate are reasonable, other experts have concluded that the rainfall used in thC debris estimate for Deer Creek is less than the 100-year event. For the purpose of evaluating the size of the basin in this report, we assume th'at 292 acre-feet of debris is an adequate design value. Using the District's estimates, a 100-year event will generate 130 acre-feet more debris than the debris basin's maximum capacity (292-162=130). The District's August Memorandum does not analyze what would happen to th~ 130 acre-feet of excess debris for a 100-year event other than to speculate that some of it would flow down the Deer · Creek outlet channel and some of it would remain in the basin at levels higher than the spillway. 130 acre-feet is 14,000 truckloads of debris. Even a fraction of this amount of debris could cause a blockage of the channel or reduce its capacity. The Deer Creek outlet channel was designed to convey water, not water and debris mixed together. ' Therefore, in its cun'ent condition, the Deer Creek flood control system does not provide · reliable 100-year flood protection to the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. The MEI technical review states that the Deer Creek alluvial fan above the debris basin is an active surface and that the location of the natural river channel can migrate during a large flood. The MEI review also states that there are significant quantities of untriggered debris deposits trapped in Bull Canyon and other small tributaries to Deer Creek. The · MEI review suggests, however, that the existence of a number of small canyons poised to dump debris into Deer Creek may help the debris basin function better than if these tributaries were empty of stored debris. We disagree with this conclusion. MEI's work, nevertheless, underscores the complexity and uncertainty in predicting how debris will behave during a large flood. Recognizing the uncertainty in predicting debris movement, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), has developed special regulations that apply to areas subject to "alluvial fan flooding". These regulations are found in 44 CFR Section 65.13 (Attachment 4) and · describe the design criteria necessary for FEMA to accept a flood control structure as providing 100-year flood protection to communities on active alluvial fans. Such regulations apply here. Both the District's August Memorandum and the MEI Technical Review state that the joint probability of having a large flood and a large debris flow at the same time would result in an event more rare than FEMA's 100-year standard and, · therefore, the basin should not be decertified. Those statements, however, contradict the applicable regulation from FEMA specifying that engineering studies for areas subject to "alluvial fan flooding" must: ...quantify the discharges and volumes of water, debris, and sediment movement · associated with theflood that has a one-percent probability of being exceeded in any year at the apex under current watershed conditions and under potential adverse conditions (e.g., deforestation of the Watershed by fire). [CFR 44 Sec. 65.13 (c) (0] · This rule recognizes the serious consequences of flooding unique to many alluvial fan areas. FEMA regulations start with the one-percent probability flood (i.e. 100-year flood) and then include the effects of fire and debris without regard to whether their joint probability is less than 1%. FEMA holds communities throughout the Southwestern U.S. · to these standards and no reason exists for excluding Corps of Engineers projects from such criteria. Because the Deer Creek Debris Basin's capacity is significantly less than the debris volume associated with the base flood, it does not meet the conditions necessary to credit it on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The maps should be changed to reflect this. The District's August Memoranduin further suggests that some engineering modifications to the Deer Creek D~bfis Basin are necessary. Although no specifics are provided, it appears that the proposed modifications will make the 162 acre-foot value a more reliable estimate of the basin's capacity. MEI recommends that a study should be conducted to determine whether the embankment could withstand additional .debris · beyond the current storage capacity of the basin, but enlarging the basin does not appear to be recommended. Until some type of modification is completed, the downstream channel cannot be relied upon to carry the excess debris. There has never been a study to demonstrate that the Deer Creek outflow channel can successfully carry significant quantities of debris without a substantial likelihood of causing downstream damage. Congress authorized this project to mitigate the 200-year flood event, and the affected communities rely upon this level of protection. After the District's debris analysis report of November 1999, the basin was downsized to the 111-year event. The District's August 2000 report revises the debris holding capacity to a 33-year event. These reductions more · than demonstrate the pressing need to negotiate the studies and engineering modifications necessary to bring the Deer Creek flood control system to its intended level of flood - hazard mitigation as authorized by Congress and relied upon by local comanunities. · SPECIFIC COMMENTS BY PARAGRAPH The following provides a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the District's August Memorandum and the MEI Report. Paragraph 3. The District: The introductory paragraph concludes that "Since its completion, the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel have performed flawlessly in preventing downstream · flood damages." Exponent's Response: Since 1971, there have been no major floods or fires in the Deer Creek watershed. The basin was constructed in 1982. There have been no adverse · watershed conditions that would sufficiently test the performance of the basin since that time. · Paragraph 4. The District: The history of the Deer Creek Reception Levee is discussed. Exponent's Response: The Exponent Report does not address the past performance of · the Deer Creek Reception Levee or what its role should be in the future. paragraph 5. · The District: The District prepared letters dated November 2 1999, December 16 1999, and January 12 2000, that the Deer Creek Basin and Channel provide greater than 100- year flood projection. Exponent's Response: The focus of the Exponent Report is on the capacity of the Deer · Creek Debris Basin. The concrete outlet channel is designed to carry water, not debris, so the basin alone must capture the debris generated in a large flood event if the outlet channel is expected to function reliably. In the November 1999 report prepared by the District, this amount was 292 acre-feet of debris for the 100-year event. · Although the District's November report used an updated method for determining the 100-year debris flow volume, it did not provide a similarly updated analysis describing how this debris would deposit in the basin. Without conducting an analysis of how the debris fills up in the basin, the District cannot conclude that the basin provides 'greater than 100-year flood protection. Determining how much debris can fit into the Deer Creek debris basin can only be done by measuring the size of the basin. The purpose of the Exponent report was to perform this missing step. Paragraph 6. The District: Exponent was hired to support the position of opponents of Lauren Development. Exponent's Response: Exponent, Inc. was hired to perform the analysis that was not · done in the District's November 1999 report; namely to commission a topographic survey of the Debris Basin in order to establish its depth, shape, and debris holding capacity. · 4 Contrary to the District's insinuation, we were not hired to support anyone's position. We frequently work with developers, government agencies, and non-profit organizations · when there are technical, institutional, and other issues that need to be addressed. There have been advances in the state of the practice for analyzing debris flow hazards since the time that the Deer Creek Debris Basin was contemplated in 1960s and 70s. The Corps' November 1999 report itself is an example of such an advance because it uses · statistical principles to update the value of "100-year debris volume" using the "Los Angeles District Method" (LADM). This is a technical procedure developed during the 1990's that replaces the Tatum Method (developed in the 1960s) which was used for the original design of the Debris Basin. · After the Exponent report was produced in April 2000, the District provided the actual debris deposition pattern assumed in the design of the basin. The reason that Exponent could not reproduce the original design capacity of the debris basin (310 acre-feet) was that for the original design, the District assumed that debris would deposit in a direction parallel to the alignment of the dam. This is not a realistic scenario and is acknowledged · by the District and by MEI. Such a depositional pattern has never been a criterion of any agency at any time. The Corps' original criterion was that the debris deposit slope should be one-half of the natural canyon slope or 6% in the case of Deer Creek. The updated standards limit the deposit slope to a maximum of 5%, but this debris deposit slope is in the direction of flow. Paraeranh 8a. The District: Although the entrenched channel does enter the basin on the east side, · during high debris flow events there is a definite potential for debris deposition to occur in the active channel upstream of the debris basin that would result in a more uniform distribution of flood inflow and debris to the basin. MEI's Response~ The District's contention that changed upstream conditions could lead · to a more uniform distribution of flood inflow and debris to the basin is very reasonable. The reasons are: (1) some debris deposits appear to have reached the west side of the basin during flooding that may have occurred in the 1860s; (2) during a high magnitude debris flow, much of the transported material could be delivered to the debris basin along the west side of the grouted riprap inlet chute; and (3) if Bull Canyon were to deliver a · large quantity of debris to the main stream, it could block the current channel, ~ausing floodwater and debris to be diverted from the channel. This floodwater and debris could then find its way into the west of side of the debris basin. Exponent's Response: The District and MEI agree that the incised channel enters the east side of the debris basin. Although other possible scenarios are hypothesized, no · historical evidence is provided demonstrating that anything other than insignificant quantities of debris could ever be expected to enter the west side of the basin. No quantitative breakdown of debris quantities is provided. Neither the District nor MEI address the fact that there is significant soil development on the fan surface adjacent to the incised channel. It takes thousands of years for soil to develop. If the 1860 flood flowed over onto the west side of the fan, there would be no appreciable soil development that we could observe today. Section 65.13 of the NFIP regulations require flood control facilities to function for adverse watershed conditions, not just optimistic ones. Thus the District's discussion of a 100-year debris volume for a watershed unaffected by fire would violate FEMA's regulations. During a large flood, the majority of water and debris will travel down the incised Deer Creek Channel and enter the eastern part of the debris basin. There is no historical evidence to support the assumption that the incised Deer Creek channel moves across the fan during a large flood like a windshield wiper on a car. If the proper performance of the Deer Creek debris basin relies on a blockage forming in the main channel or a particular behavior of Bull Canyon, then the District needs to certify to FEMA that this will indeed happen during the base flood event. Unless and until this is done, and the necessary technical documentation supporting these hypotheses are provided, the flood control system does not meet the appropriate NFIP regulations. The District points out that Exhibit 5 of the Exponent report shows debris on the west inlet chute. However, by inspecting the site during a rainstorm in February 2000 we observed that the water for this overspill comes from rain falling on the access road to the water tanks. It does not come from the Deer Creek Channel as implied by the District and MEI. The current basin design is based on the assumption that a significant percentage of the debris generated in the Deer Creek watershed will enter the west side of the basin. For any of the reasonable flood scenarios that exist, however, only an insignificant amount of debris will get to the west side, and the basin will overtop before it captures the 100-year debris volume. The District and MEI essentially acknowledge this. Para~raoh 8b. The District: Upslope maintenance reinforces the entrenched Deer Creek channel as the sole flow path for water and debris. Future maintenance will have little effect on the behavior of large floods. MEI's Response: Same comment. Exponent's Response: There have been several large floods prior to the basin's construction. The Deer Creek channel was overwhelmed in none of these floods. No explanation is given as to why debr/s did not travel down into the western part of the fan during these floods. · Paraeraph 8c. The District: A constructed levee near the water tank road may prevent debris from entering the west side of the basin. The design makes provision for the uncertainty in the location and distribution of the flood and debris inflow by providing storage space for · deposition along the entire upstream length of the debris basin embankment, not just the eastern portion. MEI's Response:. Same comment. Exponent's Response: The District's original design, depends on debris depositing along · the western embankment. In reality, if 292 acre-feet of debris are generated by the Deer Creek watershed, much of it will overtop the spillway and enter the concrete outlet channel rather than depositing along the entire upstream length of the debris basin embankment. Paragraph 8d. The District: The current location of the Deer Creek channel delivers a large portion of · the flood inflow and sediment to the eastern side of the basin. Consideration should be given to measures that foster a more uniform distribution of flood and sediment inflow to the basin. MEI's Response: Agree but no specific action is recommended. Exponent's Response: Measures can be taken to improve the "performance reliability" of the basin but no specifics are provided. It is clear that the incised Deer Creek channel can be relied on to focus debris to the east side of the basin, and that the existing upstream levee could be a problem. It is not clear what is being proposed here, however. Even if these modifications are implemented, technical evaluations would still have to be done to verify that the basin functions properly and that the Deer Creek flood control system deserves to be recognized on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map. ParaoraDh 9a, and 9b. · The District: The District performed its own survey in July 2000. Using the radial deposition pattern and the assumption that the entire basin will be filled, the debris capacity is 298 acre-feet. The 1993 topography from San Bemardino County indicates that the capacity would be 312 acre-feet for the same set of assumptions. Normal maintenance allows for the basin to fill up to 25% of capacity before clean out is required. MEIResponse. No comment. · Exponent's Response: The District acknowledges that the basin capacities of 298 acre- feet and 312 acre-feet are based on an unrealistic deposition scenario because only part of the basin will hold debris during a flood event. The actual capacity is significantly less than 310 acre-feet. The 25% debris "allowance" should therefore apply to a realistic estimate of the debris-holding capacity. This would require the basin to be cleaned out at · an earlier point in time. For example, 25% of 298 acre-feet is 74.5 acre-feet. Right now, this volume could be allowed to reside in the eastern part of the basin before cleanout is initiated. Using the District's figures, this reduces the effective debris holding capacity to 87.5 acre-feet (162-74.5 = 87.5). If this amount of buildui~ were allowed, the basin could overtop with an additional 87.5 acre-feet of debris, which is about a 12-year debris flow event. Paraeral}h 9c. · The District: The Exponent report assumes an unrealistic debris deposition pattern. MEI's Response: Agree and believe that significantly more debris will deposit in the west side of the debris basin than is indicated by Exponent's analysis. · Exponents' Response: The Exponent report, p. 7, states that the peer review by Michael Bohlander of Los Angeles County asked for this matter to be examined further. By increasing the debris expansion angle and reducing the side slope, the debris capacity increases from 111.6 acre-feet to 113.9 acre-feet. This is not a significant increase. San Bernardino County did an investigation of the debris basin's capacity in February 2000, · and it also concluded that the maximum debris basin capacity is only about 130 acre-feet. These three independent evaluations agree that the basin holds significantly less debris than it needs to. · Paraera~h 9d. The District: A new analysis of debris storage capacity results in 139 acre-feet of debris capacity for flows from the Deer Creek channel that go into the east side of the basin, and 23 acre-feet of storage for flows that go into the west side of the basin. This is a total storage capacity of 162 acre-feet. This analysis is based on a 6% deposit slope (which was the design standard in 1979). The basin will continue to trap debris as it fills up and enters the channel. MEI's Response: The basis for the 162 acre-feet is unclear (the August Memorandum · was later modified by the District to explain this more clearly). They agree that additional debris will be stored above the spillway elevation as it begins to pour into the channel. They further state that the deposit slope will become steeper than the maximum assumed value and primarily finer grained sediments will exit the basin. Exponent's Response: The 162 acre-foot number is equivalent to about a 33-year event. The basin was supposed to be built to protect the downstream communities fi.om the 200- year event. Paragraph 9d and the MEI response diminish the consequences of this conclusion. No explanation is given as to how a channel designed to convey clear water will be able to transport thousands of truckloads of debris to Prado Reservoir without experiencing a blockage or overtopping failure. If the basin does not hold the 100-year debris volume, it is not prudent to assume that the excess debris will disappear and the downstream facilities will function as intended. FEMA prohibits such assumptions. · Paragraph 9e. The District: The probability is very Iow that momentum would cause debris inflows to flow over the spillway without being affected by the wide basin area available for · deposition. MEI's Response: The potential for momentum overflow on the Deer Creek Debris Basin should be considered. · Exponent's Response: The Exponent report provides calculations and the application of accepted criteria in order to conclude that the Deer Creek Debris basin has a high propensity for momentum overflow. To avoid momentum overflow, the level pool volume should be at least 50% of the total storage capacity of the basin. Based on Exponent's analysis, the level pool volume is 17% of the total capacity. Based on the District's revised analysis, the level pool volume is only 12% of the total capacity. Both 12% and 17% are significantly less than the required value of 50% so it must be concluded that there is a definite momentum overflow potential. The District's August Memorandum does not contain any supporting analysis as a basis for the conclusion that momentum overflow is not a problem here. Paraerauh 9f. The District: The original design assumption regarding debris deposits in the basin were · unreasonable. The District's re-evaluation places the effective storage capacity between 162 acre-feet and 310 acre-feet depending on assumptions. MEI's Response: Agrees that the original design assumptions were unreasonable but no comment on the actual capacity of the basin. Exponent's Response: Based on the Section 65.13 of the NFIP regulations, an acceptable analysis must be prepared that considers various reasonable scenarios of how debris enters the basin and overtops the spillway. The most conservative scenario is then chosen as the basis for design. The design capacity of the basin is, therefore, the smallest · number generated for all of the scenarios considered. This is illustrated in a March 10, 1994 letter from FEMA to the City of El Paso, Texas regarding a private developer's plans to build two flood control dikes (Attachment 5). In this letter, FEMA shows how various scenarios of localized sediment deposition need to · be considered in order to demonstrate that a flood control facility can be certified for the 100-year event. The letter states: Even when the structure is designed with more sediment storage volume than the total expected sediment load, localized deposition and changing flow paths during · a storm event can result in failure of a flood control structure placed perpendicular to the natural flow paths. If the Deer Creek Debris Basin is held to FEMA's standards as illustrated in this letter, the capacity of the basin is likely to be much less than 162 acre-feet. Para~raoh 10. The District. Exponent's conclusion that the basin handles less than a 20-year event is · unrealistic and underestimates the debris storage capacity of the basin because it uses a 5% deposit slope criteria instead of a 6% slope. MEI's Response: No comment. · Exponent's Response: Although the District has not adopted an updated procedure for analyzing how the configuration of a debris basin affects the amount of debris it can ' - store, other leading flood control agencies in Southern California and FEMA have done so. Because the District decided that it is appropriate to use updated techniques to determine the amount of debris coming from the Deer Creek watershed, it is only · reasonable that the updated standard should be applied to estimating the debris storage capacity of the existing basin. During the period of time that the District thought it was necessary to rethink their method of estimating debris volumes (i.e. replacing the Tatum Method with the Los Angeles District Method), the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) updated their methods for estimating debris basin storage · capacity based on observed performance of debris basins. The District provides no explanation as to why the updated LACDPW standards would not shed additional light on the basin's expected performance. Anticipating opposition to this standard, Exponent used both today's standard and the old standard to evaluate the debris basin's capacity. In both cases, the capacity of the Deer Creek debris basin is well below the 100-year volume necessary to make the system work. Paragraph lla through f. The District: The downslope damage projected by Exponent is unrealistic because it relies on the LACDPW criteria, which is more conservative. The probability of the I00- year flood and the 100-year debris volume is more rare than the base flood used in the NFIP. Exponent should not make generalized statements about catastrophic flooding but instead should just do hydraulic studies. The chaimel can still work to some degree if debris enters it. The concrete channel is structurally adequate to convey debris. MEI's Response: Agree that Exponent is exaggerating the consequences of the debris · basin overtopping. Less debris will go downstream than if the Corps had not built the project. Only a small percentage of the total debris will go down the channel now that the basin has been built. Erosion of the concrete channel by debris flows is not a problem. Exponent's Response: Exponent is not exaggerating the catastrophic consequences of a failure of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. The communities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario need to understand fully the degree of threat they face from floods. Neither the District nor MEI are concerned about debris entering the Deer Creek outflow channel because, in their view, only a small pementage of debris will go over the spillway and, fortunately, this will be the small pieces of debris and not the large ones. This is not realistic. Even if 1% of the 100-year debris volume goes over the spillway, this would be approximately 3 acre-feet, equivalent to about 320 truckloads of debris. This debris will deposit somewhere in the channel in amounts sufficient to block it or reduce its capacity, and flooding would result. Letters dated March 26, 1980 and April 21, 1980 from Colonel Gwynn Teague, District Engineer to the Division Engineer, clearly state that even moderate amounts of debris entering the Cucamonga Creek flood control system effectively negate the performance of the rectangular concrete channels (Attachment 6). The Deer Creek Channel is a tributary to the Rancho Cucamonga Creek Channel and shares similar size, slope, and · concrete material characteristics. The March 26, 1980 letter states: ...b. Vulnerability of Completed Reaches of Channel- Flows carried by channels in the Cucarnonga Creek Project originate in the San Gabriel Mountains immediately north of Ontario and Upland Because of the watershed, the creeks carry a very large debris load. The debris is rolled through completed channel segments and wears away the concrete. 'Storms this past winter have caused about $500,000 in damages to completed work, including wearing the concrete down to the reinforcing steel for a half-mile reach. This type of damage will continue until the channel system is buttoned up, complete with debris basin. Phase VI construction will secure two of the major creeks, Cucamonga and Demens. Until this is done the existing federal investment of about $42,000,000 is susceptible to repeated flood damage. The April 2l, 1980 letter further states: ...Flows this past winter (79-80) were estimated at 5,000 cfs, but only about 1,500 · cfs reached the conduit because of an obstruction in the channel upstream. About two-thirds of the floodflow overtopped the Cucamonga channel at the obstruction. Under pre-project conditions, 5,000 cfs is about a 20-year event, while 1,500 cfs is a 7,year event. The obstruction will no longer exist in the channel after dune 1980. Therefore, unless Phase gl is awarded by the next winter's rainy season, · flows ofl,500-2,000 cfs (7-yearflood) could cause considerable disruption to the airport facilities and present severe safety problems to landing aircraft and to personnel in the passenger terminal. Re-routing of air traffic would have environmental and safety impacts on the other airports in the already overloaded Southern California air corridors. · b. Paragraph 2. b of reference l.a discussed the vulnerability of the completed channel to damage caused by debris. Since the writing of reference 1.a. debris from last winter was cleaned from the channel and an inspection made. The damage is much more severe than expected. Extensive erosion of the concrete occurred along a half-mile reach, wearing 6" of concrete from the invert and · footing. (See cross section, Incl 1.) The erosion exposed and undercut the steel in the footing and invert. The structural integrity of the walls is in question because of the eroded concrete and the undercut and stressed structural steel (see Incl 2). It is the opinion of the Los Angeles District that the invert slabs and walls will fail if any further erosion occurs. Furthermore, the channel will continue to be · susceptible to bed load transport which causes scour leading to this type of failure until the channel is completed and connected to the debris basin. This would be accomplished under the Phase VI contract. c. Should the.failure described above in paragraph 2. b occur, the channel would · plug with invert slabs, wallpanels and debris causing virtually allfloodwaters to flow overland. The condition would be more severe than under pre-project conditions. Most of this flow would eventually end up being carried by streets, many of which act as storm drains. During the 1979-80 floods, two deaths occurred in the project area which were directly related to street flows. One child · stepped offa curb and was swept down the street to a storm drain inlet. He was caught on the trash rack, broke a leg, and drowned. One adult was killed when he tried driving through an intersection. His car was swept down the street to the Cucamonga channel, at which point it is surmised that he tried to evacuate the car and was himself swept into the Cucamonga channel. His body was found in the wall steel the next day. There is every likelihood that more lives could be lost · if normal street flows are augmented by break-out waters from Cucamonga Creek. These letters illustrate the problems that uncontrolled debris inflows have on concrete rectangular channels in this environment and goes so far as to say that even air traffic safety could be affected. They confirm the likelihood of blockages caused by even small amounts of debris, the rapid erosion of the concrete by flood debris, the potential for disintegration of the channel's structural elements,.and the additional degree of harm that could result from a channel overflow. Colonel Teague's 1980 letters also reinforce the idea that these flood control systems are extremely dependent on adequately sized debris basins. Without such basins, the performance of the flood control system is unreliable. The District's August Memorandum and the MEI report'state that Santa Paula Creek in Ventura County and Ouray Creek in Colorado carry debris adequately and erosion of the concrete is a slow process taking years before the channel's structural integhty is jeopardized. Considering what happened to the Cucamonga Creek channel in 1980 it is too optimistic to conclude that Debr Creek will be problem free in the event that the debris basin overtops. The vulnerability of the Deer Creek Channel was again raised by Norman Arno, Chief of the Engineering Division of the Corps in a supplement to Feature Design Memorandum No. 6 dated May 27, 1983 (Attachment 6). This supplement states in paragraph 2.06: Subsequent to project construction it has become evident that erosion control measures are an absolute necessity to prevent debris and boulders from · accumulating in the channel. Dense growth of Russian thistle along the channel right-of-way has created an additional problem. The Russian thistle commences growth in early spring and reaches maturity in the fall months of August and September. The dry plants along the channel present a significant fire hazard to adjacent communities, many of which have wood shake shingle roofs. · Additionally, with the arrival of intense Santa And winds, much of this thistle is blown into the channel, where, along with other accumulated debris, it could effectively decrease the channel capacity. The thistle problem as it currently exists presents not only a significant fire hazard, but could also cause overtopping of the channel walls resulting in major flood damage. This document suggests that vegetative debris as well as boulders and soil could jeopardize the function of the Deer Creek Channel, and that the presence of flowing water is insufficient to remove this debris. Both the District and MEI mis-state the FEMA regulation applicable to the Deer Creek flood control system. In the interest of public safety, FEMA has adopted more stringent standards for areas subject to "alluvial fan flooding". If, as the District claims, Deer Creek is an active alluvial fan, Section 65.13 applies. This rule requires the use of the 100-year flood event considering adverse watershed conditions, such as fire and debris, without regard to the joint probability of the adverse conditions. The reason is that, if · downstream facilities become blocked with debris, floodwater will exit the system and flood adjacent areas. Even though the entire 100-year water discharge may not be flowing O 13 Ex'~ through a given neighborhood, FEMA is concerned that due to the high velocities and debris movement, there is significant danger to life. Unless Corps of Engineers facilities · are exempt from FEMA's regulations, the Deer Creek debris basin should not be considered sufficient to meet the base-flood criterion in its current condition. The District proposes additional studies to quantify the amount of debris exiting the basin, potential channel blockage locations, and overflow areas downstream of the Deer · Creek Debris basin. This is a reasonable step. However, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and FEMA are operating under the false assumption that there is no problem with the Deer Creek flood control system. The California Office of Emergency Services, the State Division of Safety of Dams, and the San Bemai'dino County Department of Transportation / Flood Control are aware that there is a problem but are waiting for it to be fully explained. Informing all of these agencies of the need for the additional studies is a critical first step because the outcome of such studies affects the decisions made by these agencies. Paragraphs 12 and 13. The District: Exponent could not reproduce the Corps of Engineers' 310 acre-feet basin capacity because Feature Design Memorandum No. 6 did not have sufficient information on the radial deposition pattern that the "Debris Line" was based on. · MEI's Response: The debris basin's capacity is substantially less than 310 acre-feet, however debris can still deposit in the basin as it overtops the spillway. Exponent's Response: We agree that some debris will continue to deposit in the basin as it overtops the spillway and that the previously assumed radial pattern is not realistic. · However, the potential amount of debris that could overtop is well over 100 acre-feet. Such large quantities of debris would cause serious problems in the stability and functioning of the downstream channel. Significant overbank flooding should be expected. · Paral~ranh 17. The District: The basin provides adequate protection from the base flood event. Upstream modifications that are relatively straightforward can restore the basin to the 310 acre-feet capacity. MEI's Response: No comment. Exponent's Response: Upstream modifications can be made to improve the basin's function but they may not solve the larger problem. Without analyzing the extent of the · modifications, it is difficult to determine if they will be sufficient. Moreover, it may take many years for San Bernardino County to acquire the permits and allocate the funds to perform this work. In the mean time, the subject communities have inadequate flood protection and are uncertain about the degree of hazard they face. Exponent has · concluded that the Deer Creek flood control system does not meet the requirements of Section 65.13 of the NFIP regulations. The purpose of this regulation is for FEMA to inform people of the additional hazards associated with "alluvial fan flooding", therefore FEMA should be notified immediately so they can fulfill their obligation. FEMA should also be invited to participate in the resolution of this matter. . Douglas Hamilton Exponent, Inc. 3187 Red Hill Ave., Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Registered Civil Engineer No. 42210 by the California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors CESPL-ED-H (1t10-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity 1. References. a. Exponent Inc. report entitled "Evaluation of the Debris Storage Capacity of the Deer Creek Basin" dated April 26, 2000 · (enclosure t) . b. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works letter to Mr. Douglas Hamilton dated May 1, 2000 regarding Deer Creek Debris Basin- Review of Capacity Based on Los Angeles County · Standards (enclosure 2). c. April 24, 2000 Declaration of Mr. Robert G. Kirby, a former employee of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (enclosure 3). d. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter dated November 2, 1999 to Mr. Dean G. Dunlavey, of LATHAM & WATKINS, regarding the Deer Creek Reception Levee. e. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter dated December 16, 1999 to Mr. Dean G. Dunlavey, of LATHAM & WATKINS, regarding the Deer Creek Reception Levee and the Deer Creek Debris Yield. f. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter dated · January 12, 2000 to Mr. Dean G. Dunlavey, of LATHAM & WATKINS, regarding Deer Creek Reception Levee and Deer Creek hydrology. g. US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Manual 1110-.2-1601, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels. h. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter to Mr. Ken Guidry, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, dated July 24, 2000 regarding Deer Creek Debris Basin capacity (enclosure 4). i. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works letter to Mr. William J. O'Neill dated May 17, 2000, regarding Deer CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris · Basin Storage Capacity' Creek Debris Basin. (enclosure 5). j. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District report · entitled "Hydrology, Design Memorandum No. 1, Cucamonga Creek" dated 5 January 1973. k. US A~my Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District report entitled "Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Project Feature Design Memorandum #6, Deer Creek, Demens and Hillside, Debris Basins and · Channels" dated June 1979. 1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District report entitled "Review of Debris Production and Level-of-Protection, Deer Creek Debris Basin" dated 29 November 1999. 2. The purpose of this memorandum is to document the Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch evaluation of the information presented in references la, lb, and lc, with respect to Deer Creek Debris Basin storage capacity and the level of flood protection on Deer Creek. In general, these documents assert that the Deer Creek Debris Basin is undersized in relation to the storage space needed to capture the 100-year debris yield. In conjunction with this conclusion, the Exponent Inc. report portrays a significantly increased flood potential for the Deer Creek · floodplain than reflected on current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) mapping. Background Information · 3. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District planned, designed, and constructed the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel as part of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Project authorized. by Act of Congress, Flood Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-483, 90~h Congress, 2n~ session. Construction of the project was · completed in 1984 and it was then transferred to San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) for operation and maintenance. Since its completion, the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel have performed flawlessly in preventing downstream flood damages. · 4. The Deer Creek Reception Levee is a former SBCFCD flood control levee initially constructed in the 1930's by the Civilian 2 .CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity Conservation Corps, and last improved during 1970-71 by the Los Angeles District and SBCFCD as an emergency measure in response to a watershed burn on Deer Creek. The levee extends about 6,400 feet down slope from the Deer Creek Debris Basin on the west side · of the Deer Creek Channel. The Deer Creek Reception Levee was a local flood control measure and is not a part of the Corps of Engineers Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Project. Since completion of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel, the Reception Levee is no longer needed to provide flood protection · from runoff generated from the. watershed area upstream of Deer Creek Debris Basin. The eastern portion of the Deer Creek Reception Levee is now located on land that was transferred to private ownership by SBCFCD after completion of the Corps project. 5. The Lauren Development is a proposed housing project that would remove the eastern portion of the Deer Creek Reception Levee in constructing 40 homes on about 25 acres. Opponents of Lauren Development's project question the capability of the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel to provide 100-year flood protection. They are adamant in their position that the Deer Creek Reception Levee is necessary to supplement the flood protection provided by Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel. In response to those concerns, the Los Angeles District, in letters dated November 2, 1999, December 16, 1999, and January 12, 2000 (references id, le, and if, respectively), reaffirmed that Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel provide greater than 100-year flood protection. 6. The above letters from Los Angeles District notwithstanding, the opponents to Lauren Development recently hired the firm of Exponent Inc. to support their position. This firm produced a report (reference la), which concludes that the Deer Creek Debris Basin is undersized and incapable of capturing the estimated 100- year debris yield from the watershed. A County of Los Angeles · Department of Public Works letter from Mr. Michael J. Bohlander dated April 27, 2000 regarding Deer Creek Debris Basin (reference lb), and an April 24, 2000 Declaration of Mr. Robert G. Kirby, a former employee of the US Army Corps ~f Engineers, Los Angeles District (reference lc) were also obtained to support the conclusions of the Exponent Inc. report. Copies of references · la, lb, and lc were provided by the opponents of the Lauren Development to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, SBCFCD, the Federal 3 CESPL-ED-H .(t110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)). Subsequently, all four of these organizations have independently requested the US Army · Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District to review and comment on the information provided in these documents. Exponent Inc. report entitled "Evaluation of the Debris Storage Capacity of the Deer Creek Basin" dated April 26, 2000 7. The Exponent Inc. report conclusions on page 1 state: "The debris storage capacity is almost 200 acre-feet smaller than the 310 acre-feet storage capacity anticipated in the · June 1979 Feature Design Memorandum No.6(FDM No.6). Because the Deer Creek flood control channel relies on the basin to capture all of the debris during a 100-year event, the lands beneath the debris basin are still within the floodplain as defined by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)." · Furthermore, ~'If the 100-year event occurs, the basin would fill up, and debris would flow down the spillway into the flood control channel. The size of the debris and the speed of its movement down the spillway is likely to disintegrate the concrete channel bed and walls, causing floodwaters to escape the channel and spread back out on the fan in a manner similar to that before the flood control project was built." The report goes on to provide six points of discussion that are used to support the conclusions stated above. Each one of those · discussion points as well as the overall conclusions will be analyzed in the following paragraphs. 8. Debris is Delivered to the Deer Creek Debris Basin only throuqh the Incised Channel on the Eastern Side of the Inactive · Fan Head Valley. a. Deer Creek Debris Basin is' located near the mouth of Deer Creek Canyon on an active alluvial fan. Flow paths on alluvial fans are uncertain due to rapid variations in flood discharge and sediment load, scour and deposition in transient · channels temporarily created by flood flows, and by human activities. Although the active channel does enter the basin on 4 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: .Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris · Basin Storage Capacity the east side, during high debris flow events there is a definite potential for debris deposition to occur in the active channel upstream of the debris basin that would result in a more uniform distribution of flood inflow and debris to the basin. Field · investigations upstream of the basin found clear physical evidence of past flood flows that diverged from the current active channel. The existing deposits of material on the west side of the alluvial fan above the basin are further evidence of the past occurrences of flow on the west side of the fan. In · fact visual evidence of some inflow to the basin on the west inlet chute is clearly visible on the second plate of exhibit 5 (Topographic Model of Deer C~eek Debris Basin Looking Upstream- North) of the Exponent Inc. report. · b. The current location of the active channel is influenced by mechanical channel shaping activities and water conservation diversion and spreading structures (no longer in service) upstream of the basin that tend to maintain the active channel on the east side under low to moderate flood and debris flow conditions. During lazge flood events with high debris volumes, however, these structures would be overwhelmed by the transported debris. Future maintenance or lack of maintenance of these features will have little impact on the deposition patterns in the debris basin during design-magnitude events. Deer Creek channel upstream of the basin also has two 90-degree bends that · tend to promote deposition in the active channel. c, During a major flood event with heavy debris loads, flow may enter the debris basin in both active and currently inactive channels. There is a high probability that flows and debris will · be transported in the central and western parts of the fan downstream of the abandoned concrete diversion structure. However, a man-made levee that is located just to the east of the road to the water tanks and that runs parallel to the road is likely to be substantial enough to prevent significant amounts of · flow and debris from reaching the western-most part of the fan, and from filling the entire storage volume of the basin. The Corps design for Deer Creek Debris Basin makes provision for the uncertainty in the location and distribution of the flood and debris inflow by providing storage space for deposition along the entire upstream length of the debris basin embankment, not just the eastern portion. 5 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris · Basin Storage Capacity d. The Exponent Inc. report has made a valid point that under Current conditions the active channel'on the eastern portion of the alluvial fan upstream of the basin could deliver a large portion of flood inflow and sediment to the basin. Since · part of the debris basin storage area is located on the western side of the basin, consideration should be given to measures that foster a more uniform distribution of flood and sediment inflow to the basin, or increase debris storage capacity on the eastern portion of the basin. Either approach or a combined approach · would improve the performance reliability of the basin with respect to sediment capture. 9. The Current Debris Storaqe Capacity Is 111.6 Acre-Feet. a. Our investigation of the basin storage capacity, as documented in reference lh, determined that the current (July 2000) debris basin storage capacity is 298 acre-feet versus the design storage capacity of 310 acre-feet (references lj and lk). The design storage capacity was based on a debris deposition slope of 6 percent distributed radially from the spillway. Using this debris deposition pattern in conjunction with the 1993 SBCFCD topography, and the July 2000 Corps topography, yields basin storage volume estimates of 312 acre-feet and 298 acre- feet, respectively. These debris storage volumes are based on · the assumption that the entire storage volume of the debris basin is effective, i.e., flood and debris inflows can reach all portions of the basin, and are distributed in a radial pattern from the spillway crest. · b. Normal operation and maintenance practice for maintaining debris basins per Corps Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601 (para. 4-1 d.2) is to allow deposition of up tO 25 percent of the design debris storage volume before requiring cleanout of the debris basin. SBCFCD has maintained Deer Creek Debris Basin · design storage capacity to 298 acre-feet as of July 2000, which is within 4 percent of the original design storage capacity of 310 acre-feet. c. The Exponent Inc. report assumes an unrealistic debris depositional pattern based on the location of the currently · active inflow channel to the basin. The third figure of Exhibit 7 (entitled DEBRIS BASIN CAPACITY) of the Exponent Inc. report 6 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity shows the assumed debris deposition cone within the basin with a nearly ~ertical slope of debris deposition along its western edge. This assumed debris deposition configuration is physically unrealistic because it would require a physical barrier to limit the movement of sediment to the west. Yet this assumed debris deposition pattern is used as the basis for concluding the effective basin debris storage capacity is. 111.6 acre-feet. d. Using the conservative assumption that all flood inflow to Deer Creek Debris Basin occurs from the active channel on the eastern side of the basin, an estimate was made of an effective design storage volume. This estimate used the Corps design debris slope of 6 percent applied as a single plane surface (not radially distributed) from spillway crest with a western · horizontal limit corresponding to the western end of the eastern grouted stone inlet chute. To account for the additional wedge of storage space to the west of the horizontal limit of the 6 percent plane surface, a surface was defined that sloped downward to intersect the upstream toe of the basin embankment. The combination of the two storage volumes (139 acre-feet on the east, plus 23 acre-feet in the western wedge) produced an approximate calculation of effective design storage volume of about 162 acre-feet versus the Exponent Inc. estimate of 111.6 acre-feet. The Corps estimate does not assume an artificial barrier to debris deposition on the western edge of the deposition, as does the Exponent Inc. report. However of greater importance is the fact that the debris basin does not cease to function once the effective design storage volume to spillway crest is filled. The debris basin will continue to efficiently capture debris due the high roughness, relatively flat slope (as · compared to the natural channel slope), unconfined geometry of the basin area, the high basin embankment height above spillway crest, and the trapping effect of the small spillway opening in comparison to the long embankment. Therefore the debris basin will continue to have a high =trap efficiency" for flood events that produce debris volumes in excess of the basin storage at spillway crest. e. Exponent Inc. alludes to ~momentum overflow" as a possible problem with the functionality of the debris basin. Momentum overflow is most likely to occur where a debris basin is situated in a narrow canyon where debris inflows are more readily funneled to a spillway. Deer Creek Debris Basin is a relatively 7 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris · Basin Storage Capacity large debris basin with a distance of about 600 feet from the eastern inlet chute to the spillway, and a wide area of potential deposition. In addition the alignment of the spillway is offset from the direction of the active channel inflow. The probability is very low that flow momentum would cause debris inflows to directly traverse the length of the basin and flow over the spillway without being affected by the wide basin area available for deposition. f. The original estimate of. the debris basin capacity of 310 acre-feet was made assuming that the debris deposit would slope radially upstream from the spillway crest at a 6 percent slope. This assumption is unreasonable because it would result in a deposit that would slope upward laterally in both directions from the flowline between the inlet and the spillway. As a result, cross sections through the deposit would have their highest point at the margins of the deposit. During actual flood events, the deposit would likely be highest along the flowline, and would slope downward toward the margins of the deposit. Due · to the long debris basin embankment length, upward slope of the basin bottom in a westerly direction, and the variable and distributed nature of the alluvial fan flood inflow, application of Corps design guidance to Deer Creek Debris Basin involves engineering judgment to establish the basin configuration needed to provide the design debris storage volume. The evaluations · conducted in the course of this review have determined that the effective design debris storage space to spillway crest is between 162 and 310 acre-feet, depending on the assumptions related to the spatial distribution of flood inflow. · 10. The Current Debris Capacity Corresponds To Less Than A 20- Year Event. Exponent Inc. relies on an unrealistic debris deposition pattern (see paragraph 8c above) and LACDPW debris basin design · criteria (with a 5 percent maximum debris slope vs. the Corps' use of 6 percent) as the basis for the 111.6 acre-feet current debris storage capacity. Although the Exponent Inc. report correctly interprets Figure 5 of reference 11, its reliance on a current debris storage capacity of 111.6 acre-feet underestimates the effective debris storage capacity of the basin, and therefore · understates the current level of protection afforded by the basin. 8 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 Augus5 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris · Basin Storage Capacity 11. The Consequences of the 100-Year Event. With respect to the NFIP floodplain, Exponent Inc. concludes that if the Deer Creek Debris Basin does not hold the 100-year debris yield that it · automatically follows that the downstream flood improvements (Deer Creek Channel and local storm drain systems) would be overwhelmed by an occurrence of the Base Flood (1-percent chance of occurrence in any year), and the floodplain would revert to the pre-project floodplain. This scenario put forth in the Exponent Inc. report is unsupported by any technical analysis, and understates the effectiveness of the flood control system on Deer Creek. ao Exponent Inc. has elected to utilize the current (~993) · Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) debris basin design procedures as the basis for evaluating the adequacy of the basin to capture the 100-year debris yield. Use of current LACDPW debris basin design criteria is more conservative than the Corps design criteria (reference lg). However the use of either deterministic debris basin design criteria (LACDPW or Corps) · alone does not fully address or quantify the effectiveness of the basin in combination with the downstream channel to convey a probabilistic flood event through the downstream flood control system. Furthermore, if the design capacity of a flood control facility such as a debris basin or entrenched channel were · exceeded, it would result in only a partial decrease in project performance that translates to an incremental impact to the floodplain rather than a total loss of project functionality as postulated by the Exponent Inc. report. · b. The Exponent Inc.. report incorrectly equates the level of protection of the downstream floodplain with the debris basin storage capacity alone. The probability of the occurrence of the Base Flood event (1 percent chance annually, or 100-year event) on Deer Creek simultaneously with the occurrence of the 100-year · debris yield at Deer Creek Debris Basin is more rare than the probability of the Base Flood used in the NFIP. (1) Based on the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers (LADCOE) reanalysis of the potential debris yield (reference 11), the joint probability of a 100-year or greater debris yield in · conjunction with a 100-year or greater water discharge is very iow. Reference 11 estimated the 100-year debris yield as 292 9 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity acre-feet, which equates to a unit debris yield of approximately 127,000 yd3/mi2. From the table entitled Debris Yield vs Years- Since-100% Wildfire and Frequency of Exceedance (reference 11), a unit debris yield of 127,000 yd'/mi2 would be produced by a 100- year discharge that occurred about 6.5 years after a 100 percent burn of the watershed. The Deer Creek Fire Factor vs. Frequency Relationship indicates that the annual exceedance frequency of this fire condition is about 17 percent. Since the flood discharge and the fire condition are assumed to be independent, · . the joint frequency of a discharge equaling or exceeding the 100- year discharge and a debris yield that equals or exceeds the 100- year yield is about 0.0017, Which means that it would occur, on average, about once in 588 years. The LADCOE Corps debris yield analysis also indicates that a 100-year discharge that occurred · 12 or more years after a fire (i.e, a fully recovered watershed condition) would produce about 188 acre-feet of debris, and the debris yield associated with a 100-year or greater discharge would exceed 200 acre-feet about once in 300 years. (2) An evaluation of the existing flood control system with respect to the Base Flood should use a Base Flood hydrograph containing an appropriate coincident sediment load. The overflow area analysis would include the determination of the amount of deposition that would occur in the debris basin, the amount and gradation of sediment that would flow over the basin spillway, · and the disposition of the sediment transported downstream, i.e., the extent and location of sediment deposition in the downstream channel system and the sediment conveyed through the system. c. Instead of generalized statements of catastrophic · flooding as .portrayed in the Exponent Inc. report, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analysis should be the basis for statements regarding the extent of potential flooding in the Deer Creek floodplain under conditions of sediment overflow of the basin spillway. Exponent Inc.'s report discusses the consequences of a · flood exceeding the capacity of Deer Creek Debris Basin by relying on the Corps' January 1973 overflows (reference lj) for the pre-project condition. This overstates the potential severity and extent of flooding in that it does not account for effect of downstream Corps channels, local drainage systems, and current floodplain topography. Also unaccounted for by the · Exponent Inc. report is the positive effect on sediment transport within the channel of downstream tributary inflow of mostly 10 CESPL-ED-H (tlt0-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity sediment-free urban runoff. d. It should be noted that the drainage area tributary to Deer Creek debris basin is 3.71 square miles. The drainage area for Deer Creek at the San Bernardino Freeway (just above its confluence with the larger Cucamonga Creek Channel) is 13.56 square miles. The Deer Creek Channel increases in size in the downstream direction to accommodate the addition of local drainage system inflow. The channel capacity immediately below · the debris basin is 5,400 cubic feet per second (cfs), and at the San Bernardino Freeway has increased to 17,000 cfs. Due to the steep channel slope, ranging from about 11 percent immediately downstream of the basin to about 0.8 percent near the confluence with Cucamonga Creek channel, flow velocities and sediment transport capacity are very high. Sediment flowing over the basin spillway will be transported far downstream into a flatter channel reach with a large cross sectional area. Considerable sediment deposition in the downstream channel reaches could be accommodated during a Base Flood without overflow given the channel is sized for a Standard Project Flood event that is substantially larger than the'Base Flood. For example, Deer Creek Channel immediately downstream of the debris basin is designed for 5,400 cfs with a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard, versus the estimated 100-year discharge of 2,770 cfs. Furthermore, much of the fully entrenched Deer Creek Channel is depressed (i.e., top of channel walls are below surrounding ground) such that channel overflows are initially contained within the narrow strip of land immediately adjacent the channel that does not contain development. The effect of any potential channel overflow downstream of the debris basin during a Base · Flood event would therefore be of limited magnitude and areal extent. Exponent Inc. statements implying significant flood impacts during a Base Flood event all the way to Prado Dam, over 12 miles downstream, are unsubstantiated and exaggerated. · e. The Exponent Inc. report postulates the disintegration of the downstream concrete channel bed and walls during a single flood event. Corps experience in Which high debris loads have occurred in reinforced concrete-lined channels such as on Santa Paula Creek in Ventura County is that they initially hold up well structurally. It normally requires many debris laden flood events over the course of years to render rectangular concrete- lined channels structurally unsound. 11 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris · Basin Storage Capacity 12. The Construction Drawinqs Contained in Desiqn Memorandum · No. 6 Correspond To A Volume of 202.8 Acre Feet. Deer Creek Debris Basin was d~signed and constructed in accordance with Corps of Engineers technical guidance (reference lg) to provide 310 acre-feet of debris storage capacity. Reference ih describes the derivation of the design debris · deposition pattern as a 6 percent debris slope fanning out radially from the spillway. We concur that FDM #6 (reference lk) did not adequately explain how the design debris deposition pattern was determined. Exponent Inc.'s efforts to compute the ' design debris capacity from the FDM #6 Plate 3 debris line were · therefore misdirected. 13. A Debris Capacity of 202.8 Acre-Feet Corresponds To Less Than A 50-Year Event. · Exponent Inc.'s attempt to estimate the design debris deposition pattern and design volume based on Plate 3 of FDM #6 led to an underestimate of the actual design capacity of 310 acre-feet. Exponent Inc. correctly interprets Figure 5 of reference 11 that 202.8 acre-feet corresponds to about a 50-year debris yield event, however Exponent Inc. was not aware that the Corps design debris deposition pattern assumed a radial deposition pattern from spillway crest that produced the ~debris line" shown in Plate 3 of FDM #6. · Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Letter of April 27, 2000 14. In Reference lb, Mr. Michael Bohlander concludes "the Deer Creek Debris Basin is not adequate to handle the 100-year debris ,· volume of 292 acre-feet" using methods consistent with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) . Although the use of the current LACDPW debris basin design procedures would apparently result in a more conservative basin design, the Deer Creek Debris Basin is a Corps of Engineers project that was · designed in conformance with Corps design criteria. Our conclusions with regard to the level-of-protection afforded by Deer Creek Debris Basin have been based upon proven US Army Corps 12 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity of Engineers technical standards. Although the two procedures are different, the fact that they are different does not make the Corps procedure invalid. In reference li, LACDPW formally states, "The opinions of Mr. Bohlander are not those of the Department and should not be used to evaluate the level of protection provided by the Deer Creek Debris Basin." April 24, 2000 Declaration of Mr. Robert G. Kirby · 15. Mr. Robert G. Kirby was a former engineer of the Los Angeles D~str[ct Corps of Engineers (LADCOE) who performed hydrologic determinations of debris yield and design flood peak discharge values for the Cucamonga Creek Project including Deer Creek. Mr. Kirby made the design debris yield determination of 310 acre-feet for Deer Creek Debris Basin in accordance with the Los Angeles District Tatum Debris Method. Corps Design Memorandum #1- Hydrology (reference lj) documents that determination. The undersigned worked with Mr. Kirby as a co-worker in the preparation of Design Memorandum #1 (DM#i), and subsequently as Mr. Kirby's supervisor and Section Chief during the remainder of the design and construction of the Cugamonga Creek Project. The following comments are provided in response to Mr. Kirby's declaration. a. Mr. Kirby did not 'perform the civil engineering design of Deer Creek Debris Basin that determined the embankment configuration, spillway crest elevation, embankment height, and basin grading plan required to capture the design debris volume of 310 acre-feet. It is apparent from his declaration (reference lc) that he is unfamiliar with the Corps debris deposition design · guidance since his estimation of the basin debris storage volume (130 acre-feet) is based on a computation of level-pool storage at the spillway crest. Mr. Kirby even states in paragraph 7 of his declaration that his calculations ~were made without reference to the drawings in Design Memorandum #6" which would have shown that a debris deposition slope of 6 percent was used as the basis of design. Design Memorandum #6 is reference lk. b. Mr. Kirby expresses concern that the Deer Creek D~bris Basin design storage volume is too small based on the enveloping curve of debris inflows shown on plate 23 of Design Memorandum #1. However, the design debris volume for the Deer Creek Basin as plotted on this plate is substantially larger (higher) than 13 CESPL-ED-H (lll0-2-11B0a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity enveloping curve of all other observed or design values comprising the graph. c. Furthermore in paragraph 5 of Mr. Kirby's declaration, his statement that "Plate 23 indicates that 130,000 cubic yards of debris per square mile would be generated by each 3.27" storm on the Deer Creek Canyon watershed" is technically incorrect. Mr. Kirby's statement fails to recognize that the design debris estimate computed from the application of the Tatum Debris Method assumes sufficient antecedent rainfall to saturate the soil, that a 100 percent burn of the watershed occurred about 4.5 years prior to the design rainfall, and the 3.27 inches of rainfall falls in a three hour time period (a severe and infrequent occurrence). Hence, not every 3.27" storm on the Deer Creek · watershed will produce 130,000 cubic yards of debris per square mile. The assumptions underlying the Tatum Method debris yield procedure generate a conservative debris yield estimate. · d. Mr. Kirby's other concern regarding the basin design volume is with the possibility of multiple storms events. Certainly multiple storm events do occur in the region. However debris basin facilities in general, and Deer Creek Debris Basin in particular, are designed to control debris inflows from a single event, and for those debris inflows to be cleaned out of the basin to make space for the next debris inflow if greater · than 25 percent of the total basin capacity has been filled. It is standard practice for agencies responsible for maintaining debris basin facilities to perform a cleanout in-between successive storm events. e. As stated in previous Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers correspondence (references ld, le, and lf), flood control facilities are designed to control specific sizes of floods, or provide specific levels of protection. The planning and design process for a flood control project and consistency with agency guidelines is the basis f~r sizing projects. Although Mr. Kirby may now feel that the Deer Creek Debris Basin should have been designed to accommodate a larger volume of debris, those beliefs or preferences differ from the well- established design practices of the Los Angeles District. The basin was designed and constructed in accordance with Corps of · Engineers planning and design guidance, in partnership with a local sponsor (SBCFCD), and with input from local community CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity public meetings on the plan and design of the project. f. With regard to Mr. Kirby's statements in paragraph 9 of his declaration, the decision whether to retain the Deer Creek · Reception Levee as a flood control feature that supplements the flood protection afforded by Deer Creek project is a local decision. However the existing Deer Creek RecepUion Levee would not meet current FEMA requirements (44CFR65.10 - Mapping of areas protected by levee systems) to be recognized on NFIP maps, as · providing protection from the Base Flood. The eastern portion of the levee is privately owned, and currently a section of the levee has been breached to s%rve as an access road. The levee is not an official flood control feature operated and maintained by a FEMA recognized agency (a Federal or State agency, an agency · created by Federal or State law, or an agency of a community participating in the NFIP). Hence Mr. Kirby's reliance on the Deer Creek Reception Levee as a viable flood control feature that meets FEMA regulations as an official flood control feature is misplaced. · S~L~Lary and Conclusions 16. In summary the information provided in the Exponent Inc. report, LACDPW letter, and Mr. Kirby's declaration are insufficient for the Corps of Engineers to decertify the Deer · Creek Debris Basin and Channel Project as providing protection from the FEMA Base Flood (1-percent chance). The assertion by' Exponent Inc. that flood inflow and debris can only enter the basin in the currently active channel is inconsistent with clear physical evidence that flood and debris flows have occurred on · the west side of the alluvial fan. Exponent Inc. report conclusions regarding the extent of the floodplain downstream of Deer Creek Debris Basin during a Base Flood event are largely conjecture unsupported by engineering analysis. Based on the information provided herein the corps of Engineers certification to FEMA that the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel Project affords protection from the Base Flood is still valid. 17. A significant amount of controversy has been generated as a result of allegations that the Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel provide an insufficient level of flood protection. · Although Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel currently provide adequate protection from a Base Flood event, the current.basin 15 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity design storage capacity is less than the 310 acre-feet originally envisioned as part of the Standard Project Flood design level. The engineering course of action to achieve ~he original SPF design intent is relatively straightforward, namely a combination of additional excavation to ensure the storage space already provided in the western portion of the basin is effective space, and measures upstream of the basin that create a more uniform distribution of flood and sediment inflow to the basin. These measures could include modification of local agency chahnel · shaping activities upstream of the basin, removal of gabion structures on the west side of the fan above the basin, grading of the alluvial fan area to fill in the active channel, and excavation of-a channel from the apex of the fan at the mouth of Deer Creek Canyon to the western inlet chute of the basin. These measures would foster a more uniform pattern of debris deposition within the basin and thereby ensure more effective utilization of the existing debris storage space in the basin. 18. The scope and cost of the engineering measures outlined · above for improving the debris capture effectiveness of the basin are small in comparison to those of the original Deer Creek Debris Basin and Channel project. Implementation of those measures described above would improve the debris capture performance and reliability of the Deer Creek Debris Basin. Given that Deer Creek Debris Basin is now owned by SBCFCD, the · decision to pursue these measures would need to be made in cooperation with SBCFCD. Joseph B. Evelyn, PE Chief, Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch Encls · 16 CESPL-ED-H (1110-2-1150a) 4 August 2000 SUBJECT: Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity CF: w/o encls CESPL-DE w/encls 4-5 CESPL-PM CESPL-OC w/encls 4-5 CESPL-PD CESPL-ED w/encls 4-5 CESPL-ED-H W/encls 1-5 CESPL-ED-HH w/encls 1-5 CESPL-ED-D CESPL-ED-GS CESPL-PA (Nesmith) CESPD-OC (Purcell) CESPD-ET-EW (Sing) w/encls 4-5 CESPD-PA (Rezac) CECW-BW (Bryson) w/encls 4-5 17 August 3, 2000 Mr. Edward F. Sing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division Water and Geotechnical Branch 333 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2922 Re: Independent Technical Review of Deer Creek, California Studies (Contract No. DACW05-99-D-0010, Task Order No. 000__) · Dear Mr. Sing: In accordance with the above referenced Task Order, Mussetter Engineering, Inc. (MB) has conducted an independent technical review of documents relating to the Corp of Engineers' Los Angeles District (SPL) analysis of the Deer Creek Debris Basin's flood control capability, SPL's review of a report prepared by Exponent, Inc., as well as a variety of other documents that were · provided to us regarding this issue. The specific documents that were reviewed are listed in £nclosure A. In conducting this review, we performed a site reconnaissance of the debris basin, upstream watershed and downstream flood control channel n the company of representatives from SPL and the San Bernardino Flood Control District on July 25, 2000, and attended a meeting in SPL's office on July 26, 2000 to discuss the project, and to obtain additional information and to · clarify technica~ issues that arose during the site reconnaissance. The primary technical issues involved in the documents that were reviewed center on whether or not the Deer Creek Debris Basin and the downstream flood control channel provide the intended level of protection to downstream properties from flooding and debris production generated in the Deer Creek drainage basin. According to Hydrology Design Memorandum 1 (DM1) and Feature Design Memorandum 6 (DM6) (Enclosure A, Items 12 and 13), the debris basin was intended to have a debris-holding capacity of 310 acre-feet, and the downstream flood control channel was designed to pass flood discharges ranging from 5,400 cfs at the outlet from the basin to 17,000 cfs at the confluence with Cucamonga Creek. The required debris storage capacity was originally determined based on the estimated debris production from "a major storm event" (DM1, page VI-l) using the Tatum Method (Exhibit 1, Item 15). The design capacity of the downstream flood channel · corresponds to the Standard Project Flood (SPF), which was estimated based on the characteristics of a 3-hour local storm that occurred in March 1943. The gradient of the channel ranges from 11 percent at the debris basin outlet to 0.8 percent near the confluence with Cucamonga Creek. The debris basin spillway was designed to pass the peak discharge associated with the Probable Maximum Flood (PM F) of 15,000 cfs with 3 feet of freeboard. According to DM6 (Table VI-1 ) and the as-built plans for the basin (Enclosure A, items 18 and 19), the spillway has a · crest length (width of opening) of 75 feet, and a crest elevation of 2,658.0 feet. The top of the dam embankment at the spillway is at elevation 2,677.5, which provides approximately 3.4 feet of freeboard above the estimated PMF water-surface elevation of 2,674.13 feet, and is 19.5 feet c:\projects/..\Deer Creek Review. Itt O0-13 Mr. Edward Sing Page 3 August 3, 2000 above the spillway crest. ........... .,_~ ~,,r ReckOn of Ex onent Inc. Re crt Comments on i-ina uric[ ~emufa~uu,..,~. · on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storaqe Capacity", by SPL d_a~0 Enclosure A Item 1 para. 8a. Comment. SPL's contention that upstream conditions could lead to "a more uniform d/stnbubon o~fT~od //~flow and debris to the basin" is very reasonable. The incised channel located along the east side of the valley floor appears to have carried most of the flow and debris during events that have occurred at least since the late 1930s (see Exponent, 2000, Exhibit 4), and this · may be the preferred flow path for future large events. Field evidence, however, indicates that significant quantities of debris have historically been transported to the west of the current active channel, and are likely to do so in the future. Preliminary correlation of lichen diameters on the boulder deposits located to the west of the currently active channel with those observed on the Santa Ana River alluvial fan, located to the east of Deer Creek, suggests that the more westerly. Deer Creek boulder deposits may be on the order of 140 years old and may be the result of severe flooding in the 1860s. The channel through the abandoned concrete diversion structure that is located about 1/4 mile upstream from the inlet to the basin, is aligned in a slight westerly direction, and relatively recent flows and deposition have occurred on the fan surface to the west of the currently active channel. · Field evidence based on relative age criteria such as boulder color, degree of pitting of boCder surfaces, and the diameter of lichen growing on the boulders, indicates that there have been at least three separate depositional events on this part of the valley floor in the last approximately 140 years. During a high magnitude debris flow, much of the transported matedal could be delivered to the debris basin along the west side of the east grouted fiprap inlet. · in addition, field inspection indicates that a significant debris flow or sediment,producing event has not occurred in Bull Canyon in recent history (unscarred large trees grow on the accumulated deposits on the valley floor at the mouth of the canyon). The elapsed time since the last event that removed accumulated material is an important factor in the amount of debris that is delivered by a given magnitude storm. The large amount of material that is presently stored on the hillslopes and in the valley bottom of Bull Canyon indicates that there is a high likelihood of a significant debris flow from this tributary during future storm events. If Bull Canyon were to deliver a large quantity of debris to the mainstem, blockage of the current active channel, and diversion of floodwater and debris from upstream toward the west side of the valley is likely. Field inspection of the watershed also indicates that significant quantities of sediment are stored in the other subdrainages within the Deer Creek basin, and that the constriction caused by bedrock outcrop and the Fan Canyon alluvial fan has caused significant debris accumulation on the valley floor of Deer Creek upstream of the · constriction that potentially could be mobilized in a design event. Recommended Actions. None required. para Bb. C~omment_. Under tow to moderate flood and debris flow conditions, the mechanical · channel shaping activities and water conservation diversion and spreading structures that were observed in the field affect the flow and debris deposition patterns upstream from the debris basin. During an event approaching design conditions, however, these structures would be overwhelmed by the transported debris. In our opinion, future maintenance or lack of maintenance of these C:\projects\ ..\Deer Creek Review Itt 00-13 Mr. Edward Sing Page 4 August 3, 2000 features will have little impact on the deposition patterns in the debris basin during design- magnitude events. · Recommended Actions. Reword paragraph to reflect the above statement. SP£ Response: Concur. SPL Final Draft Memorandum for Record (Mt=R) was revised as recommended. para 8c. Comment. During a major flood event with heavy debris loads, there is a high probability that flows and debris will be transported in the centra~ and western parts of the fan downstream of the abandoned concrete diversion structure. However, a man-made levee that is located just to the east of the road to the water tanks and that runs parallel to the road is likely to be substantial enough to prevent significant amounts of flow and debris from reaching the western-most part of the fan, and from filling the entire storage volume of the basin. · Recommended Actions. Reword paragraph to reflect the above statement. SPL~onse: Concur. SP/- Final Draft MFR was revised as recommended. para 8d. Comment. We agree that relatively straight-forward measures could be taken to encourage a more uniform distribution of flood and sediment inflow to the basin, and to increase · the storage capacity along the west side of the basin. Recommended Actions. None required. para 9¢. Comment. We agree that Exponents' (2000) assumption regarding the shape of the debris deposits is not realistic, even if it is conservatively assumed that all of the debris would be delivered via the incised channel along the east side of the valley. As drawn on the contour map in Exhibit 7 of the Exponent report, the' side-slope of the west side of the debds deposits is approximately 1.3H:IV, which is steeper than the angle of repose for rounded cobbles. In addition, the west edge of the debris deposit deviates from the alignment of the upstream channel by only about 20 degrees (1 laterally to -2.7 longitudinally). Because of the height of the drop over the · crest of the grouted riprap inlet, and the tendency of the flows to shoal off the debris deposits in a westerly direction toward, the unfilled part of the debris basin, we believe that significantly more debris will deposit in the west side of the debris basin than is indicated by Exponent's analysis. In addition, Exponent's assumed width for the debds deposit at the grouted riprap inlet of about 270 feet appears to be unreasonably small compared to the 1938 and 1969 aerial photographs that were provided in Exhibit 4 of their report. Although the reproductions in the Exponent report are somewhat unclear (we did not have access to the original photographs during this review), the coloring on the photographs indicates that the width of the channel at the debris basin inlet is 400 to 1,000 feet in the 1938 photograph, and is approximately 600 feet in the 1969 photograph. Recommended Action: None required. Para 9d. Comment. The bass for SPL's estimated effective storage in the debris basin, assuming that all inflow occurs in the active channel on the east side of the valley, of 1. 62 acre-feet is unclear. The reasonableness of the estimate Could be more readily evaluated if the assumptions c:\projects\...\Deer Creek Review.lb' Mr. Edward Sing Page 5 August 3, 2000 used in the computations were stated. The original estimate of the debris basin capacity was made assuming that the debris deposit would slope radially upstream from the spillway crest at a 6 percent slope (Enclosure A, Item 17). It is our opinion that this assumption is unreasonable because it would result in a deposit that would slope upward laterally in both directions from the flow~ine between the inlet and the spillway. As a result, cross sections through the deposit would have their highest point at the margins of the deposit. In reality, the deposit would likely be highest a~ong the flowline, and would slope downward toward the margins of the deposit. We agree that the debris basin would not cease to function once the effective storage volume up to the spillway crest is filled. The spillway is relatively narrow (75 feet) compared to the total width of the deposit. At the point where the debris deposit reached the spillway crest, the spillway would represent a relatively small proportion of the total width of the deposit at the embankment. As a result, some of the debris would pass over the spillway into the downstream flood control channel, but a much larger quantity would be intercepted by the embankment. The circulation pattern a~ong the west side of the deposit near the embankment would primarily be in the westerly direction, which would tend to carry the debris into the unfilled portion of the basin rather than through the spillway. In 'addition, the floodwater and debris that drops over the grouted riprap inlet would spread laterally, reducing the energy available to transport the material toward the spillway. The deposit would likely steepen to above the assumed maximum slope, with primarily finer-grained material being transported over the spillway. While it would be difficult to precisely quantify this process, it is clear that all of the debris in excess of the amount required to initially fill the basin to the spillway crest would not be delivered to the downstream flood control channel. Recommended Action. State the assumptions on which the effective storage capacity is based, · and re-examine the reasonableness of the assumed radial slope pattem upstream from the spillway crest. ~: Concur. Paragraph 9d of SPL Final Draft MFR was revised to describe the derivation of the 162 acre-feet effective storage capacity. A new paragraph 9f added to address the deficiency of the original design debris deposition pattern. · para 1 la. _Comment.. We agree that Exponent's statements regarding the possible consequences of a 100-year event are exaggerated because they imply that the system would totally fail if the debris holding capacity of the basin is exceeded. In reality, the amount of debris that would be delivered to the downstream flood control channel would be significantly less than would have occurred prior to construction of the debris dam, and the more efficient supercritical flood control channel to which the excess debris would be delivered has the capacity to carry a very high sediment load. As a result, even if the debris basin does not capture all of the inflowing debris load, the potential for downstream damages is significantly reduced. Recommended Action. None required. · para 11b. Comment. We agree that "the Exponent report incorrectly equates the,, level of protection of the downstream floodplain with the debris basin storage capacity a/one. In fact, based on SPL's reanalysis of the potential debris yield (Enclosure A, item 3), the joint probability of c:~projects\...~Oeer Creek Review Itr 00-13 Mr. Edward Sing Page 6 August 3, 2000 a 100-yea~ or greater debris yield in conjunction with a 100-year or greater water discharge is very Iow. SPL's recent estimate of the 100-year debris yield is 292 acre-feet, which equates to a unit yield of approximately 127,000 yd3/mi2. From the table entitled "Debris Y~eld vs Years-S~nce-100 Y0 Wildfire and Frequency of Exceedence" (Enclosure A, Item 3), the 100-year debris yield would be produced by a 100-year discharge that occurred about 6.5 years after a 100 percent burn. The Deer Creek Fire Factor vs. Frequency Relationship indicates that the annual exceedence frequency of this fire condition is about 17 percent. Since the flood discharge and the fire condition are assumed to be independent, the joint frequency of a discharge equaling or exceeding the 100-year discharge and a debris yield that equals or exceeds the 100-year yield is about 0.0017, which means that it would occur, on average, about once in 588 years. SPL's debris yield analysis also indicates that a 100-year discharge that occurred 12 or more years after a fire (i.e, a fully recovered watershed condition) would produce about 188 acre-feet of debris, and the debris yield associated with a 100-year or greater discharge would exceed 200 acre-feet about once in 300 years. Recommended Action. Add a brief discussion of the joint probability of large debris yields in · conjunction with the base flood to further illustrate the rare nature of such an event. ~: Concur. Paragraph llb(1) was added to the Final Draft MFR to include a brief discussion of the joint probability of large debris yields in conjunction with the base flood. · para 11c. Comment, We agree that Exponent's use of the COE's 1973 flood mapping, which represents conditions that existed prior to construction of the debds basin and flood channel "...overstates the potential severity and extent of flooding..." downstream from the debds basin. As illustrated above, the amount of debris that is likely to be delivered to the basin during the base flood event on which the FEMA floodplain determination is based would likely be substantially less · than the design capacity of the basin. _Recommended Action. None required. para 11d, Comment_. As indicated in the above discussion, a relatively small percentage of the total debris~,ield that is likely to occur during the Base Flood event will pass over the spillway into · the downstream flood control channel. Because the size range of that material is also likely to be small, significant deposition in the relatively steep and hydraulically efficient flood control channel is unlikely. Since the capacity of the channel is designed for a water flood that is about twice the magnitude of the base flood, increased overbank flooding is unlikely. Recommended Action. None required. para 11 e. Comment. Our experience with concrete lined debris channels is similar to that of SPL. For example, debris flumes that were constructed in 1983-1984 in Ouray, Colorado have withstood debris flows of moderate magnitude that consisted of gravel and cobble-sized material without significant damage. The older concrete-lined debris channels that were replaced by the new channels were originally constructed in the early 1900s. These channels were constructed to a · ~ower structural design standard than the new channel (and we believe the Deer Creek flood control channel), yet they withstood many debris flows that exceeded the capacity of the channels without "disintegrating the channel bed and walls" (Exponent, 2000 - Enclosure A, Item 2). c:~projects\ \Deer Creek Review.Itt Mr. Edward Sing Page 7 August 3, 2000 Recommended Action. None required. para 12, Comment. Our review of the documentation of the original volume estimates for the debris basin (Enclosure A, Item 17) indicates that the computations were performed correctly. As discussed above, however, we believe that the assumed debris deposition pattern is not realistic, and the actual capacity of the basin, even if it were to fill completely to the spillway crest is substantially less than 310 acre-feet. However, as discussed in our comments on para. 9b, above, all of the excess debris above that required to fill the basin to the spillway crest is unlikely to pass over the spillway into the downstream flood control channel, which increases the level of protection. The potential for momentum overflow during large debris flow events should be considered to insure that the approximately 19.5 feet of embankment height above the spillway crest is adequate to prevent the excess debris that does not pass through the spillway from overtopping the embankment. · Recommended Action. If it is COE criteria to consider only the debris capacity up to the spillway crest, the effective volume 0fthe basin should be recomputed based on a more realistic deposition pattern. SPL ~onse: Due to the long debris basin embankment length, upward slope of the basin bottom in a westerly direction, and the variable and distributed nature of the alluvial fan · flood inflow, application of Corps design guidance to Deer Creek Debris Basin involves engineering judgment to establish the basin configuration needed to provide the design debris storage volume. The evaluations conducted in the course of this review have determined that the effective design debris storage space to spillway crest is between 162 and 310 acre-feet, depending on the assumptions related to the spatial distribution of flood · inflow. TheFinalDraftMPRwasrevised(paragraphgf)toincorporateadditi°naldiscussi°n regarding the effective debris storage capacity of the basin in relation to Corps design criteria. para 14. Comment. While the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works criterion for the maximum deposition slope of 5 percent is more conservative than the Corps of Engineers criterion, · both, as applied to the Deer Creek channel, are well within the range of values suggested by others. For'example, Hungr et al. (1987) (Enclosure A, Item 20), suggests that the "storage angle," which is equivalent to the deposition slope should be in the range from 4 to 8 percent. Additional comments reqaddinq "Evaluation of the Debris Storaqe Capacity of the Deer Creek Basin", Exponent, Inc., April 27, 2000. The majority of our comments regarding Exponent's analysis of the debris storage capacity of the ............... nts on SPL's July 28, 2000 Memorandum Deer Creek basin are incorpora~ea into me auuw ,-~,,,, ,,,- - for Record. Additional comments that are not explicitly addressed follow: Section 5, para. 2 (page 6). We disagree with Exponent's statement that the "point of intersection · [of the line of the stream flow axis] is almost precisely where the dam's sp#lway's located." Based on the as-built plans for the debris basin, the alignment of the centedine of the streamflow ax~s intercepts the embankment approximately 120 feet to the right (looking downstream) of the right c:\projects~ \Deer Creek Review.ltr 00-13 Mr. Edward Sing Page 8 August 3, 2000 edge of the spillway opening at the crest of the embankment, and a line drawn parallel to the center line from the left edge of the channel at the top of the grouted stone inlet intercepts the embankment at the approximate left edge of the spillway opening. While it is probable that the fan · materials will fan out in both directions from the inlet, causing a portion of the debris flow to be directed over the spillway, the majority of the flow would be intercepted by the embankment, and not the spillway. Peer Review, Item 4. (Page 7). The assumptions that were used in the HEC-RAS analysis of the amount of freeboard in the channel upstream from the basin are not stated in Exponent's report. If · these profiles represent only clear-water flows associated with each of the flood peaks that were analyzed, they are misleading because they do not take into account bUlking of the flow that would occur during the debris flow. In addition, a backwater analysis of flows in the upstream channel does not account for the potential for blockage of the channel that is likely to occur if significant debris is delivered to the channel from the side tributaries (e.g., Bull and Fan Canyons), or by. landsliding from the adjacent valley sides that is likely during a debris flow event. In our opinion, · this analysis does not provide useful information regarding the behavior of debris flows on the portion of the fan upstream from the debris basin. Additional comments re ardin "Review of Debris Production and Level-of-Protection Deer Creek Debris Basin" H drolo and H draulics Section Los An eles District Co s of En ineers · November 29 1999. (Enclosure A, Item 3) The majority of our comments regarding SPL's review of the potential debds production and the level-of-protection provided by the Deer Creek Debris Basin are incorporated into the above is not ' 8 comments on SPL s July 2 , 2000 Memorandum for Record. An additional comment that explicitly addressed follows: · Discharge-Frequency Relationship (page 4)..Comment. Use of the Day Creek unit discharges - as the basis for the discharge frequency curves for Deer Creek is reasonable, but conservative since the Day Creek unit discharges were the highest of the three streams that were considered. Recommended Action. None required. If you have any questions about the above comments, please call. Sincerely, MUSSETTER ENGINEERING, INC. Robert A. Mussetter, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer · Michael D. Harvey, Ph.D., P.G. Principal Geomorphologist c:~projects\ .',Deer Creek Review Itt O0-13 Mr. Edward Sing Page 9 August 3, 2000 RAM/MDH:bbv · cc: 'Joe Evelyn, Los Angeles District, COE Mr. Edward Sing Page 10 August 3, 2000 Enclosure A List of documents reviewed by Mussetter Engineering, Inc. relating to the flood control capability of the Deer Creek .Debris Basin · 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Memorandum for Record (Final Draft) dated July 28,2000 regarding "Evaluation of Exponent Inc. Report on Deer Creek Debris Basin Storage Capacity." 2. Exponent, Inc., 2000. Evaluation of the Debris Storage Capacity of the Deer Creek Basin, · April 27. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Review of Debris Production and Level-of-protection, Deer Creek Debds Basin, Hydrology and Hydraulics Section, November 29, 2000. · 4. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works letter to Mr. Douglas Hamilton dated April 27, 2000 regarding Deer Creek Debris Basin- Review of Capacity Based on' Los Angeles County Standards (enclosure 2). 5. April 24, 2000 Declaration of Mr. Robert G. Kirby, a former employee of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (enclosure 3). 6. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter dated November 2, 1999 to Mr. Dean G. Dunlavey, of LATHAM & WATKINS, regarding the Deer Creek Reception Levee. 7. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter dated December 16, 1999 to Mr. Dean G. · Dunlavey, of LATHAM & WATKINS, regarding the Deer Creek Reception Levee and the Deer Creek Debris Yield. 8. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter dated January 12, 2000 to Mr. Dean G. Dunlavey, of LATHAM & WATKINS, regarding Deer Creek Reception Levee and Deer Creek hydrology. · 9. US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels. 10. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles letter to Mr. Ken Guidry, San Bemardino County Flood Control District, dated July 24, 2000 regarding Deer Creek Debris Basin capacity · (enclosure 4). 11. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works letter to Mr. William J. O'Neill dated May 17, 2000, regarding Deer Creek Debris Basin. (enclosure 5). 12. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District report entitled "Hydrology, Design · Memorandum No. 1, Cucamonga Creek" dated 5 January 1973. C:\pfojects\..\Deer Creek Review Itr · Mr. Edward Sing Page 11 August 3, 2000 13. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District report entitled "Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Project Feature Design Memorandum #6, Deer Creek, Demens and Hillside, Debris Basins and Channels" dated June 1979. · 14. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District report entitled "Review of Debris Production and Level-of-Protection, Deer Creek Debris Basin" dated 29 November 1999. 15. Tatum, F. E., 1963. A New Method of Estimating Debris Storage Requirements for Debris Basins, U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California, 23 pp. lB 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency letter to Colone~ John P. carroll, dated May 30, 2000 regarding USACE's review of the Exponent, Inc. report and other issues associated with the Deer Creek Debris Basin. 17. Quantity computation, Deer Creek Debris Basin Debris Volume, computed by R.R. Krohn, · 5/30/80. 18. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1982. Deer Canyon Debds Basin, General Plan, Sheet 13 of 123, Record Drawing as Constructed, 817184. · 19. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1982. Deer Canyon Debris Basin, Embankment Profile, Basin Section and Miscellaneous Details, Sheet 14 of 123, Record Drawing as Constructed, 8~7~84. G.C. Mor<~an, D F VanDIne, and D R Lister 1987. Debris flow defenses in 20. _Hu..n.g,r.~O_, _,.,_ =~ ~.,~,,i, ~ ws/Avalanches, Geological Society of America, Inc, Boulder · CO, pp201-222. c:\projects\. \Deer Creek Reviewttr · · · · · · · · · · · (upstream) Tank Access Road -- Flow Direction Entrenched Deer Creek Channel ~Su~ace :hute Debrts Referred to In the MEI report TOPOGRAPHIC MODEL OF DEER CREEK DEBRIS BASIN Spillway LOOKING UPSTREAM (NORTH) March 2000 [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 44, Volume 1, Parts 0 to End] · [Revised as of October 1~ 1999] From the U.S. Government Printing office via GPO Access [CITE: 44CFR65.13] [Page 341-343] TITLE 44--EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE CHAPTER I--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PART 65--IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING OF SPECIAL HAZARD AREAS--Table of Contents Sec. 65.13 Mapping and map revisions for areas subject to alluvial fan flooding. This sec{ion describes the procedures to be followed and the types of information FEMA needs to recognize on a NFIP map that a structural flood control measure provides protection from the base flood in an area subject to alluvial fan flooding. This information [[Page 342]] must be supplied to FEMA by the community or other party seeking recognition of such a flood control measure at the time a flood risk · study or restudy is conducted, when a map revision under the provisions of part 65 of this subchapter is sought, and upon request by the Administrator during the review of previously recognized flood control measures. The FEMA review will be for the sole purpose of establishing appropriate risk zone determinations for NFIP maps and shall not constitute a determination by FEMA as to how the flood control measure will perform in a flood event. (a) The applicable provisions of Secs. 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.6, 65.8 and 65.10 shall also apply to FIRM revisions involving alluvial fan flooding. (b) The provisions of Sec. 65.5 regarding map revisions based on fill and the provisions of part 70 of this chapter shall not apply to FIRM revisions involving alluvial fan flooding. In general, elevations · of a parcel of land or a structure by fill or other means, will not serve as a basis for removing areas subject to alluvial fan flooding from an area of special food hazards. (c) FEMA will credit on NFIP maps only major structural flood control measures whose design and construction are supported by sound engineering analyses which demonstrate that the measures will · effectively eliminate alluvial fan flood hazards from the area protected by such measures. The provided analyses must include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (1) Engineering analyses that quantify.the discharges and volumes of water, debris, and sediment movement associated with the flood that has a one-percent probability of being exceeded in any year at the apex · under current watershed conditions and under potential adverse conditions (e.g., deforestation of the watershed by fire). The potential for debris flow and sediment movement must be assessed, using an engineering method acceptable to FEMA. The assessment should consider the characteristics and availability of sediment in the drainage basin above the apex and on the alluvial fan. (2) Engineering analyses showing that the measures will accommodate the estimated peak discharges and volumes of water, debris, and sediment, as determined in accordance with paragraph (c) (1) of this section, and will withstand the associated hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces. (3) Engineering analyses showing that the measures have been designed to withstand the potential erosion and scour associated with · estimated discharges. (4) Engineering analyses or evidence showing that the measures will provide protection from hazards associated with the possible relocation of flow paths from other parts of the fan. (5) Engineering analyses that assess the effect of the project on flood hazards, including depth and velocity of floodwaters and scour and sediment deposition, on other areas of the fan. (6) Engineering analyses demonstrating that flooding from scources Dther than the fan apex, including local runoff, is either insignificant or has been accounted for in the design. (d) Coordination. FEMA will recognize measures that are adequately designed and constructed, provided that: evidence is submitted to show that the impact of the measures on flood hazards in all areas of the fan · (including those not protected by the flood control.measures), and the design and maintenance requirements of the measures, were reviewed and approved by the impacted communities, and also by State and local agencies that have jurisdiction over flood control activities. (e) Operation and maintenance plans and criteria. The requirements for operation and maintenance of flood control measures on areas subject to alluvial fan flooding shall be those specified under Sec. 65.10, paragraphs (c) and (d), when applicable. (f) Certification requirements. Data submitted to support that a given flood control measure complies with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (c) (1) through (6) of this section must be certified by a registered professional engineer. Also, certified as-built plans of the · flood control measures must be [[Page 343]] submitted. Certifications are subject to the definition given at Sec. 65.2. '(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3067-0147.) [54 FR 33551, Aug. 15, 1989] 6E%T BY:XEROX 7033 : 9- 6-~1 ~ ~ ~' Federal ~mergency Management Agency W~hington, D.C. 20472 Po~bll" brand tax lranSmiilal memo ~1 Inc., ~g~din~ ~e eff~gVe ~ Insu~ Study ~d ~ Insur~c6 ~ Map ~ ~r ~g~ M~em~t Ag~y ~) re~ ~e ~ m ~ow ~e eff~ of ~cfion of m,~r~on d~ m~ ~oy~ I ~d lA ~d a new ch~el ~e pro]~t were ~t~ ~ ~e CLO~, ~quen~y ~e ~view ~ ~ on ~nt of ~e ~n~ design of ~e p~j~ ~¢ C~ r~ lden~ ~ndl~ons ~ ~t~e ~e~on. As a result o~ l~i~ ~ndi6ons ~d *tom m~ure~ wiU ~mm~ ~ di~ ~ v01um~ 0f ~im~l ~d wouM with~d not provld~ ~ demons~ ~he ~ ~n~ol m~sures will withs~d ~e rela~ hydr~ynam{c ~d hydrosm~c for~s. A CLOMR dat~.August 13, 1992 w~ ~ub~ucnUy i=~u~ b~ on inrorm~on pr~id~. W~ have revicw~ ~e ~s-bu~t pl~s of ~he proj~t tMt were submitl~ by letters dat~ 5eplember 21, 1993 ~d Feb~ 9, 1994, ~d not~ ~me minor u~ign m~i~ons when comp~ (~'conc~tu~ pl~s S~bmllt~ wilh ~he CLOMR r~uesl. %:~ m~i~ca~ons include r~ucfion in xlorage volum~ provl~ by ~e diversion ~l~e ch~nel ~ ~e~Jlllng b~in 1~ just trlaatream of thc dlvcraion dike on Arroyo 1. While these modifications may not change the comments in the C/.,OMR based on the methodologies used, we have several concerns about the potential f-allure of the diversion dikes and channel during the past, age of the lO0-year {reent. In arc:M subject to flcxxla accompanied by subatantial .~:[imeat loads, th~ abLIlty of flood OOntxol atrueture.s to operat~ properly may b~ jeopardized by localized deposition, Such delx~tion re..s,,It~ when sudde~ reductions in flow velocity oct:ur. Velocity reductions can be ¢ausod by changr, a in slopes roughness, cro~ sectional geometry, or flow direction. Flood control · atTucturea plac. ed pexpendieulaz to natural flow paths to collect and divert the flow~, such ILs the atructure$ urgler re:view, reduce ~h: flow velocity to zero at the structure. Compounding tho problem~ one or more or' man}, potential multiple flow paths Ilp$1ope ora control structure ma~y chanse direction i$olatin$ pan or all of the flow from the outlet of the · structure. ]Rven when tho sta-ueture ia de.signed with more sediment storage volume than tile tOi~l expected sediment load, local;?ed deposition and e, hanging flow paths gurlng a storm evealt can rcault Iff failur~ of a flood COntrol structure placed perpendicular to tile natural flow paths. Figure I shows tile beginning of deposition in such a situation. The dike trices the flow path · to bend sharply to the left. Much of the szdiment load st. arts to deposit on the ouLside of the bemL Ag file same tinle, the portion of flow hi atria, of tile bra~lchea of the braided channel ia 111~¥ changing a.s sediment 1~ deposited and scoured upslope of the diversion dike. · Figure 1. Deposition BY:XER0× 708,3 3- 6-94:10:127,51 ~L:li f-//oLl~ARS, I,%C.~ 714 258 t401:-~ ,3/ 8 The depoait may continue to grow from the bend in the flood path or from change~ in the brmlde~l channel. Such change~ could result in a small portion of me flow taking · p~.th Io the rl~ht (looking downstream) of the depOsit. Tttat ~ituatlon is depicted tn Figure ~2. If that path grows tn xize, then most of the flo(~l water and t~xtlment load would flow to the right of the deposit. The deposit would then become a bailer between the water and the outlet. · · Figu~ 2, Chan~ Spllt~ Depordflon In~reaae~ Oncc mo~t of the ~ flow follows a. path to the fight of the deport, the water quickly ponds to the top of the dike and flowa over thc top musing thc dike to fa/l a~ in Figurc :3.' - Figure 3. Dike Fails ~I-^EKUA ,UOO ' ~- O-~4 .IU-idA): ~iLli ZOLLA~£.IKC.- 714 259 1401 U~tng Arroyo I a.s ~n e×ampi~, the stor~e votume witCH ~royo 1, up~I~ of ~c div~r~on dt~ ~d b~ow ~ ~p Of ~¢ dike. is apprO~ma~y ~ic~ the to~ ~tm~t Io~ ~at w~ ~dma~ tn ~¢ ~sign (to~ ~iment load ~ 172,87~ cubic f~t). W~ ~dm~e ~at the ~on of ~¢ ~ l~d ~V~g prior ~ ~o H~ ~ ts enough ~ cr~te a ~gul~sha~ d~t more ~ 1~ f~r ~de al ~e dike ~d lev~ wt~ ~o top of ~e dike. Should flows b~me tmla~ ~ ~e side of ~ls d~sit op~stte ~e oude[, ov~ing ~d f~lure of ~e di~ ~uld ~ur. Rv~ ff on~h~f of ~e ~iment lo~ w~ ~r~ through ~o oud~ ds~g, a slmi~ sha~ de.sit 50 f~t ~de could be d~st~ befo~ the H~ ~ ~u~ ' ~e foregoing ~a~sm~t for Arroyo I is b~ on ~e a~ent volume ~dma~ giv~ CLOMR submlt~ ~ ~ber 14, 1991, ~d ~e lev~ height from &o revls~ ~-butlt dat~ F~ 9, 1~. ~e hydro~ph submi~ wi& ~e r~u~t, dn~ S~mmb~ 21, 1~3 w~ udl{~ m ~v~p a ~m~t dellv~ hydrog~ph using ~e impll'~ ~umpdon ~tm~t ~ ~m ~ ~e w~h ia ~ffio~ m ~e fl~ter flow ~m by m~ ~m~t 1~ volume m ~c to~ H~mter ~noff volume. In short, we ~nsider~ ~umulafion of ~im~t ea~Hng ~e system at a ra~ of 3.5 ~r~t of ~e flow ~o~ ~-1 ou~ut be~ hem 11:35 ~d 14:50 (time s~ps 140 ~rough 179). ~e fo~go~g d~p~on ls b~ on a ~sment of j~t ~o ~ssibl~ f~lure ~os in ~oyo 1. P=~ly, ~e ~ ~ndifions exist in Anoyo IA. ~e im~t ~t ~ mn~l a~r~ ~ ~ aimil~ to ~oyos I ~d IA, f~l ~ a r~ult of circum~ ~ m ~o~ d~H~ ~o. In ~di~0n, ~nsid~a~on m~t ~ ~ given m prov~ by a s~m~ in a~rd~ ~ ~ph ~. I0~)(1) of ~e ~ regul~fio~ Unl~ It 1t &m~aR~, ~gh m~ de~ ~yds, r~ign, Or ~, ~at ~ div~oa d~ wmld not ~ ~ during fl~ ~ma ~ m~md~ on ~e order of ~e b~ fl~, we ~not.~t ~ d~ on ~e ~ ~ pr~d~g pro~on ~om ~uch fl~s. In a~dlOon m our ~n~ ~u~ ~ ~ibl~ ~ure of ~e dtv~on dt~, ~ ~ ~im~t n~ ~p~r~ ups~ bf the di~ is ~ into ~e Hig~da Ch~nel ~d will d~slt at ~ stilling ba~n l~t~ at s~Uon 188+~ wh~e ~, vel~ 1~ ~ 6 f~ ~ ~nd ~d ~m d~slt in ~e ch~nel Jmt doms~m of ~e s611ing b~. D~ifion In ~e ch~neI ~uld mum ~e H~wa~ ~ ~ out of ~ c~nel b~ ~d adja~t ~. B~ on a ~iment deIive~ ~ m ~e ~ing b~ln whio as,um~ 25 of ~e ~lm~t is not ~p~r~ by ~e div~ston dike ~ong A~oyo I ~d i~ ~a~ ~own O~n~, thc ~l~g b~in ~d ~e 502f~t s~on of ch~ncl.just downs~m of ~e stilling b~in ~uld HII ~ a dep& of 34 f~ wl~ ~iment ~fore &e ~ dtm~go ~curs. ~is ~sment ~sum~ ~at ~1 ~e ~i~at will de,sit but d~ not include the ~dttlon~ con~lbuflon from ~Oyo lA. ~S demhpOon Is balm on a prelimln~ ~ssment of condl~ons. ~e ac~ mount of d~siOon (or ~ur) should be ~s~ u~ng s~Iment ~s~ ~y~. we ~e aw~e of how imprint ~is H~ control system is to the ~ety of the residenB ~d pmt~don of development in the F~con HIII~ Subdivision. ~erefore, we have ~cfully · e ability of ~e fl~ control system to provide ~e level of H~ proration n~es~y ~fegu~d F~con Hill~. B't':xat<OX ~UO3 : B- 6-94 ;10:i47,3~ : HL;IFF-ZOLL4RS. iNC.~ 714 2~0 1401:~ S,' 8 We trust that our review ha~ accurately conveyed the need for more detailed =~sment of ~ l~ltment transpc~ eharactedstic~ of the Arroyo~ and the flood control ~T~tem. If you have any que~fion~ regarding this matter, please center Mr. John Magnotti of our staff in Wa~h/ngton, DC, at (202) 646-3932, or by facsimile at (202) 645-3445. [-.~ M~hael K. Bu¢ldey, P.E., Chief '~ 14'~=rd Ide~ttflcation Bra~ch · cc: 'l~e Honorable r ~y Franci, Mayor~ City ot ~-~ ~ M~. Yvotmz C. Curry, ~D D Division [~i~aer, ~h paclft, c ~N~. SpDFB/S~T~C ~ 1. ~fereuca i~ ~de ~o: : ":' a. SP~D l~tte~ dated 26 ~ar~h 1~ lu~l°ct and address b. D~.A ~eletype ~ssage, 9 ~rll 19~, co reapona~ ~o ~u~reastonal a~d e~f inquiries about the Cuc~G~a pro~eCC, the iollo~ id~i~lo~al in~o~cio~ is ~vi~ed p}oce~ing iu~diacely om chis contract Is ba~d Ou public ~afe~y. pra-~roizc~ capaci~ ~or ~h~ ~ls~i~ six~ell comdui~ trader Imte~mtton~l Airport- B~cavse o~ ~os IV aud. V construction, tlAe capecity o~ the condui~ h~s ~ reduced ~o 1,$00 - 2,~0 cfs. · hi~ p~t ~i~e~ (7~-~0) ~*re ~ntl~at~d a~ ~000 cfs, b~t nnly about cb~e~ 8c Chi obstruction. ~uder pr~proJ~cC coudiCi.ons~ ~000. about a 2~ear ev~t, ~lla 1,50Oc[o is about a 7~r.even~. fha other airports t~ Cb6 al~eedy overloa~ed 8ouche~ ~llforn/a b. psra~rmph ~.b of reference l.s ~seuseed tho ~lnerahilt~Y of 26 ?'arch 1980 5FIoED-O r~lnforcl~g ~ceel for a h~!f-~le reach. T',~ tTPc of dsn~e da~gee Co a hish~v-developei area.. The Corps cannot afford to procrastinate on the Phase VI contract and get ca~hc ~x: ~nce: partially tableted Oe~cnl Debris ~stn. ~ocher consequence of conicrucCion- Fast ~psrl~ce ~as indicated chat a~ ~ch as one could be.~e~ui~ed to renegotlats these 3. ~prox~ce~Y $9,100.~0 ate zequired ~ ~ 1980 for this additiooel $~,623,000 ~ere re,it{eared ~Or transfer by SFI.Z~B lette~ 11 !~rch 1980, subject: ~ecut~ of the ~ 1980 ~t/nninS "-~'-- 4. ~efere~ced D~-A ~Ssa&e elsa prohibits eoterin~ i~o neu. coot:sots Valued aC ~re C~u ~5.000. Ibi/ district ia currently To~e~ a~d Sacra Fe) to have tha~ construct ~heir o~ bridge reloceCio~s under cost retm~ugsable contract. This ~rk is ad~snc~eoua to the pre~O~ doc~e~ts, b) a railroad require~nC to build . shadily eau be circ~'onte, d if the tz/lrcad~ perfora the brid3e construction, and a~ut $400,000. This ~ney vez sled requested b~ letters cited in paraaraph 3 above. · 2 SPLED-D · SUBJECT: Contrac~ Award, Cucamonga Creek phase VI 5. Request immediate exception for the CucamOnga Creek Project ~rom the constraimts imposed in the referenced TWXo GWYNN A- TEA~UE COL, CE Di~tric~ Engineer ' · DE ~ Design Br (2) Preg Der Br P~oj File ~. ~...: 3 D£PAF~TMENT OF THE ARMY SBLED-D~ SUBJSCT: Cuc~onga Creek ProjeC~ Supplemeot No.2 to Feature Design Memora~ No. 6 TO: Division Engineer, South Pacific ATTN: SPDED-TC 1. Reference letter, SPDED-TC (30 March 1983) 1st Ind, subject: 'Deer and Hillside Channels, Erosion Control, San Bernardino County, California. · 2. InClosed for your review and approval are. 10 copies of ~he subject supplement requested in reference letter. 3. The supplement was reviewed by Hr. Todd Snow on 16 May 1983 and his informal comments have been incorporated. Upon approval by SPD, this supplement will become ~ part of FDM No. 6. FOR THE COMMANDEK: · lasInCl (10 cys) neerieg Division no longer in operation, the land is rapidly being ·converted to single family · residential and commercial useS. Development pressures on this area are expected to increase significantly in the immediate futur~. 2.03 Channels range in depth from 8 to 14 feet and in width from 10 to 40 feet. Rights-of-Way extend approximately 40 feet beyond each channel edge, providing strips approximately 25 feet wide between service roads and rights- of-way lines that require treatment- The total area requiring treatment is · approximately 70 acres. 2.04 It is particularly important to assure that the project integrates visually with the existing terrain and that the visual impact Of the channel ~ is minimized. Several major highways, U. S. 60 and State Highway 30, traverse the project site. ?ortio~ of the project are highly visible from existing · residential development and roads. Increased future development in this rapidly growing area ensures eveq gr~ate~ project visibility. 2.05 Erosion control is intended to reduce visual and environmental impacts associated with the flood control channel. The proposed channels will be visible from all street bridge crossings and from existing and future · residential and commercial development. The .~ucamonga flood control project ia directly adjacent to the Ontario InternatiOnal Airport, which is to be expanded in the near future~ with virtually the entire flood control project both north a~d south of the airport being visible from the air. The erosion control measureS proposed will improve the aerial visual esthetics of the local c:mmunities. From a~ enviponmental perspective, landscaping will help · replace despoiled wildlife habitat, reduce surface runoff~ increase groundwater infiltration and help retain soil, particularly on steep slopes. 2.06 Subsequent to project cormtruction it has become evident that erosion control measures are an absolute necessity to prevent debris and boulders from accumulating in the channel. Dense growth of Russian thistle The Russian · along the channel right-of-waY has created an additional problem. thistle commences growth in early spring and reaches maturity in the fall months of August and September. The dry plants along the channel present a significant fire hazard to adjacent communities, many of which have wood shake shingle roofs. Additionally, with the arrival of intense Santa Aha winds,~ much of the thistl$ is blown into the channel, where, along with other accumlated debris, it could effectively decrease channel capacity. The thistle problem as it currently exists presents not only a significant fire haz~u"d, but could also cause overtoppin~ of the channel walls resulting in major fl~od dflmage. The erosion control plan will replace the Russian thistle with more desirable plant materials amd mitigate against the potential problems outlined above, as well as greatly reduce operations and maintenance · costs. 3- Design Criteria 3.01 The erosion control plan outlined in this supplement to Feature Design Memorandum No. 6 has been closely coordimated with both the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the City of Hancho Cueamonga. · The plan has been developed in response to the Flood Control District's request to modify the previous plan as outlined in Feature Design Memorandum 3 SPL~D--D 21 Aprll 1950 ~xte~ive ~rm~ion of th~ coecret~ eccvrr~ a!c,~% -~ b~l~<tle r~c ~arln$ 6" o~ COmcr'ete from the icvert and footing. (See cro$~ sectlon~ Iucl I.) The erosion ~po~ amd under~u~ the ~t*el l~ th~ foo~ln~ and the e~Ced concrete and t~ u~detcut and ~:ra~ed ~truccural 8reel (~ee ~l~b~ and walle will f~fl ~ e-~ furt]~er erosion occurs. ~urche~ore~ the channel v~ll c~Ciaee Co be svscep[~ble to Bed load cranm~rt cauaa~ aeon= leadi~ to th~s tyre f~lure umt$l the c~aomel ie co~leted virtually all fled waters Co fl~ ~etlaed. The ~dicion ~d be drelne. ~uriGg the 197~80 f~oods, t~deaths occurred tn the project area ~tch yore atrocity releted co street fI~s. ~e child e:eppe(: oft a curb smd wa~ awept do~ the ~creet to a sto~ drain imIe~. ca~ht om the trash racl:, broke m 1~, ~d droned. One adult ~ the'stree~ to :he Ct, cad,ga ~annel, a: .which pole: it is Cuc~ga cbmnmel. Hie ~ ~as found in the v~ll steel the m~ d~- fl~a arm augmented 5y brea~nt ~e:ers fro~ Cuca~n~a Creek. 3. Eelactve to other reqnesta for ~cepCion from con~tratntm on con,traction award, the [~e ~m~el.~ ~istrtcC rank~ Cuc~oo~a Creek Y'haae VI c~ncrac~ if it i~ owardeC by J,~Iy 19~C. It would of aourme be preferable to ~ard ~rlier to preclude ~rkinR in the rainy season. award ia delayed until July, chi De~s Creek ~rtion of thm contract ~d h~e. to be pu~ off ~til ~prln$ 1~81. 4. The Phase VI tom,race lo esttmce~ to be ~arded for about $19,000,~00. ~s~img a~'ard is d~laTed umcil July, the ~Di~ f~ndi~g ~* 81. It should be recoSn~zed tha: the delay ~n fu~di~ aad · 2 21 April SPLED-D ~- ~, 7ha~e Vl · SUBJJCT: Co.~trncc ~ard, Cuca~;mnga ......... i::m~dintc e~caption to tho 031358Z ~rtl lgSO. phase VI, ~'hich ~tll co. ieee the CocOa proble~ ac. or caused by, the ongoing construction project. e~hasise~ above, lives .ar~ ve~ deftnicell dapendeut o~ this decisto~- . ~M~ A. T~A~E TEASE CF: COL, CE DE Readi~ File PE PAO SPLPA H&H BE Design Br SPLED Design Sec A P.M. Grp HA~ ~og Dev Br ~ ~nstruc;ion Division HIGASHI SPLED~ · _'3 UNCL,'~$ 'SUE.I: FY BD C;ViL I.,JORI.;~ PROG~,RH ~.. ~,'~EN~CUZ--'. TT 25124~Z H~4R 80 S~HE SUBJECT. CUCn,,,.S~';G~ CR~E;-. PHASE V~I.JITH ~PDPB 15T ~ND~ 2& 1.~RCH I780.. · IN V',~:~? OF Ti.IF CURRENT ~-UI,'DING SI-IO~T,".IS[' AND UHC~'F-T~.TI':T~E~ UITH REG,aF, I;, TO SUPi-:LF:HENTAL /'~:~;.lJOPRIATJON~ FOR FY 80t I AH U.NA~LE TO ~ppa~VC YOUR F-:'DUEDT ~r~J n FOR BT T."~ID TIHE. THE CITY OF I~AN CII 0 CIJCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: September 27, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPF_,AL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVEL~ REVIEW 98-13 - THE HEIGI-rPS AT HAVEN VIEVV ESTATES - An appeal of the City Planner's approval of a minor revision to the grading plan of Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single-family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-511-27 to 31 and 1074-621-1 to 35. BACKGROUND Tract 14771 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990, and received final approval by the City Council on October 15, 1997. Development Review 98-13 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1998, appealed to the City Council, and approved on November 18, 1998. The approval of Tract 14771 provided for the subdivision and conceptual grading of the project site. The approval of Development Review 98-13 provided the detailed site plan identifying pad locations, building elevations, and conceptual grading. The conceptual grading approved with Development Review 98-13 was determined to be in substantial conformance with the originally approved grading plan and was designed to minimize the amount of grading associated with the project, while maintaining the contour characteristics of the existing topography. On August 22, 2000 the City Planner approved Modification to Development Review 98-13 to allow for a minor revision to the approved grading plan. Following City Planner approval of Modification to Development Review 98-13, two separate appeals were filed contesting the project approval thereby requesting Planning Commission consideration. The first appeal was filed by William Hawkins and raises questions regarding the replacement channel and compliance with CEQA requirements. The second appeal was filed by Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Californians United for Reasonable Expansion (CURl=). ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 September 27, 2000 Page 2 ANALYSIS A. Project Revisions: Conditions of Approval for Tract 14771 require the installation of a channel along the northern boundary of the tract prior to the removal of the existing levee. The original channel design proposed off-site grading on the property to the north of the channel. The property owner, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, has denied permission to grade on their property and consequently, the applicant is proposing a minor revision to the project design to eliminate the need to grade off-site. This change results in various minor revisions to the project's design. The design change to eliminate off-site grading reduces the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the project site (along the rear of Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, and 35), revises the base elevation and design of the channel along the north boundary of the tract, and provides retaining walls directly north of the channel. Eliminating off-site grading results in a lower base elevation of vadous elements along the northern portion of the tract. Street grades, pad elevations, and equestrian trails throughout the remainder of the tract will not be affected by the design revision. The slope along the northern portion of the tract will be reduced in height at a range of approximately I to 5 feet. This results in a corresponding decrease in the elevation of the community trail and drainage channel that parallels the northern boundary of the tract. A series of retaining walls are proposed that parallel the north property line and north side of the channel. The retaining walls are a maximum height of 3 feet and range from 50 to 310 feet in length. In conditions where additional retaining height is needed, a second 3-foot high retaining wall is proposed, and is separated by a minimum of 3 feet to create a terraced effect consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance. A 6-foot split face block wall is proposed at the downhill (south) edge of the service road adjacent to the channel that will block most of the views of the retaining walls. The revised rectangular concrete channel is approximately 10 feet wide, 4 feet deep, and is located 12 feet from the property line. The uphill (north) channel wall will also be extended to retain up to 2% feet of slope in addition to the proposed retaining walls. A 12-foot wide paved access road will be provided on the south side of the channel for maintenance. The drainage area for the channel contains the area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the project site. The drainage area contains approximate 125 acres. The channel is designed to receive the tributary drainage area south of the debris basin and convey it to the Deer Creek Channel. The drainage area will generate, approximately, a Q~oo bulked flow of 440 cfs. B. City Planner Meetinq Discussion: Various questions were raised at the City Planner meeting that address the time limits of both the proposed modification and the original approval. The Conditions of approval for Development Review 98-13 identified, "approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 September 27, 2000 Page 3 are not issued . . . within 24 months from the date of approval." This condition was established consistent with Development Code requirements that provided an initial 24- month approval and the opportunity for three 12-month time extensions. The Development Review was approved by the City Council on November 18, 1998, and a building permit was issued for rough grading on October 12, 1999. The issuance of a building permit for rough grading satisfies the time limits condition of the initial approval. Conditions of approval for Modification to Development Review 98-13 identify "modification to Development Review 98-13 shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed." This condition was established consistent with current Development Code requirements that provides for a five-year approval for land development approvals (§ 17.02.100, page 17.O2-8). ENVIRONMENTAL: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes requirements and procedures for evaluating potential environmental impacts resulting from development of a project. Section 15162 establishes the specific procedures when a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration is necessary. The following addresses Section 15162 and the substantial evidence to support that the proposed revision does not require either changes to the 1990 Negative Declaration or the preparation of an EIR. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involveroent of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Proposed revisions that reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts. Reducing the height of the slope will result in a slight increase in the amount of grading, however, as with the prior approval, the cut and fill of the project grading is designed to balance. Revising the design of the channel will not change its capacity. Proposed changes to the design of the project will not affect the majodty of the project including street designs, pad elevations, and equestrian trails. These are not substantial changes in the proposed project because the minimal amount of proposed grading, because of the relatively insignificant changes to the channel design, and the minimal changes to the project's design. Without any substantial changes in the project that would result in new or severe environmental impacts, major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval would not be required at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 September 27, 2000 Page 4 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the cimumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were evaluated under the Negative Declaration approved with the subdivision of the property. The proposed revisions will not change the number of homes or their general location within the tract. Characteristics of the surrounding properties have not changed significantly since the tract was approved, the property to the north and east is vacant, and the property to the south and west contains residential lots, many of which have been developed with custom and semi-custom homes. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northem boundary of the tract. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken does not result in the involvement of new or significant environmental effects or the increase in the severity of significant effects. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. Although the minor revision to the project design includes various retaining walls north of the channel not contemplated in the original design of the project, the walls are designed to be consistent with the use of retaining walls in other areas of the tract, to comply with the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and as required by the Design Review Committee the walls will be provided with landscaping to soften their appearance. In addition, assertions regarding the capacity of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and related facilities do not show that the project would have one or more effects not previously considered. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 September 27, 2000 Page 5 (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. The changes in the channel design will have minimal impacts to grading, water flow, and aesthetics. These changes are not resulting in significant effects substantially more severe than shown in the 1990 Negative Declaration. {C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, but the project proponents decline to adopt. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. {D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will result in a project that is substantially similar to the currently approved project. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection {a). Otherwise the lead agency PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV 98-13 September 27, 2000 Page 6 shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or nor further documentation. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. Consequently, the lead environmental agency has determined that no further environmental documentation is required. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Although not necessarily required by law, this item was noticed at the direction of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeals filed in opposition to the project and uphold the decision of the City Planner approving Modification to Development Review 98-13. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of Appeal, William Hawkins, dated August 31, 2000 Exhibit "B" - Letter of Appeal, Malissa McKeith, dated August 31, 2000 Exhibit "C" - City Planner Staff Report dated August 22, 2000 Exhibit "D" - Minutes from the August 22, 2000 City Planner meeting · Exhibit "E" - Adopted City Planner Resolutions dated August 22, 2000 Resolutions of Approval -/&MC 'CONTRACTORS August 31, 2000 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I wish to appeal the August 22, 2000 City Planner meeting item A Modification to Development Review 98-13- The Heights at Haven View Estates. This is a revision to the grading plan, which includes replacement channel and the removal of a levee. A study by Doug Hamilton from Exponent Failure Analysis has raised question regarding the replacement charmel, which have not been addressed. We would like the Planning Commission to be aware of our concerns regarding that issue as well as the statements made during that meeting regarding compliance with CEQA requirement. Si~erely, , 10400 Banana Ave., o Fontana, CA 92337 Office: 909/357-0711 ·Lic.: #618716 · Fax: 909/357-0715 Website: www. antspaving, cont Entail: sales~amspaving, corn 8uc 31 O0 02:lla malinda 909-989-870~ p.2 LOEB( LOEBLLP 11100 WILSH~ BOULEVARD TELEPHONE: 213.658.3400 Direct Dial: 213-688-3622 c-mail: rr~nckeith@loeb.com August 31, 2000 Received s .chez Clerk to ~e Pl~ing Co~ission Ci~ of ~cho Cuc~onga C.y o~ Ra~ C~ca~.ge 10500 E~t Ci~I Cmt~ ~ve Pmnnm0 ~v,s:on R~cho ~cmong~ CA 91737 Re: Appeal ~m ~e Au~st 22, 20~ Plug Commission P~it lsstmnee to ~e HeiSts at Haven Vi~ D~ Ms S~eh~: Califo~ United for Reamnable Exp~sion, hc. ("C~") h~eby app~ls · om ~e above Pl~ng Co~ission decision m ~e CiW Council. Pl~se ~se us at yo~ e~liest convince of~e date on which ~s ma~ MIl be h~d. Th~ you. V~ rely you~, Ma~s~ Hm~way McKei~ 93163]02~8 ~45811.1 LOS &NGELE5 NEW YORK THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CIICAMONGA DA'iF_: August 22, 2000 TO: Brad Buller, City Planner FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner BY: Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO DEVEL~ REVIEW 96-13 - THE ~ AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES - A minor revision to the grading plan of Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single-family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive -APN: 1074-511-27 to 31 and 1074-621-1 to 35. ANALYSIS: A. Backqround: Tract 14771 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990, and received final approval by the City Council on October 15, 1997. Development Review 98-13 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1998, appealed to the City Council, and approved on November 18, 1998. The approval of Tract 14771 provided for the subdivision and conceptual grading of the project site. The approval of Development Review 98-13 provided the detailed site plan identifying pad locations, building elevations, and conceptual grading. The conceptual grading approved with Development Review 98-13 was determined to be in substantial conformance with the originally approved grading plan and was designed to minimize the amount of grading associated with the project, while maintaining the contour characteristics of the existing topography. Conditions of Approval for Tract 14771 require the installation of a channel along the northern boundary of the tract prior to the removal of the existing levee. The odginal channel design proposed off-site grading on property to the north of the channel. The property owner, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, has denied permission to grade on their property and consequently, the applicant is proposing a minor revision to the project design to eliminate the need to grade off-site. This change results in various minor revisions to the project's design. B. Review Process: The Development Code provides that the City Planner may approve minor revisions or modifications to conceptually approved grading plans. Section 17.02.027(A)(5) states, "Minor revisions and modifications include grading alterations which do not change the basic concept, increase slopes, or building elevations, or CITY PLANNER STAFF REPORT MODFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 August 22, 2000 Page 2 change the course of drainage which could adversely affect adjacent or surrounding properties." C. Project Revisions: Revisions to the proposed project will reduce the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the project site (along the rear of Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, and 35), revise the base elevation and design of the channel along the north boundary of the tract, provide retaining walls directly north of the channel, and eliminate off-site grading north of the project. Revising the project to eliminate off-site grading results in the lowering in elevation of various elements along the northern portion of the tract. Street grades, pad elevations, and equestrian trails throughout the remainder of the tract will not be affected by the design revision. The slope along the rear of the lots previously identified will be reduced in height at a range of approximately 1 to 5 feet. The extreme east and west portions of the tract will be reduced the least, with the greatest reduction occurring through the middle of the tract. This results in a corresponding decrease in the elevation of the community trail and drainage channel that parallels the noAhern boundary of the tract. Similar to the condition of the adjacent slope, the more extreme change in elevation will occur in the middle of the tract. Various retaining walls are proposed between the north property line and noah side of the channel. The retaining walls are a maximum height of 3 feet and range from 50 to 310 feet in length. In conditions where additional retaining height is needed, a second 3- foot high retaining wall is proposed, and is separated by a minimum of 3 feet to create a terraced effect consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance. A 6-foot split face block wall is proposed at the downhill (south) edge of the service road adjacent to the channel that will block most of the views of the retaining walls. D. Committee Review: The Grading Committee and Design Review Committee reviewed the project on July 18, 2000. The Grading Committee conceptually approved the project. The Design Review Committee conceptually approved the project, and recommended that split face block and appropriate landscaping be used on the retaining walls north of the channel to soften their appearance. E. Replacement Channel: The revised rectangular concrete channel is approximately 10 feet wide, 4 feet deep, and is located 12 feet from the property line. The uphill (north) channel wall will also be extended to retain up to 2¼ feet of slope in addition to the proposed retaining walls. A 12-foot wide paved access road will be provided on the south side of the channel for maintenance. The drainage area for the channel contains the area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the project site. The drainage area contains approximate 125 acres. The channel is designed to receive the tributary drainage area south of the debris basin and convey it to the Deer Creek Channel. The drainage area will generate, approximately, a Q~0o bulked flow of 440 offs. CITY PLANNER STAFF REPORT MODFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 August 22, 2000 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes requirements and procedures for evaluating potential environmental impacts resulting from development of a project. Section 15162 establishes the specific procedures when a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration is necessary. The following addresses Section 15162 and the substantial evidence to support that the proposed revision does not require either changes to the 1990 Negative Declaration or the preparation of an EIR. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Proposed revisions that reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts. These are not substantial changes in the proposed project because the minimal amount of proposed grading, because of the relatively insignificant changes to the channel design, and the minimal changes to the project's design. Without any substantial changes in the project, no new or severe environmental impacts would be created to require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. {2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771. The proposed revisions would not change the number of homes or their general location within the tract. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the CITY PLANNER STAFF REPORT MODFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV 98-13 August 22, 2000 Page 4 previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: {A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. Although the minor revision to the project design includes various retaining walls north of the channel not contemplated in the original design of the project, the walls are designed to be consistent with the use of retaining walls in other areas of the tract. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, but the project proponents decline to adopt. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. CITY PLANNER STAFF REPORT MODFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 August 22, 2000 Page 5 The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will result in a project that is substantially similar to the currently approved project. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or nor further documentation, The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. Consequently, the lead environmental agency has determined that no further environmental documentation is required. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Although not necessarily required by law, this item was noticed at the direction of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Planner approve modification to Development Review 98-13 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval. Respec~l.~ ly sub~, Principal Plah~er ~ DC:TG/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Grading Plan Resolutions of Approval VICINITY MAP '" " "'-.." _5 ...... ,; ~: SEC~ F-F ~:'~ ~"~ ~ ~ -- -- 200 ,, ,.~ ~N ~G 8EC~ ~H CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY PLANNER MINUTES Regular Meeting August 22, 2000 Brad Buller, City Planner, called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Planner to order at 2:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Planning Division Conference Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. STAFF PRESENT Brad Bullet, City Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Secretary; Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist II ANNOUNCEMENTS Noannouncementswere madeatthistime. MINUTES August 8, 2000, Minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. IVIODIF]CATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13- THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES - A minor revision to the grading plan of Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single-family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-511-27 to 31 and 1074-521-01 to 35. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. He reported that two new Planning conditions had been added to the Resolution, located on page A14, #3 of the agenda packet. Condition #4 clarifies the expiration date of modification. Condition #3 identifies the applicant's ability to continue to utilize the original design of the project. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, asked for clarification of the adoption date for Development Review 98-13. He also clarified a reference made by Mr. Grahn to CEQA, Section 15162, noting that this is from the State's CEQA guidelines, Section 15162. Mr. Grahn affirmed the adoption of Development Review 98-13 in 1998. Mr. Buller asked Mr. Grahn to lay out the project drawings for public viewing. He stated that he reviewed the larger scale drawings and all the information related to this project pdor to the meeting. He asked Mr. Grahn to acknowledge City staff present, for the record. Mr. Buller inquired about the reasons for the two new additional conditions to the Resolution. City Planner Meeting 1 ,~ /'"'7 August 22, 2000 Mr. Grahn noted for the record the presence of Dan Guerra, Consultant from Derbish, Guerra, and Associates. He informed the attendees that the condition to address the ability to continue use of the original design of the project came at the request of the applicant. He reported that Condition #4 was added, regarding the 5-year expiration date, because it was not clarified in the report how long Development Review 98-13 was valid. Brad Buller, City Planner, opened the public hearing. John Allday, the applicant, representing The Heights at Haven View Estates, P.O. Box 790, Augoura Hills, stated that the staff report is very fair and thorough, and that he agrees with all the conditions and recommendations. He stated that he would like the Civil Engineer for this project, Stan Morse, to elaborate on the engineering aspects. Mr. AIIday asked if the 5-year time limit begins upon finalization of the project and its appeals, the modification, or the entire Development Review 98-13 as modified. Mr. AIIday noted that it is possible that the storm water channel alternatives would be constructed if approval is granted. Mr. Allday stated that when City Council took action on the final tract map, they requested that the applicant assure the City that there are alternatives. He said that he is devoting time, resources and engineering knowledge to the design alternatives. He said that both altematives fit within the overall concept of the design review approval. He stated that impacts of the alternatives are no different than the ones on the rest of the plan and that the two channels do not impact the rest of the plan differently. He remarked that he felt they were ready to move forward. Start Morse, MDS Engineering, 17320 Redhill Avenue, Suite 350, Irvine, stated that for the past ten years, his company has examined the hydrology of the project. The quantities of the storm water are the same for both channels (rectangular and trapezoidal channels) and noted that nothing has happened over the years to change those quantities. He commented that these factors have been reviewed in depth bythe City, County of San Bernardino, and bythe Corp of Engineers. He noted that both designs have no impact on the trails or water flow and that the revisions are minor. He stated that his company is satisfied by the amount of water reaching the channels, noting that the trapezoidal channel versus the rectangular wall channel, hydrologically, operate the same. Since they are open channels, you can see at the top of them. He added that rectangular channels take less horizontal room, so that allows them to pull the channel away from the property line and eliminate the need for off-site grading. He stated that they performed a Sedimentation Transport and Deposition study and that a peer review study by Northwest consultants in Sacramento was done because these are not the usual types of studies performed. They determined that either design would have no effect on the hydrologics of the channel, so the channel would accommodate any debris transportation or deposition. Mr. Aliday requested time at the end of the meeting for his council to respond to questions asked and comments made during the meeting. Mr. Builer noted that time would be given for their response. Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga, requested a copy of the staff report for her review. Ms. Hahn stated that when a lot of dirt is moved around, she felt a Negative Declaration was not appropriate. Ms. Hahn said she believes an EIR should have been issued rather than a Negative Declaration. She indicated that she believes that there is a difference in the two designs because the development company is now coming with a different channel design and they are removing the levy. She asked if there were any revisions to the June 19, 2000, report because the engineer from Exponent had questions from the last meeting. She expressed her belief that the replacement channel is not going to work. She asked if the alternative channel was in a conceptual format, and if there were connections to the Sedimentation Transport and Deposition study. She reported that Doug Hamilton from Exponent has asked if there were revisions made to the report. Ms. Hahn stated that she had made numerous phone calls, but had not received any answers. She said that she had not seen the modifications to the Conditions of Approval. City Planner Meeting 2 .~[~ August22,2000 Mr. Buller asked Mr. Grahn to get an extra copy of the staff report for Ms. Hahn. Ms. Hahn inquired about the amount of the dirt that would be moved around dudng the development. Mr. Morse answered that the quantity is less overall, but is within a few percentage points of the original design. Mr. Buller said that the amount of soil disturbance change would be minimal, and that is why only a modification is needed. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that Dan Guerra had reviewed the report and that he had spoken with Doug Hamilton and that they had also gone to MDS. Mr. James asserted his confidence in the reports, standard practices, and the design concept, and felt moving forward is appropriate. Mr. Buller asked Dan James if there were any more changes to the report and if there has been more evaluation based on Mr. Hamilton's questions or dialogue. Mr. James stated he had not spoken to Mr. Hamilton, but reviewed the study in light of his concerns. Mr. AIIday asked if the word "approval" applies to Development Review 98-13 as modified or Modification of Development Review 98-13 alone. Mr. Buller asked Mr. Ennis if the report needed better wording to clarify the 5-year condition. Mr. Ennis, asked if the original approval of Development Review 98-13 has a specific time period that it is valid. He stated that the modification approval should correspond with the remaining length of time of the other approval. Mr. Grahn stated there was a two-year approval. Mr. Buller said that extensions were allowed for this project. Mr. Ennis said that his interpretation was that this project allows for the extension of this particular modification. It does not automatically extend or modify the original Development Review 98-13 approval. Mr. AIIday asked if the 5-year limit starts from the original date of the Development Review 98-13 approval. Mr. Buller answered that approval begins 5 years from the approval of this action, meaning the modification. He added that staff will clarify the issues related to the development review. Ms. Hahn inquired about all other conditions staying in place in addition to the new conditions. Mr. Bullet confirmed that the other conditions would stay in place. Andrew Hartzell, Hewitt & McGuire, 19900 Macarthur Boulevard, Suite 1050, Ir'vine, stated that he takes issue with the CEQA findings and that secondly he believes the reason the applicant has asked for a modification of the design is because DWP was concemed about off-site grading, noting that the residents asked for no off-site grading. City Planner Meeting 3 '~ [ i~ August 22, 2000 Mr. Bulier noted for the record receipt of two items of correspondence; one being from Mr. Hartzel, dated August 21, 2000. He also reported a phone call from Katherine Wyatt, resident of Haven View Estates, who also sent a fax to the City asking him to reevaluate the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Bulier closed the public hearing. Mr. Bulier approved Development Review 98-13 as presented. He stated that the 5~year time limit is for this element of the development review only and that is for the alternate channel design. Mr. Buller stated that he is supportive of either option and that he appreciates staff's diligence in processing the Hillside Review. Mr. Buller reminded the attendees that there is a 10-day appeal period for the decision. PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments were made at this time. ADJOURNMENT The City Planner meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Sincerely, Melissa Andrewin Office Specialist II City Planner Meeting 4 ,~ ~ (~ August 22, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-13 FOR FINALTRACT 14771, A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35. A. Recitals. 1. The Heights at Haven View Estates filed an application for the approval of a Modification to Development Review No. 98-13. The modifications involve a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northern boundary of the tract, providing retaining walls directly north of the channel, and the elimination of grading north of the project. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of August 2000, the City Planner of the City qf Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Planner hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this City Planner during the above- referenced meeting on August 22, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, the City Planner hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is located in the Very Low Residential District and because of the slope of the site it is also subject to the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The development of 40 homes on 25.35 acres is consistent with the Very Low Residential District and the project was designed to comply with all applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the grading plan were designed to be consistent with the originally approved project and to comply with the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and CiTY PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 00-17 DR 98113 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) August 22, 2000 Page 2 c. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project was designed to comply with the building and grading provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the conceptually approved project that include a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northern boundary of the tract, and providing retaining walls directly north of the channel are in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and d. The minor revisions to the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially iniurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The effects of these changes on the homes in the approved tract as well as properties adjacent thereto, have been evaluated and found to be insignificant. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, the City Planner hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Plannin.q Division 1 ) The retaining walls north of the channel shall be provided a split face block finish. 2) Landscaping shall be provided between terraced retaining walls north of the channel. The landscaping shall be shown on the final Landscape and Irrigation Plans and shall be installed prior to completion of the project. 3) This approval does not preclude the developer from proceeding in accordance with the original grading design, approved with Development Review 98-13, if approval is obtained from the property to the north for that purpose. 4) Modification to Development Review 98-13 shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. Enqineerinq Division 1 ) A permit from San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required. Any redesign required in obtaining the permits shall be resolved and approved prior to starting work. 2) The approved Final Drainage Study shall be updated to address the alternate channel design. 4. The Secretary to the City Planner shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 00-17 DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) August 22, 2000 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2000. CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: Lo~s J S~l~rader, ~ecretary-'"'"~ " I, Lois J. Schrader, Secretary to the Planning Division for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Planner held on the 22nd day of August 2000. RESOLUTION NO. 00-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THAT NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT 14771, A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35. A. Recitals. 1. The Heights at Haven View Estates filed an application for the approval of Modification to Development Review No. 98-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of August 2000, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Planner hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this City Planner during the above- referenced meeting on August 22, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, the City Planner hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Drive and is presently vacant; and b.' The property is bordered on the north by property owned bythe City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, on the east by property owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the properties to the south and west consist of vacant and developed single family residential land; and c. The application contemplates a revision to the approved grading plan for Development Review 98-13. Revisions to the proposed project will reduce the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the project site (along the rear of Lots 1,2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, and 35), revise the base elevation and design of the channel along the north CITY PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 00-18 DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) August 22, 2000 Page 2 boundary of the tract, provide retaining walls directly north of the channel, and eliminate off-site grading north of the project. 3. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes requirements and procedures for evaluating potential environmental impacts resulting from development of a project. Section 15162 establishes the specific procedures when a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration is necessary. The following addresses Section 15162 and the substantial evidence to support that the proposed revision does not require either changes to the 1990 Negative Declaration or the preparation of an EIR. a. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Proposed revisions that reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off- site are changes that will reduce project related impacts. These are not substantial changes in the proposed project because the minimal amount of proposed grading, because of the relatively insignificant changes to the channel design, and the minimal changes to the project's design. Without any substantial changes in the project, no new or severe environmental impacts would be created to require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771. The proposed revisions would not change the number of homes or their general location within the tract. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: CITY PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 00-18 DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) August 22, 2000 Page 3 A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771. Both the odginal design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. Although the minor revision to the project design includes various retaining walls north of the channel not contemplated in the original design of the project, the walls are designed to be consistent with the use of retaining walls in other areas of the tract. B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, but the project proponents decline to adopt. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will result in a project that is substantially similar to the currently approved project. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. The project applicant CITY PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 00-18 DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) August 22, 2000 Page 4 designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. b. If changes to a project or its cimumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative decJaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or nor further documentation. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. Consequently, the lead environmental agency has determined that no further environmental documentation is required. 4. Based on substantial evidence presented to the City Planner during the above- referenced meeting, the City Planner further finds that, in any event, none of the criteria in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exist or are present with respect to the City Planner's action on the modification to the Development/Design Review application. 5. The Secretary to the City Planner shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2000. CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Lois J Schrader, Secretary I, Lois Schrader, Secretary to the Planning Division for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the City Planner held on the 22nd day of August 2000. RESOLUTION NO. 00-** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION THAT NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT 14771, A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074- 511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35. A. Recitals. 1. The Heights at Haven View Estates filed an application for the approval of Modification to Development Review No. 98-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of August 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed Development Review 98-13, and following the conclusion of their review adopted Resolution 98-56 by which th~ Commission determined that no subsequent environmental review was necessary for the project and approved the project. 3. That decision by the Planning Commission was timely appealed to the City Council. 4. On the 18th day of November 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga denied the appeal of Development Review 98-13, and affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission to find that no subsequent environmental review was necessary for the project and approved the project. 5. On the 22nd day of August 2000, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a public hearing on the application, and following the close of the headng, adopted Resolutions Nos. 00-17 and 00-18 making environmental findings and approving the application. 6. The decisions made by said City Planner on the application were timely appealed to the Planning Commission. 7. On the 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 2 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Planning Commission dudng the above-referenced meeting on September 27, 2000, including but not limited to, wdtten and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced City Planner meeting, and the contents of City Planner Resolutions Nos. 00-17 and 00-18, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Drive and is presently vacant; and b. The property is bordered on the north by property owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, on the east by property owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the properties to the south and west consist of vacant and developed single family residential land; and c. The application contemplates a revision to the approved grading plan for Development Review 98-13. Revisions to the proposed project will reduce the overall height of the slope along the northem portion of the project site (along the rear of Lots 1,2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, and 35), revise the base elevation and design of the channel along the north boundary of the tract, provide retaining walls directly north of the channel, and eliminate off-site grading north of the project. 3. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes requirements and procedures for evaluating potential environmental impacts resulting from development of a project. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes specific criteda for determining when subsequent environmental review of a project is required. The following addresses Section 15162 and the substantial evidence to support the Commission's determinations as to whether a new EIR, a new Negative Declaration, or other environmental document is required in this matter. a. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Proposed revisions that reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the nor[hem boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off- site are changes that will reduce project related impacts. Reducing the height of the slope will result in a slight increase in the amount of grading, however, as with the prior approval, the cut and fill of the project grading is designed to balance. Revising the design of the channel will not change its capacity. Proposed changes to the design of the project will not affect the majority of the project PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 3 including street designs, pad elevations, and equestrian trails. These are not substantial changes in the proposed project because the minimal amount of proposed grading, because of the relatively insignificant changes to the channel design, and the minimal changes to the project's design. Without any substantial changes in the project that would result in new or severe environmental impacts, major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval would not be required at this time. 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were evaluated under the Negative Declaration approved with the subdivision of the property. The proposed revisions will not change the number of homes or their general location within the tract. Characteristics of the surrounding properties have not changed significantly since the tract was approved, the property to the north and east is vacant, and the property to the south and west contains residential lots, many of which have been developed with custom and semi-custom homes. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken does not result in the involvement of new or significant environmental effects or the increase in the sevedty of significant effects. 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary, of the tract. Although the minor revision to the project design includes various retaining walls north of the channel not contemplated in the original design of the project, the walls are designed to be consistent with the use of retaining walls in other areas of the tract, to comply with the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and as required by the Design Review Committee the walls will be provided with landscaping to PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 4 soften their appearance. In addition, assertions regarding the capacity of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and related facilities do not show that the project would have one or more effects not previously considered. B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the odginal design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. The changes in the channel design will have minimal impacts to grading, water flow, and aesthetics. These changes are not resulting in significant effects substantially more severe than shown in the 1990 Negative Declaration. C) Mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or altemative. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, but the project proponents decline to adopt. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will result in a project that is substantially similar to the currently approved project. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. b. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 5 required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or nor further documentation. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. Consequently, the lead environmental agency has determined that no further environmental documentation is required. 4. Based on the findings specified above and on all evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, the Planning Commission finds that none of the criteria in Section 15162 of the State for California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exist or are present with respect to the application for the modification to the DevelopmentJDesign Review application. Therefore the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent environmental review of the project is required and that this determination is the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 5. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 00-** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A CITY PLANNER DECISION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT 14771, A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35. A. Recitals. 1. The Heights at Haven View Estates filed an application for the approval of a Modification to Development Review No. 98-13. The modifications involve a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northern boundary of the tract, providing retaining walls directly north of the channel, and the elimination of grading north of the project. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of August 2000, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the application, and following the conclusion of his review, adopted Resolution 00-18 thereby approving said application. 3. The decisions represented by said City Planner Resolutions were timely appealed to the Planning Commission. 4. On the 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on September 27, 2000, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced City Planner meeting, and the contents of the City Planner Resolution Nos. 00-17 and 00-18, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 2 b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located. The project is located in the Very Low Residential Distdct and because of the slope of the site it is also subject to the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The development of 40 homes on 25.35 acres is consistent with the Very Low Residential District and the project was designed to comply with all applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the grading plan were designed to be consistent with the originally approved project and to comply with the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and c. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project was designed to comply with the building and grading provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the conceptually approved project that include a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northern boundary of the tract, and providing retaining walls directly north of the channel are in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and d. The minor revisions to the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or irnprevements in the vicinity. The effects of these changes on the homes in the approved tract as well as properties adjacent thereto, have been evaluated and found to be insignificant. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planninq Division 1) All conditions of approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution 98-55 and City Council Resolution 98-178 shall apply. 2) The retaining walls nor[h of the channel shall be provided a split face block finish. 3) Landscaping shall be provided between terraced retaining walls north of the channel. The landscaping shall be shown on the final Landscape and Irrigation Plans and shall be installed pdor to completion of the project. 4) This approval does not preclude the developer from proceeding in accordance with the original grading design, approved with Development Review 98-13, if approval is obtained from the property to the north for that purpose. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 3 5) Modification to Development Review 98-13 shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval No extensions are allowed. En.qineednq Division 1 ) A permit from San Bemardino County Flood Control Distdct is required. Any redesign required in obtaining the permits shall be resolved and approved prior to starting work. 2) The approved Final Drainage Study shall be updated to address the alternate channel design. 4. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I-I'EST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 00-** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A CITY PLANNER DECISION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT 14771, A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074- 511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35. A. Recitals. 1. The Heights at Haven View Estates filed an application for the approval of a Modification to Development Review No. 98-13. The modifications involve a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northern boundary of the tract, providing retaining walls directly north of the channel, and the elimination of grading north of the project. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of August 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed Development Review 98~13, and following the conclusion of their review adopted Resolution 98-56 bywhich the Commission determined that no subsequent environmental review was necessary for the project and approved the project. 3. That decision by the Planning Commission was timely appealed to the City Council. 4. On the 18th day of November 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga denied the appeal of Development Review 98-13, and affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission to find that no subsequent environmental review was necessary for the project and approved the project. 5. On the 22nd day of August 2000, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a public hearing on the application, and following the close of the hearing, adopted Resolutions Nos. 00-17 and 00-18 making environmental findings and approving the application. 6. The decisions made by said City Planner on the application were timely appealed to the Planning Commission. 7. On the 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and adopted Resolution No. 00-** determining that no subsequent environmental review was necessary for the project. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT-HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on September 27, 2000, including, but not limited to, wdtten and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced City Planner meeting, and the contents of the City Planner Resolution Nos. 00-17 and 00-18, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is located in the Very Low Residential Distdct and because of the slope of the site it is also subject to the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The development of 40 homes on 25.35 acres is consistent with the Very Low Residential District and the project was designed to comply with all applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the grading plan were designed to be consistent with the originally approved project and to comply with the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and c. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project was designed to complywith the building and grading provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the conceptually approved project that include a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northem boundary of the tract, and providing retaining walls directly north of the channel are in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and d. The minor revisions to the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The effects of these changes on the homes in the approved tract as well as properties adjacent thereto, have been evaluated and found to be insignificant. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planninq Division 1) All conditions of approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution 98-55 and City Council Resolution 98-178 shall apply. 2) The retaining walls north of the channel shall be provided a split face block finish. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 3 3) Landscaping shall be provided between terraced retaining wails north of the channel. The landscaping shall be shown on the final Landscape and Irrigation Plans and shall be installed prior to completion of the project. 4) This approval does not preclude the developer from proceeding in accordance with the original grading design, approved with Development Review 98-13, if approval is obtained from the property to the north for that purpose. 5) Modification to Development Review 98-13 shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. Enqineerinq Division 1 ) A permit from San Bernardino County Flood Control Distdct is required. Any redesign required in obtaining the permits shall be resolved and approved prior to starting work. 2) The approved Final Drainage Study shall be updated to address the alternate channel design. 4. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES September 27, 2000 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 00-** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION THAT NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT 14771, A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1074-511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35. A. Recitals. 1. The Heights at Haven View Estates filed an application for the approval of Modification to Development Review No. 98-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of August 2000, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the application, and following the conclusion of his review, adopted Resolution 00-18 thereby approving said application. 3. The decisions represented by said City Planner Resolutions were timely appealed to the Planning Commission. 4. On the 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public headng on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Planning Commission dudng the above-referenced meeting on September 27, 2000, including but not limited to, wdtten and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced City Planner meeting, and the contents of City Planner Resolutions Nos. 00-17 and 00-18, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast comer of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Ddve and is presently vacant; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 2 b. The property is bordered on the north by property owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, on the east by property owned by the San Bemardino County Flood Control District, and the properties to the south and west consist of vacant and developed single family residential land; and c. The application contemplates a revision to the approved grading plan for Development Review 98-13. Revisions to the proposed project will reduce the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the project site (along the mar of Lots 1,2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, and 35), revise the base elevation and design of the channel along the north boundary of the tract, provide retaining walls directly north of the channel, and eliminate off-site grading north of the project. 3. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes requirements and procedures for evaluating potential environmental impacts resulting from development of a project. Section 15162 establishes the specific procedures when a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration is necessary. The following addresses Section 15162 and the substantial evidence to support that the proposed revision does not require either changes to the 1990 Negative Declaration or the preparation of an EIR. a. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Proposed revisions that reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northem boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off- site are changes that will reduce project related impacts. Reducing the height of the slope will result in a slight increase in the amount of grading, however, as with the prior approval, the cut and fill of the project grading is designed to balance. Revising the design of the channel will not change its capacity. Proposed changes to the design of the project will not affect the majodty of the project including street designs, pad elevations, and equestrian trails. These are not substantial changes in the proposed project because the minimal amount of proposed grading, because of the relatively insignificant changes to the channel design, and the minimal changes to the project's design. Without any substantial changes in the project that would result in new or severe environmental impacts, major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval would not be required at this time. 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the sevedty of previously identified significant effects. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 3 No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the cimumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were evaluated under the Negative Declaration approved with the subdivision of the property. The proposed revisions will not change the number of homes or their general location within the tract. Characteristics of the surrounding properties have not changed significantly since the tract was approved, the property to the north and east is vacant, and the property to the south and west contains residential lots, many of which have been developed with custom and semi-custom homes. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northem boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. The circumstances underwhich the project is undertaken does not result in the involvement of new or significant environmental effects or the increase in the severity of significant effects. 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northem boundary of the tract. Although the minor revision to the project design includes various retaining walls north of the channel not contemplated in the odginal design of the project, the walls are designed to be consistent with the use of retaining walls in other areas of the tract, to comply with the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and as required by the Design Review Committee the walls will be provided with landscaping to soften their appearance. In addition, assertions regarding the capacity of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and related facilities do not show that the project would have one or more effects not previously considered. B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 4 under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the odginal design of the project and the preposed revision provide imprevements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. The changes in the channel design will have minimal impacts to grading, water flow, and aesthetics. These changes are not resulting in significant effects substantially more severe than shown in the 1990 Negative Declaration. C) Mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, but the project proponents decline to adopt. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the appreval of Development Review 98-13. D) Mitigation measures or altematives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or altemative. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northem boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will result in a project that is substantially similar to the currently approved project. There are no mitigation measures or altematives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. b. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or nor further documentation. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect conditions of approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. Consequently, the lead envirenmental agency has determined that no further environmental documentation is required. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00- DR 98-13 MOD. - (HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES) September 27, 2000 Page 5 4. Based on substantial evidence presented to the City Planner dudng the above- referenced meeting, the City Planner further finds that, in any event, none of the cdteda in Section 15162 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exist or are present with respect to the City Planner's action on the modification to the DevelopmentJDesign Review application. 5. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. CITY PLANNER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: the cit~ of l~ancho Cucamonsa S ffReport DATE: September 27, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bred Buller, City Planner BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-34 FORECAST HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay District in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road -APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Tentative Tract 16105, Variance 00-04, Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16105 - FORECAST HOMES- A residential subdivision of 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay Distdct in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the I-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Development Review 00-34, Variance 00-04, Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VARIANCE 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES - A request to increase the wall height up to 15 feet for sound attenuation along the western boundary of proposed Tentative Tract 16105 in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road- APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related file: Tentative Tract 16105, Development Review 00-34 and Tree Removal Permit 00-25. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is vacant and relatively flat, with four existing stands of windrows on-site that are proposed for removal. The site is bounded to the east by East Avenue and to the west by the 1-15 freewayl To the north is a proposed C.C.W.D future water reservoir, and to the south is an approved single-family residential development, Tract 15711. ITEMS C, E, F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 16105 - DR 00-34- VAR 00-04- FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to construct 147 single-family homes that will range in size from 1,910 to 2,740 square feet. The site will be developed under the Low-Medium Residential Basic Development Standards of the Etiwanda South Oveday District. Five house plans are being proposed, each having four different architectural styles: Early California, California Ranch, Prairie, and California Bungalow. All plans have a fireplace in the family room and each has a 2-car garage. The various configurations are as follows: · Plan 1 is single-story, 1,910 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan has two bedrooms with a den/option bedroom three. · Plan 2 is two-story, 2,302 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan has three bedrooms with a loft/option bedroom four. · Plan 3 is two-story, 2,370 square feet, and features a 2-car side-on garage and a front porch. The plan has three bedrooms with a den/option bedroom four and loft/option bedroom five. · Plan 4 is two-story, 2,528 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan has three bedrooms with a loft/option bedroom four. · Plan 5 is two-story, 2,740 square feet, and features a 2-car side-on garage and a front pomh. The plan has three bedrooms with a loft/option bedroom four and den/option bedroom five. In conjunction with the Tentative Tract and Development Review Applications, the applicant has submitted a Variance Application requesting to increase the wall height along the western boundary of the project (adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway) to 15 feet for sound attenuation. B. Desi.qn Review Committee: The Committee (McNeil, Stewart, Coleman) reviewed the project on August 15, 2000, and on September 5, 2000, and recommended approval with conditions, which have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Action comments have been attached for your convenience (Exhibit "H"). C. Gradinq Review Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on August 15, 2000, and on September 5, 2000. The Committee recommended approval subject to conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Tree Removal Permit 00-25: There are 72 trees on the site. Old Eucalyptus windrows criss- cross the site, with occasional California Peppers and Mexican Elderberry trees appearing throughout. The project will require the removal of a total of 67 trees: 56 Eucalyptus trees, 6 California Pepper trees, and 5 Mexican Elderberry trees. Currently, 57 trees must be removed to allow the construction of new homes and street/utility excavations. An additional 10 trees must be removed due to proposed surrounding grade changes of more than 6 inches. The trees will be required to be replaced pursuant to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 16105 - DR 00-34- VAR 00-04- FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 3 E. Environmental Assessment: Parts I and II of the Initial Study have been completed. Staff determined that the project could have a significant adverse environmental impact on short- term air quality during site preparation, such as grading and equipment exhaust. Staff also determined that there may be noise impacts to future residents within the subject tract resulting from traffic along the 1-15 Freeway, as well as biological impacts resulting from Eucalyptus windrow removal. A total of 67 trees will be removed to accommodate project improvements. A noise study was prepared which identified noise attenuation measures to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation measures will be required to reduce the short- term air quality and noise impacts to a less than significant impact, and windrows are required to be replaced pursuant to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 276. If the Planning Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: The site is subject to excessive traffic noise from the I-15 Freeway located to the west. A noise study (Advance Engineering Acoustics -August 17, 2000) was prepared for the project that recommends sound walls as high as 15 feet along the western tract boundary, as well as sound walls up to 8 feet within the development to mitigate 1-15 Freeway noise. Since the City's maximum permitted wall height is 6 feet, the Variance application is necessary. Staff is of the opinion that the location of the site adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway and the resultant need for noise mitigation justifies issuance of the requested Variance. Exposure of the site to excessive traffic noise constitutes an exceptional cimumstance, as the vast majority of land within the Low-Medium Residential District is not exposed to such excessive noise. These areas can be developed in conformance with the allowed density range without sacrificing substantial land area to mitigate noise. The increased wall height will not be detrimental to public health and safety or materially injurious to surrounding property. The intent is to provide necessary noise mitigation for future residents, and to provide a safe and enjoyable living space. Based on the above analysis, Staff believes that there are sufficient facts to support the findings. To address the aesthetics of the tall wall, a condition of approval requires the wall to have decorative treatment, such as, but not limited to: two-tone color scheme pattern arrangement to the materials, a decorative cap, and climbing vines and trees to soften the appearance of the wall. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract 16105, Development Review 00-34 and Variance 00-04 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:KC\ma PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'IT 16105 - DR 00-34- VAR 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 4 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit"D" - Grading Plan Exhibit"E" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Floor Plans Exhibit "G" - Elevations Exhibit"H" - Design Review Committee Meeting Action Agenda and Minutes, Dated August 15, 2000, and September 5, 2000 Exhibit"l" - Environmental Study Parts I and II Resolution Recommending Approval for Tentative Tract 16105 Resolution Recommending Approval for Development Review 00-34 Resolution Recommending Approval for Variance 00-04 TT 16105/DR 00-34/VAR 00-04 FORECAST HOMES 0 480 Feet LOCATION MAP ,,Q,,/181HX::I SEE StlEET 4 OF SEE SIIEET 5 OF 6 i :' :~EET ~'i "' EAST-' i I ~- '~ .... ~;" j SHILOH WAY TENTATIVE T~CT 16105, CONCEPTUAL GRADING P~N ;, ~, FORECAST HOMES ............................... ' ~ ..... -~....,: -. .' ~,. .......... ~:: ....... ~__::_._?.: . ,, ............. ~ FUTURE C.C.W.D. RESERVOIR ' ' ~'"~'\ ".IMPROVEMENTS ," ':.-:;;~: . . ..-.~.. ,, .~ ~ .,~ ~ . ~ ............ ,... ........ ~ ...... ~.~ ........ ~ ......... . .... ~ SEE SHEET 5 OF 6 -- r~ PLANT PALE'i-rE: SLOPE PLANTING NO'~ES: PLANT PALETTE: ELOPE PLANTING NOTES: r EAST AVENUE PERIMETER WALL EAST AVENUE PERIMETER WALL ELEVA33ON DETAIL PLAN DETAIL UJ WALL & FENCE LEGEND FIRST FLOOR PLAN total: 1910 FORECAST HOMES RANCHO CUCAM(]NGA PLAN ONi Dining Room Living Room BEDROOM 4 OPTION Porr~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1227 s,J. 1075 s.f. tolah 2302 s.f. FORECAST HOMES PLAN TWO J~l~J~'~''~r~'~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN 117b s.(. , 1194 S.f. total: 2370 s.I. 30' FORECAST HOMES PLAN FO~IR ~','~c~'~ open to be~w Ii SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN FORECAST HOMES RANCHO CUCAMONGA ..~.,.,~....~.~ PLAN FIV~ ~-~r~ EARLY CAL~=ORNIA CALIFORNIA RANCH ~(~ Ri§hr Side Rear Elevation FORECAST HOMES PLAN ONE ~ CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW CALIFORI~A RANCH Ri§hr Side Rear Elevation I I / I ~i ii iit~ll~ll I// FORECAST HOMES PLAN TWO EARLY CALIFORNIA Right Side Rear I:levation Le f t $1de PRAIRI~ FORECAST HOMES PLAN THREE PRAIRIE ~ c~, c,)~.~_~ CALIFORNIA BUHGALOW FORECAST HOMES '.--~'* ~,,~-k o,o,,PLAN~ ,,,,,oci.t,*,,FOURi.,:. Right Side Rear Elevation Left Side CALIFORNIA RANCH FORECAST HOMES PLAN FOUR ~;~ EARLY CALIFORNIA Right Side Rear Elevation Left Side PRAIRIE FORECAST HOMES PLAN FIVE DESIGN REVlE'W COMMENTS ' 8:40 p.m. Kirt Coury ~. August 15, 2000 TENTATIVE TRACT 16105 AND DEVELOPMENT REVlEVV 00 -34 - FORECAST HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single- family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of East Avenue, southwest of the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road in the Etiwenda Specific Plan - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related file: Vadance 00-04, Tree Removal Permit 00-25. ,. ~ . Desiqn Parameters: The site is vacant and relatively flat, with four existing stands of windrows on- site that are proposed for removal. The site is bounded to the east by East Avenue and to the west by the I-15 freeway. To the north is a proposed C.C.W.D future water reservoir and to the south is an approved single-family residential development, Tract 15711. The site will be developed under the Low-Medium Residential Basic Development Standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Five house plans are being proposed, each having three different architectural styles: California Ranch, Praide, and California Bungalow. All plans have 2-car garages broken into various configurations as follows: Plan I is single-story, 1,910 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a two bedroom with a den/option bedroom three. Plan 2 is two-story, 2,302 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan !s a three bedroom with a loft/option bedroom four. Plan 3 is two-story, 2,370 square.feet, and features' a 2-car side-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a three bedroorh with a den/option bedroom four and loft/option bedroom five. Plan 4 is two-story, 2,528 square feet, and features a 2-car front-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a three bedroom with a loft/option bedroom four. Plan 5 is two-story, 2,740 square feet, and features a 2-car side-on garage and a front porch. The plan is a three bedroom with a loft/option bedroom four and den/option bedroom five. Variance: The applicant has submitted a Variance application requesting to incre~s~ the wall height to 14-feet along the I-15 freeway. The Development Code allows a maximum wall height of 6-feet. The Vadance for the wall is necessary to help mitigate freeway noise; however, Caltrans has rejected allowing the sound wall at the freeway shoulder (on top of slope). The noise study must be revised to determine the wall height necessary at tract boundary (toe of slope). Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues! The following broad issues will be the focus of the Committee's discussion regarding this project: 1. Special "enhanced architecture" should be given to lots that side (lots on eastern boundary) or rear onto East Avenue. Consideration shall be given to include a mixture of second-story pop-outs; greater use of window mullions, shutters, and pot shelves on lots that side or rear on East Avenue. C ~' ,~' EXHIBIT "H" DRC COMMENTS ~ ''' TT 16101 & DR 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES August 15, 2000 .... Page 2 ,. ...... 2. Front yard landscaping should include, at a manimum, one 15-gallon size tree, one 5-gallon size tree, seeded ground cover, and a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees. 3. The high sound wall along the north and west tract t~0Undary shOuld have the two-tone tan split faced block with fluted block accent to match the approved sound wall for Tract 15911 (Ryland) to maintain a uniform treatment along the 115 ccrddor..Also, plant trees and climbing vines to soften appearance. , Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The river rock stone pilasters should be placed at the most northern and southern ends of the East Avenue perimeter wall. · 2. The 6-foot split-face block wall (interior wall returns), and the southern boundary block wall (proto type II precision block wall) should be developed with double-sided split face block. Code Requirements: The following items are required by Ordinance, Development Code or Specific Plan and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Plant new Eucalyptus windrows to replace those removed. 2. The decorative perimeter ~'atl a, long East Avenue should incorporate arge dver rock stone pilasters and a dyer rock planter wall in its design, developed at a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches each. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to the above comments Desitin Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Kirt Coury The Committee reviewed the project and did not recommend approval. T.he Committee directed the applicant to continue to work on resolving the major issues presented at the meeting (modify the lots at ends of cul-de-sacs Street 'E" and "F," adjust awkward 5-foot side yard to rear yard relationships, and enhance architecture to lots that rear onto East Avenue). The Committee supported adding dver rock stone pilasters to the ends of the East Avenue perimeter wall, supplementing double-sided :,. split face block to interior wall returns, as well as using accent treatment to the proposed sound wall. ,. The applicant should revise the project and return to the Design Review Committee on September 5, 2000, as a Consent Calendar item. In addition, the Committee recommended the following change be incorporated in the revised plans: 1. Provide landscape treatment to minimize concrete effect at the bulb'~nds of cul-de-sacs Street "E" and "F." DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CiViC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversiaL Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 7:00 p.m. (Kirt) TENTATIVE TRACT 16105 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of East Avenue, southwest of the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road in the Etiwanda Specific Plan - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Variance 00-04 and Tree Removal Permit 00-25. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:10 p.m. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16081 -TRIMARK-A residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for 101 single family lots on 26.38 gross acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located at the southwest comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Victoria Park Lane -APN: 227-091-,09, 26, and 50. 7:30 p.m. (Debra) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-46 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS AND ON THE BORDER MEXICAN CAFE - The proposed development of On The Border Mexican Cafb with 7,300 square feet, and retail pad building S with 10,000 square feet, located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard at Aspen Avenue within the Terra Vista Town Center in the Community Commercial land use district of the Terra Vista Community Plan - APN: 1077-421-82 and 83. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT (~* Z~. ~' - .~ ~' / CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Kirt Coury September 5, 2000 TENTATIVE TRACT 16105 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00 -34 - FORECAST HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single- family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Etiwanda South Overlay District, located on the west side of East Avenue, southwest of the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road in the Etiwanda Specific Plan -APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related file: Vadance 00-04, Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Desi.qn Review Committee Action: Members Present: [~arry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Kid Coury The Committee reviewed the project as a consent item and recommended approval and directed the applicant to work with staff on the following issues: 1. Provide appropriate tuming radius movements in long driveways on cul-de-sac streets "E" and "F." 2. Provide additional on-site landscaping and "Hollywood" driveways on cul-de-sac streets "E" and "F." ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM ~o,...=ocu~.o.g.p,...,.g~=.(Part I - Initial Study) (9O9) 477-2750 The purpose of:this~,f?~m Is tGi~i~ the (::!~i~hb ~a~i~ c~m~~:~ P[~p~sed project*s°'th~t:th~ ci~m~:~Vie~ prOj~t:~'a~t;t~' ~i~ '~ii~y~i~:~n~:and gmdehnes; the'Califoi~i~ Efi~!~l QUah~:A:~; a~d the Ci~l~ ~n~ Pr~ceaures to Implement CE~. I~ i~ i~P~"ithat ifi~ information ~e~u0sted~'lh i~i$~'pplioati°n be provldedln full,' : ::-,~. ' ~;~'-~ ,. ~; . ~ "':..: .: ~.:~:~: ~..::: ~:~ *..:~ INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; CiO/staff will not be available to perfon-n work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project Title: Name ~ A~s~ o~projeclownms): ~r~ ~ ~.~ /0~7o c,v,'c ~.~ ~r Contact Pe~son & Addmss: g~-;,~r~l TelephoneNumbec Name & Address of pe~on preparing this fo~ (if different f~m above): Telephone Number: EXHIBIT 1'I,l ~--/]G~/~ -'~P y Page l Information indicated by astedsk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff '1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 4) Assessot~s Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): ,~j.' ¢O ~ ~ .~ /~' ~) ~ , //~ O-O~ /-O ~L ~, ~./ '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: INITSTD1.WPD-4/96 C ~"/ .~ ~ ~ ~"-~'~ Page 2 Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on fopogmphy, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Descdbe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of signi§cant features desc#bed. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeofogical surveys, traffic studies): 10) Descdbe the known cultural and/or histodcal aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): 11) Describe any n~ise s~urces and their ~eve~s that n~w a~ect the site (aircraft~ roadway n~ise~ etc~) and h~w they wi~~ a~ect proposed uses: .. , , // INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 12) Descdbetheproposedprojectindetail. Thisshouldprovideanadequatedescriptionofthesiteintermsofultimateusewhich will result from the prosed preject. Indicate if there am proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessaP/: ,~ f , I ~ ,J ' I I Indicate the type of land use (residential. commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, Sh...~s, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): ' / ~ ' ' II 14) Will the proposed, project change the pattem scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. VV~at methods of sound proofing are proposed? e~ ~ <'z · ' ~ -- II( V " .16),ndicatep~posed.movalsan~or.placeme~tsofmatu. or,cenict--es: :,~/pr~,> ~: 17) Indicate any bodies of wT~r (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. esidantia, rga day) Peakuse( a sy Iaea b. Comme~ia~nd. (gaYdaylac) Peek use (gaYmi~ac) 19) Indicate p~posed method of sewage disposal. ~ Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks am pmposed, a~ach pe~olation tests. If discha~e to a sanita~ sewage system is pmposed indicate expected daily sewage genemtion: (See A~achment A for usage estimates). Forfudher cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga Coun~ Water Distoct at 987-2591. b. Comme~ia~nd. (gaYday/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate ~nge of pamel size~, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: INITSTD1.VVPD - 4/96 f / Page 5 21) Anticipated range of sale p6ces and/or mnts: SaleP/fce(s) $ /~O)o(~d to $ ~ ~0/060 Rent (per month) $, to $ 22) S~ecl~.umbero, bed~omsb~un'.~pe: / r~, ~ ~,~/~ ~ 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the apprepdate School Disthcts as shown in Attachment B: a. ~,ement~: , ~ ~ :. ~, ~ b. ~unior Hi~ti: . ~ I ,.I. ~'. £ c. S~io~H~ .~ 5.~ COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJEC~ 25) Descdbe~peofuse(s)andmajorfunction(s)ofcommemial, industdalorinstitutionaluses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, indust#al, or institutional uses by type: INITSTD1.WPD-4196 ~ ~/ : ~ Page6 / Indicate hours of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide bmakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as we~~ as an indicati~n ~f the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be himd that currently reside in the City: 31) For commercial and industdal uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (816) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water~ sewer~ ~re~ and ~~~d c~ntm~ agencies serving the project been c~ntacted t~ deterrnine their abi~ity t~ pmvide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. INITSTD1 .WPD - 4./96 , Page 7 33) In the known history of this properly, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any oftbe above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. 34) Wi~~ the prop~sed pr~ject inv~~ve the temp~rary ~r ~~ng-term use~ st~rage ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ~ ~"~ ~'~' ~ ~?'// Page8 INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 / ./ ATTACHMENT A Water Usa.qe Average use per day Residential Single Family 600 gal/day Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/day/ac General Industrial 1500 gal/day/ac Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Single Family 270 gal/day Apt/Condos 200 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General Commemial 2000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 100-1500 gal/day/ac General Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac Heavy Industrial 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9~86 ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Amhibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 INITSTD1.VVPD-4/96 ~ ~ //-~ --'~/"~ / / Page 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: TT 16105, DR 00-34 2. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map No. 16105 3. Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map 16105 - The project is the development and design review of plans for Tentative Tract Map No. 16105, a residential subdivision of 145 single family lots, on 21.5 acres of a 28.2-acre lot in Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The project site is located on vacant land east of the elevated 1-15 Freeway, north of Tentative Tract 15711 (which is north of Miller Avenue and awaiting development) and immediately west of East Avenue (APN Nos. 1100-031-08, 1100-061- 02 & 04, 1100-071-01 & 02). 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Forecast Homes 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 6. Zoning: Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is bordered on the west and northwest by the 1-15 Freeway. The elevated 1-15 runs southwest to northeast at an approximate 450 angle to the site. The property to the south, north of Miller Avenue, is vacant and awaiting future residential development (Tentative Tract Map 15711). Scattered residences occur along both sides of Miller Avenue. Immediately east of the site is East Avenue followed by a site which is currently being developed with single-family residences. Old Eucalyptus windrows criss-cross the site, with occasional California peppers and Mexican elderberries appearing throughout. The site is vegetated with annual and perennial weeds and grasses. The 28.2 acre site is vacant with no existing structures. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kid Coury Senior Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Population and Housing (v') Biological Resources (v') Public Services (~) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (~.)(v') AestheticsUtilities and Service Systems (v') Water (~') Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (,~) Air Quality (v') Noise (,~) Mandatory Findings of Signiflcence (v') Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (,~) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ~lancy Ferguson /j Senior Project Manager August 31, 2000 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: '1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (,~) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ( ) ( ) (v) policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ( ) ( ) (,~) vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ( ) ( ) (,") established community? Comments: a-d) The project site is located immediately west of East Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Baseline and is boarded on the west/no~hwest by the 1-15 within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The land use designation is Low-Medium Residential District (4 to 8 dwelling units per area). The applicant has proposed a tract map showing 6.7 units per acre with lot sizes averaging approximately 6,450 square feet on a net site area of 21.5 acres. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed and therefore no impacts will result from the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless Th~n 2. POPULA'[iON AND HOUSING. Would the proposah a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~) population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ( ) ( ) ( ) housing? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 4 Comments: a-b) The project consists of the subdivision of 145 single family lots on 21.5 acres of land designated as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per area) located immediately west of East Avenue and approximately 400 feet south of Baseline. No increase in density or plan amendment is proposed. Therefore, the project will not result in a change in population projections. The Cucamonga County Water District confirmed they have the ability to provide adequate sewer and water service for the project. c) The project site is currently vacant. Land immediately east of the site is currently being developed as residential, and land south of the site Js scheduled for residential development. Single family homes occur on both side of Miller Avenue. No impacts will result, as existing housing will not be displaced. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) (~') b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (~') ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (~') ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (v) f} Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil ( ) ( ) (,~) conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a-c) No known faults pass through the site, it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 3 miles northwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 4.8 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is 9.0 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 11.5 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Liquefaction could occur at the site if a strong earthquake coincided with an extended pedod of heavy rains raising the local water table. Adhering to the City grading standards and the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 5 d) The site is not located near a body of water. However, CCWD is proposing future construction of a reservoir directly north of the site. At this time it is uncertain whether or not CCWD will construct this reservoir as there is discussion of a possible future Baseline freeway off-ramp. If the off-ramp is proposed the placement of the reservoir will be reevaluated. However if either project is proposed for construction appropriate environmental reviews and documents will be provided to surrounding residences. Neither the reservoir nor the off-ramp are reasonably foreseeable. It is too early to determine potential environmental impacts for either project as plans have not been submitted. e) The site is relatively flat so grading will be minimal. Grading will even out the site and create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage. f) The topography will be altered to accommodate the project because the site is currently vacant. Grading will be done in accordance with a grading plan approved by the City Engineer. The impact is not considered significant. f-h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Soboba soil association for the site which has only slight erosion potential and runoff potential is slow to very slow. Soils are suitable for residential development. The impact is not considered significant. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: P~.,a~ Unless 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, (-') ( ) or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ( ) (v) hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ( ) (~') of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ( ) (-') water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ( ) (~) of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ( ) ( ) (.~) through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (~') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless 'l~an h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: a) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new hardscape and roof tops proposed on the currently vacant site. The developer will be required to channel the surface runoff from the project to existing storm drains to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The impact is not considered significant. b) The site is located within Zone X which is outside of the 500-year flood plain as indicated on FEMA Map Number 8635F. Although it is unlikely the area will receive flood waters, a wall is proposed along the north property line to direct potential flows from the drainage outlet structure on the south side of the freeway toward the street. The height of the wall will be sufficient to prevent 100-year storm flows from entering the site. The Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) is proposing to construct a reservoir immediately north of the project site. However the discussion is preliminary at this time and may change depending on future uses of the site (See Section 3 (d) of this Initial Study). c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. The applicant has prepared a preliminary drainage study showing how stormwater runoff will be conveyed. A final report will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area as the site is not used for groundwater recharge. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Polentially Unless Than 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to (¢') ( ) an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (¢') ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ( ) (~') cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) (¢') Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 7 Comments: a-b) Typically, construction of a project this size will exceed SCAQMD thresholds dudng grading activities for PM10 and NOx, and may also exceed SCAQMD thresholds for developed condition (operational impacts) for NOx. Development of 145 homes represents only a fraction of the total emissions of NOx in the county. Based on Table 6-2 "Screening Table for Operation - Daily Thresholds of Potential Significance for Air Quality" within the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the proposed project does not have the potential to exceed the daily emissions significance thresholds. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During grading, fugitive dust (PM~0) will be generated. Any impact to air quality from generation of fugitive dust can be mitigated by the following measures: 1. The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2. East Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off- site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. b) Sensitive receptors include single family residences along Miller Avenue to the south and depending on whether residential development to the immediate east is completed by the time construction begins, residences may begin to move into the new development, ultimately adding to the sensitive receptors within the area. During construction exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and fugitive dust generated by vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces may cause NOx and PM~0 levels to exceed daily significant thresholds. The following mitigation measures will ensure impacts will be at less than significant levels. 5. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 6. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 8 7. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use, c-d) The proposed project is the subdivision of 21.5 acres of a 28.75-acre vacant site into 145 single-family units, averaging approximately 6,450 square feet, in accordance with the City code. The end use of the proposed project, Iow-medium residential, will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potenlially Ur~ess 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (~') ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., (-~) sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (-') e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (,~) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting (-') alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? (-~) Comments: a) The proposed subdivision will generate approximately 1,385 weekday vehicle trips as indicated in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-5-A-1 "Average Trip Generation Rates." The proposed land use is consistent with the goals of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the project proponent will be required to construct necessary street improvements and pay traffic impact fees as established by the City Council to off-set the incremental increase in traffic as a result of the project. b-d) Access to the site is provided by a proposed street off of East Avenue. The site is also accessible from Miller Avenue by turning north on Malvasia Way and traveling through Tract 15711 then turning north onto Pinot Way which will run through Tract 15711 and Tentative Tract 16105. Both streets will allow full access without impeding the through traffic. Access for emergency vehicles is adequate with two, standard 35-foot streets entrances. Temporary secondary emergency access will be provided at the northeast corner of the site between lots 11 and 12, directly across from Day Canyon Drive which is immediately east of East Avenue. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 9 e/f) The new facility will not cause a hazard or barrier to pedestrians or cyclists because adequate points of ingress/egress have been provided and there is adequate parking along streets. No bus turnout has been provided. g) Located approximately seven miles northeast of Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not be dangerous to users or aircraft. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ( ) (,~) habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, (-') ( ) eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ( ) (,') eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ( ) vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (-~) Comments: a) The site is relatively level with no existing structures. Aside from old Eucalyptus windrows that criss-cross the site and occasional California peppers and Mexican elderberries, the only other plant materials are annual and perennial weeds and grasses. b-c) According to the Arborist Report prepared for Tentative Tract 16150 on May 25, 2000, a total of 57 trees must be removed to allow for the proposed construction and an additional 10 trees must be removed due to proposed surrounding grade changes. A total of 5 trees are located out of the way and can be retained. As stated in the report, most of the trees proposed for removal are in good overall health and appearance and would require removal of deadwood and structural pruning to bring them to top quality. The trees are considered "heritage trees" and are subject to replacement pursuant to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (RCMC 19.08). The developer has acquired the necessary Tree Removal Permit and has paid all associated fees. The contractor shall follow the "Tree Protection Notes" in Appendix B of the Arborist Report to mitigate potential impacts to existing trees to be saved. Windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage. d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. I Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 10 e) Immediately east and south of the site is currently being developed with similar single family residences. The 1-15 Freeway boarders the site along the west and northwest. This development has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the past. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Sign~cant NO I ,mpac~ I Inc~3~porated 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~) inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ( ) ( ) ( ) (-~) mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: a-b) The project will be required to conform with applicable City standards for energy conservation. c) The project site is located on the Day Creek alluvial fan, an area classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-2). An MRZ-2 zone contains deposits of known value and marketability. However, the State Geologist has determined that the area is not a Designated Area of available resources due to urbanization. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Un~ess T~an 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ( hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ( ) ( ) ( ) potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') brush, grass, or trees? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 11 Comments: a-d) There is no evidence of commercial or industrial uses. Although there is no evidence of past vineyard cultivation there is a potential that the site was used for agriculture given the presence of the eucalyptus windrows. No evidence of discarded drums, containers, or hazardous wastes were observed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (,~) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) Comments: a) The project would increase noise levels since the site is currently vacant and the development would add people and traffic to the area. The impact is not considered significant. b) The proposed project is the construction of 147 single family residences immediate east of the elevated 1-15. A traffic noise study prepared by Advanced Engineering Acoustics indicated that traffic noise from the 1-15 Freeway would be the dominate noise impact for the area. The report reviewed the proposed project to determine compliance with City of Rancho Cucamonga noise control requirements for the proposed acoustical sound wall designed in accordance with Caltrans traffic noise abatement criteria. Traffic data for the noise analysis was prepared using noise measurements and traffic counts taken on June 1, 2000. Based on the analysis, predicted future traffic noise will exceed City, FHWA and Caltrans noise limits for exterior and for some interior units west of the 65 CNEL contour (see Figure 3 of the Noise Report) if appropriate mitigation is not implemented. During peak traffic noise hours the proposed acoustical sound wall would bring exterior noise levels at or below the City's exterior noise criteria of 65 dBA CNEL. The sound wall will be as high as 15 feet along the western tract boundary, as well as sound wall up to 8 feet between lot pairs: 77-78, 78-97, 103-104, 104-105, 106-107, 106-117, 107-116, 116-117 and 118-119. Interior noise levels for 2"d story windows with a partial view of the freeway and west of the 65 CNEL contour, will be reduced by sound-rated window glazing. The remainder of the lots will receive sufficient shielding from intervening houses or will not require additional noise control measures beyond the standard housing construction details, in order to comply with the interior City CNEL limit of 45 dBA. No mitigation is required one the recommendations cited in the Noise Study are implemented. These will be made conditions of project approval as project design features. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Signiticant NO 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) .Comments: The Etiwanda Specific Plan identifies the project area as one of the highest intensities within the Etiwanda planning area. The area includes lands within the vicinity of the 1-15/Baseline/East Avenue Bypass Interchange. The area, as specified within the plan, is planned to contain one of the higher land use intensities. Appropriate conditions of approval will be placed on the project prior to development. a-e) Fire Protection - The project site is located immediately west of East Avenue between Baseline and Miller Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, and is served by the Foothill Fire Protection District. The nearest fire station is located on the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Baseline Road, approximately 2.5 miles west of the site. The Foothill Fire District is responsible for evaluating the project through the City's Development Review and Growth Management process. The proposed project will include structural fire protection standards contained in the Uniform Fire Code. No additional mitigation is proposed. Police protection - Police Protection for the area is provided under a contract with the County Sheriff's Department. The proposed residential development will include standard security devices such as street lighting, and locks on all windows and doors. Additional police protection is not required as the addition of 145 single family residential homes will not have a substantial increase in area to be patrolled as the project site is small, approximately 21.5 acres. Schools -The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint High School District serve the project area. Both school districts have been notified regarding the proposed development. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay the school impact fees. With this standard mitigation, impacts to the School Districts are not considered significant. Parks - Proposed 145 single family homes will not generate a substantial number of new people to the area. Therefore, the new residential community will not adversely impact local parks or recreational opportunities. -55 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 13 c) Public facilities - The proposed residential development will not significantly increase traffic on adjacent streets and it is consistent will the City's Etiwanda Specific Plan which designates the area as Low Medium Residential with suspected future traffic after development. The project proponent will be required to construct necessary street improvements and pay traffic impact fees as established by the City Council to off-set the incremental increase in traffic as a result of the project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUnless 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (-~) ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Comments: a-g) The proposed subdivision will include the construction of 145 single-family residential dwellings. The proposed development will extend as necessary existing systems and utilities available in the immediate area. The area, as discussed within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, is scheduled to include one of the higher relative land use intensities within the planning area. Utility systems installed to service existing development within the area, are adequate and will not require major modifications or alterations. Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler. Waste will be disposed of at the County of San Bernardino Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. The project will increase demand upon storm drain systems due · to the increased runoff from new hardscape and roof tops proposed on the currently vacant site. A Preliminary Drainage Report was prepared for the project by Dan Guerra & Associates indicated that existing Basin Number 6 was originally constructed oversized in anticipation of Tentative Tract 16105 and has sufficient volume to accept the projected flows. The report stated that the construction of trapezoidal and "V" shaped channels will be required along Caltrans right-of-way. Drainage Plans will be included in application submittals in addition to the Final Drainage Report for City Engineer review and approval. Additional mitigation is not proposed or required. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105. DR 00-34 Page 14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pot.,~, LInPass Than 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ( ) ( ) (~') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ( ) ( ) (,,') c) Create light or glare? ( ( ) ( ) (~') Comments: a-b) The project site is not within a scenic vista or scenic highway. The area is designated Iow-medium residential development within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed project will blend with current and proposed surrounding development. c) The project will create new light and glare as the site is currently vacant. However, the site has been identified as a residential site so new light will not significantly affect sensitive receptors such as other residential development in the area. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Than 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal'. a) Disturb Paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, ( ) ( ) (~') which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ( ) ( ) (~') the potential impact area? Comments: a-e) The site has not been identified in the City's Master Environmental Assessment as containing historic or cultural resources. The site is located in a developing residential area and to date, no resources have been uncovered in the vicinity of the project site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyUniass Than 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ( ) ( ) (.,') ( ) regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (vi Comments: a) The developer of the project will be required to pay park development fees as a condition of approval The impact is not considered significant. b) The proposed project will be constructed on vacant land, which is designated Iow- medium residential. Surrounding and adjacent land are also designated residential and are either currently developed, being developed or proposed for development. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poto.t,,~lyun~.,, 'r~n 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the ( ) ( ) ( ) (-') potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential ( ) ( ) (vi ( ) to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map 16105, DR 00-34 Page 16 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PolenflallyUnless Than c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that ( ) ( ) (~) 0 are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The Initial Study did not identify any significant adverse impacts to biological resources. Due to surrounding development, 1-15 Freeway, Baseline Road, East Avenue and residential development, the project site does not contain appropriate habitat for any listed endangered or threaten species. According to an arborist report, 57 trees will require removal to allow for the proposed construction of new homes. An additional 10 trees will need to be removed due to proposed surrounding grade changes of more than 6 inches. A total of five trees will be preserved as they are out of the way of most construction. Precautionary measures listed in Appendix B of the report will mitigate potential impacts to existing trees to be saved. The City has received the necessary permit and associated fees for removing the trees. No further mitigation beyond that proposed in the Arborist report is recommended. b) The Initial Study identified short-term impacts to air quality and noise with development of the project site. The short-term impacts will occur due to proposed construction activities. However, the impacts will cease once construction activities are completed. Implementation of mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study will reduce short-term impacts to less than significant. c) Cumulative effects of residential development in the Etiwanda Specific Plan Area were identified in a previous environmental document. Appropriate analysis and mitigation measures were developed prior to the implementation of the Specific Plan. No additional mitigation measures beyond those presented in the specific plan and this Initial Study are required. d) Development of 145 single-family residences would not cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identified construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. However, proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality are short-term and will cease once construction activities are completed. SENT BY: I~ CU~..AMONO& COD DEV; gl-20- 0 t'l:00A~; 9094772S47 =~ g0ggs0t'lSgi ~212 initial Study for City ef Ran-'.ho Cucemonga Tentative T~'oc, t l~p 16'105, DR 00-~4 Page 17 A Noise Study was p~p~tred for the proposed project to ~dentify potential noise imp,3.c,'ts florn the l-t5 Fl'airWay° Based on the analysis, prolected future traffic noise levels w~ll exceed City. FHWA am:l Caltr~rlS noise limits for exterior and fa' some Interior units west of the 65 CNEL contour [see Figure 3 of the Noise Repo~t) apprapriale mitigation is not imulemerfled. Du~Ing peak traffic. -eisa hour~ the proposed acoustical sound wall would bnl~g e~terior nolee levels at or below the CityL,.'. exterior no,se criteria of 65 dl~A CNI=L Interior noise leve~e for a~1 story windows with a Dartlel view of the freeway and west of the 65 CNEL contour, will be redL~ced by sou-d-~ted window gl[azlng. The remamdl~r of the lots w~ll sufficient shielding from inten~enmg houses or will not re(luire additional noise c0rtlrol measures beyond the ~tandard housmg construcfiO~ details, in order Io comply with the interior Ctty CNEL limit of 4,5 dl~. No further mitigation beyond float recommend~;:~ in the rep~H[ is EARLIER ANALYSES Earher analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other C, EQA 13recess. one or more effecta have been aeleauately analyzed in an oa~ler EII:I or Negative Declaration per Section 15063{c}(3}tD1. The effects identified abOVe ~o~ this projecl were within thc sco-e of and adeauately analyzed in the Iollctwing earlier document(s) Du~suarff to eDchcable legal standareL% and such effact~ were acld~esged by mffigatiom measuro~ based on the e~rlier analysis. The tallowing ~-~rlier analy&ee were utilized m completing this Imtiel Study and are availal:~e for ~.vh~,w in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices. '113500 C,v]c Ce,tear Drive (che~k all that Et,wenda ~I.N=~;tIIc Plart (certlflecl ~ 993) (v) Master Environmental AssesSment and General Plan EIR - City of Rancho Cucamonga (Ce~fied Janua~ ~,, t989) (-'} General Plan EIR - City of I:~nchO C..ucamo~ga (Ce,t~iecl January ,e. ~g8t) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION i Gasify that I em the appllcan~ for the project described In this Initial ~tlJcly. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study end the r~oposed mitigation measures. Further. I have revised the Prol~t~.t Diana or o~3osals and/or hereby agree to the proposed m~gatlon measures to avoid the cffccts or rn~gate the effects to a point where clearly no significant ~v~renm~ntal effects would occur. d I~Cilmt IO/lOd F'SS-.L 69L1066806 'd"l 'drlO~9 .LS¥3]~Od ~H.L"+'IO~d c16:61 O0-OZ-d~S City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: TT 16105, DR00-34 Public Review Period Closes: September 27, 2000 Project Name: Tentative Tract Map Project Applicant: Forecast Homes No. 16105 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Project Location (also see attached map): A 28.7 acre site located approximately 400 feet south of Base Line Road and west of East Avenue; north of Miller Avenue. Project Description: A residential subdivision of 147 single-family lots on 28.7 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. September 27, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: TT 16105, DR 00-34, VAR 00-04 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency (Planning Division) 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TT 16105 - DR 00-34 - VAR 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational pemonnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: TT 16105, DR 00-34 and Variance 00-04Applicant: FORECAST HOMES Initial Study Prepared by: Nancy Fer.quson Date: August 31, 2000 Air u r . ; q The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce final report. PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. East Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 vary depending upon time of year of construction, final report. ~-,,~ ~Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 during such episodes, final report. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 emissions, final repod. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall CP/BO C A 2 ensure the construction grading plans include a statement Review/approve that all construction equipment will be tuned and final report maintained in accordance with the manufacturer*s specifications. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible, final report The construction contractor shall support and encourage CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 ride-sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. final report The construction contractor shall ensure that construction- grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 off equipment when not in use. final report The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 fugitive dust emissions, final report The construction contractor shall utilize pre-coated building materials, where possible, and Iow-emission application CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 methods, final report Biological Resources i Preserve five on-site eucalyptus trees CP C As necessary C/A 2,3,4 Windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage. CP C As necessary C/A 2,3,4 Follow tree protection requirements listed in Appendix "B" of the May 25, 2000 Arborist Report. CP B As necessary C/A 2,3,4 I Noise '' ',~ ' '. The project must have sound walls as high as 15 feet along CP B/D Review/approve CIA 2,3,4 the western tract boundary, as well as sound walls up to 8 final report feet between lot pairs: 77-78, 78-97, 103-104, 104-105, 106-107,106-117, 107-116, 116-117 and 118-119. Provide special window construction (including sound-rated window glazing to mitigate interior noise levels. CP B/D Review/approve C/A 2,3,4 final report Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Pdor To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee I D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee I E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP H:\FNV~MMCHKLST.DOC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 00-34 FOR 147 LOTS OF TENTATIVE TRACT 16105, ON 28.74 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT, LOCATED BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND THE 1-15 FREEWAY, SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, IN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031- 08, 1100-061-02 AND 09, AND 1100-071-01 AND 02. A. Recitals. 1 ) Forecast Homes filed an application for Design Review 00-34 for Tentative Tract 16105 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2) On the 27th day of September, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3) All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng on September 27, 2000, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Base Line Road, with a street frontage of approximately 990 feet on East Avenue, and an approximate lot depth of 1,730 feet, and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is currently vacant with a proposed C.C.W.D. future water reservoir. The property is bounded by East Avenue to the east and the 1-15 Freeway to the west. The property to the south is an approved single-family residential development, Tract 15711; and c. The subdivision design and the lot sizes and dimensions are consistent with the Low-Medium District and Etiwanda South Overlay District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 2 d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The project will require the removal of a total of 67 trees: 56 Eucalyptus trees, 6 California Pepper trees, and 5 Mexican Elderberry trees. As a Condition of Approval for Tentative Tract 16105 and Tree Removal Permit 00-25, windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage; and f. The design of the project, including home design, roadway alignment, landscaping and grading, will provide efficient use of land to accommodate single-family homes. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 3 upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1 -d ) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) The sound wall along the west tract boundary shall have two-tone tan, split faced block with fluted block accent to match the approved sound wall for Tract 15711 to maintain uniform treatment along the 1-15 Corridor. 2) The decorative perimeter wall along East Avenue shall incorporate large river rock stone pilasters and a dyer rock planter wall in its design, developed at a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches and added to the most northem and southern ends of the wall. Enqineednq Division 1) All applicable conditions of Tentative Tract 16105 shall apply. Environmental Miti.qation Air Quality 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2) East Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions. 5) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow-emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 4 6) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 8) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ride-sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 9) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below: a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pick up of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debds to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. 10) The Construction Contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag or sponge. Biological 1) Preserve five Eucalyptus trees in place per Arbodst Report. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 00-34 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 5 2) Windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage, minimum 5-gallon size spaced 8 feet on center, with provision for deep irrigation. 3) The Construction Contractor shall follow tree protection requirements listed in Appendix "B" of the May 25, 2000 Arbodst Report. Noise 1 ) The project shall comply with the recommendations of the Noise Study prepared by Advance Engineering Acoustics dated August 17, 2000, including: to construct sound walls as high as 15 feet along the western tract boundary as well as sound walls up to 8 feet tall within the development to mitigate 1-15 Freeway noise; and provide special window construction (including sound-rated window glazing) to mitigate interior noise levels on certain lots. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucarnonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: '1-]' 16105, DR 00-34, VAR 00-04 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the odginal authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency (Planning Division) 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TT 16105 - DR 00-34 - VAR 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after wdtten notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: TT 16105, DR 00-34 and Variance 00-04Applicant: FORECAST HOMES Initial Study Prepared by: Nancy Fer.quson Date: Au.qust 31,2000 The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce final report. PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. East Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions ~ssociated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 vary depending upon time of year of construction, final report. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds Review/approve exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site CP/BO C A 2 during such episodes, final report. Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 emissions, final report. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and final report maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible, final report The construction contractor shall support and encourage CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 ride-sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. ~ final report The construction contractor shall ensure that construction- grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 off equipment when not in use. final report The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground sudaces will be sprayed with water or other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 fugitive dust emissions, final report The construction contractor shall utilize pre-coated building materials, where possible, and Iow-emission application CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 methods, final report Bi Iogl :?'"~ :~:~'' :~ '"" '""~ ~" "~ o cai Resources : '~ ' :..,.,. , ; ~.. ; ....... ,. ,~,. .~ ...... Preserve five on-site eucalyptus trees CP C As necessary CIA 2,3,4 Windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage. CP C As necessary CIA 2,3,4 Follow tree protection requirements listed in Appendix "B" of the May 25, 2000 Arborist Report. CP B As necessary C/A 2,3,4 Noise ' '" ' ": :' The project must have sound walls as high as 15 feet along CP BID Review/approve CIA 2,3,4 the western tract boundary, as well as sound walls up to 8 final report feet between lot pairs: 77-78, 78-97, 103-104, 104-105, 106-107, 106-117, 107-116, 116-117 and 118-119. Provide special window construction (including sound-rated window glazing to mitigate interior noise levels. CP B/D Review/approve C/A 2,3,4 final report Key to Checklist Abbreviations CDD * Community Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection I - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit I Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy lBO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reporta I Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - OperalJng 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP H:'~ENV~MMCHKLST.DOC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16105, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 147 LOTS, ON 28.74 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND THE ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT, LOCATED BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND THE 1-15 FREEWAY, SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, IN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 AND 09, AND 1100-071-01 AND 02. A. Recitals. 1. Forecast Homes filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map 16105 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of September, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng on September 27, 2000, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to properly located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Base Line Road, with a street frontage of approximately 990 feet on East Avenue, and an approximate lot depth of 1,730 feet, and is presently vacant; and b. The properly to the north of the subject site is currently vacant with a proposed C.C.W.D. future water reservoir. The property is bounded by East Avenue to the east and the 1-15 Freeway to the west. The property to the south is an approved single-family residential development, Tract 15711; and c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision of 147 single-family residential lots on 28.74 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential Distdct and the Etiwanda South Oveday Distdct of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'ir 16105 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 2 d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause sedous public health problems; and f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b.. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. c. Pursuant to the previsions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 16105- FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 3 presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1 -d ) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1 ) The sound wall along the west tract boundary shall have two-tone tan, split faced block with fluted block accent to match the approved sound wall for Tract 15711 to maintain uniform treatment along the 1-15 corridor. 2) The decorative perimeter wall along East Avenue shall incorporate large dyer rock stone pilasters and a dyer rock planter wall in its design, developed at a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches and added to the most northern and southern ends of the wall. En.qineednq Division: 1 ) East Avenue frontage improvement requirements are illustrated in the attached sections from the Etiwanda Specific Plan (Figures 5-28 and 5-28A): a) Provide an additional 14 feet of right-of-way, bringing the total to 44 feet measured from the street centedine. b) Widen the existing pavement to 32 feet, measured from the street centedine, and install curb, gutter, and streetlights. c) Install sidewalk, street trees, and perimeter theme wall. 2) In addition to the local storm drain design, final drainage study shall include: a) Provide calculations for both existing and ultimate flows coming to Tentative Tract 16105 from the north. Size drainage easement and facilities to accommodate the Q100 storm for the worst case situation, existing or ultimate. b) Calculate Q10, Q25 and QIO0 for facility along toe of adjacent freeway to determine whether "dry lane" criteria being met. 3) The site is located within Subarea 8 of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy: a) Development shall construct the local storm drains from the site to the master plan system and Interim Master Plan Basin No. 6, located in Tract 15711-1. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 16105 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 4 b) Flow increases as a result of development shall be mitigated by enlarging Basin No. 6. c) Tract 15711-1 has provided land for an area wide detention basin. The developer is eligible for reimbursement to recover proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.). Pdor to recordation of the map, provide for a fair share cost for the use of the land. 4) Obtain sufficient off-site rights-of-way to install the necessary storm drains and emergency secondary access to Miller Avenue. 5) Off-site storm drains shall be installed with the first development phase. Emergency secondary access to Miller Avenue shall be constructed with any phase that extends streets more than 600 feet from East Avenue. 6) Driveways on comer lots shall be located the maximum distance allowed by the lot size from the intersection BCR to minimize conflicts between vehicles tuming right and those backing out of the driveways. 7) Caltrans permit for off-site drainage protection facilities within their right-of-way shall be obtained pdor to recordation of final map. Environmental Miti,qation Air Quality 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2) East Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PMlo emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~0 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PU~0 emissions. 5) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow-emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. / / PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 16105 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 5 6) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 7) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 8) The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ride-sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 9) Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below: a) Dudng clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour, c) After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pick up of the soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of odgin. 10) The Construction Contractor shall utilize, as much as possible, pre- coated natural colored building materials, water-based or Iow-VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume Iow pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coating applications such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag or sponge. Biological 1) Preserve five Eucalyptus trees in place per Arbodst Report. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TI' 16105 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 6 2) Windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage, minimum 5-gallon size spaced 8 feet on center, with provision for deep irrigation. 3) The Construction Contractor shall follow tree protection requirements listed in Appendix "B" of the May 25, 2000 Arborist Report. Noise 1 ) The project shall comply with the recommendations of the Noise Study prepared by Advance Engineering Acoustics dated August 17, 2000, including: to construct sound walls as high as 15 feet along the westem tract boundary, as well as sound walls up to 8 feet tall within the development to mitigate 1-15 Freeway noise; and provide special window construction (including sound-rated window glazing) to mitigate intedor noise levels on certain lots. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bulier, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: TT 16105, DR 00-34, VAR 00-04 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resoumes Code). Program Components - This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management - The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner, assigned by the City Planner, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department. Procedures - The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto.. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga - Lead Agency (Planning Division) 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 3-I' 16105 - DR 00-34 - VAR 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City. These funds shall be used bythe City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: TT 16105, DR 00-34 and Variance 00-04Applicant: FORECAST HOMES Initial Study Prepared by: Nancy Fer.quson Date: Auqust 31, 2000 The site shall be treated with water or other soil stabilizing CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce final report. PMlo emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403, East Avenue shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~0 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 vary depending upon time of year of construction, final report. ,,~.~ Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site CP/BO C Review/approve during such episodes, final report, A 2 '~Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and ~ RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~o CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 emissions, final report. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on Iow emission factors and high-energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and final report maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible, final report The construction contractor shall support and encourage CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 ride-sharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. final report The construction contractor shall ensure that construction- grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 off equipment when not in use. final report The construction contractor shall ensure that all bare ground surfaces will be sprayed with water er other acceptable dust palliatives to minimize wind erosion and CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 fugitive dust emissions, final report The construction contractor shall utilize pre-coated building materials, where possible, and Iow-emission application CP/BO C Review/approve A 2 methods, final report Biological Resources :'! . '~ ~ ...... ~ .... i ~:~' Preserve five on-site eucalyptus trees CP C As necessary CIA 2,3,4 Windrows removed to accommodate the project shall be replaced with new windrows of equivalent linear footage, CP C As necessary C/A 2,3,4 Follow tree protection requirements listed in Appendix "B" of the May 25, 2000 Arborist Report. CP B As necessary C/A 2,3,4 The project must have sound walls as high as 15 feet along CP BID Review/approve C/A 2,3,4 the westem tract boundary, as well as sound walls up to 8 final report feet between lot pairs: 77-78, 78-97, 103-104, 104-105, 106~107, 106-117, 107-116, 116-117 and 118-119, Provide special window construction (including sound-rated window glazing to mitigate interior noise levels. CP BID Review/approve CIA 2,3,4 final report Key to Checklist Abbreviations esponslble Person - : ;~.. -,~' ._.C.DD. Commur~ity Development Director A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map _CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit ._.C.E. City Engineer er designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP H:\ENV~MMCHKLST.DOC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE 00-04 TO ALLOW WALLS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FREEWAY NOISE MITIGATION PURPOSES WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET IS ALLOWED, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE, SOUTHEAST OF THE 1-15 FREEWAY, SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD IN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 AND 09, AND 1100-071-01 AND 02. A. Recitals. 1. Forecast Homes filed an application the issuance of Variance 00-04 for Tentative Tract 16105 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of September, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on September 27, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Base Line Road, with a street frontage of approximately 990 feet on East Avenue, and an approximate lot depth of 1,730 feet, and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is currently vacant with a proposed C.C.W.D. future water reservoir. The property is bounded by East Avenue to the east and the I-15 Freeway to the west. The prepedy to the south is an approved single-family residential development, Tract 15711; and c. The increase in wall height is necessary to reduce noise from the 1-15 Freeway to an acceptable level for residential development; and d. The visual impact of the increase in wall height will be mitigated by providing a two- tone color scheme and decorative wall material. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan in that the only altemative to mitigate freeway noise without exceeding the 6- foot wall height limit would be to construct very high earthen berms which would severely limit the site area available for residential development; and b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same distdct in that the site is located adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway which generates substantial traffic noise. Freeway noise must be reduced to acceptable levels in order to permit residential development of the site consistent with noise thresholds established by the General Plan and the Development Code; and c. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district in that compliance with the 6-foot height limit would preclude the site from being developed in concert with the permitted land uses due to excessive freeway noise; and d. That the granting of the Vadance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distdct in that most other properties in the district are not equally impacted by the 1-15 Freeway noise; and e. That the granting of the Vadance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that for the most part, the walls will not be completely visible to the public and the walls will have a two-tone color scheme with split faced and fluted block to soften their appearance. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: a. Provide a two-tone color scheme with the darker color on the base of the walls. Additionally use a split face/fluted block design with a vine planting at the base to mitigate visual impact of excessively high walls along the westem boundary of the Tract 16105 site. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: LarT¥ T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 00-04 - FORECAST HOMES September 27, 2000 Page 3 I, Bred Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: TENTATIVE TRACT 16105 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-34 SUBJECT: 147 LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: FORECAST HOMES WEST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE, SOUTHWEST OF 1-15 FREEWAY, AND SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD IN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC LOCATION: PLAN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements comoletion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative.tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. 2. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if ___/ / building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. SC-8-00 I Project No.: 'Ir 16105 & DR 00-34 Completion Date C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include /.__/ site plans, amhitectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating ail Conditions of Approval shall be / / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for __/__/ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, /~ all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with / / all receptacles shielded from public view. 6. Street names shali be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the __._/ / adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 7. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, ~ / including proper illumination. 8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine / /__ animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 9. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the / / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all / / lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 12. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall /. / condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's perimeter. Project No.: TT 16105 & DR 00-34 Completion Date 13. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each /_~/ support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two V~-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 14. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. __/ / 15. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to ~ / maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 16. On comer side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. .~/ / 17. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. .___/ / 18. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured / / products. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. / / 2. On flag lots, use a 12-foot driveway within flag to maximize landscape area. __/__/ E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape amhitect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in ~ / accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 /.__/__ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater /.__/__ slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously / /__ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 6. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development __./ / Code and/or the Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. SC-8-00 3 Proi~ct No.: 3-1' 16105 & DR 00-34 CornDletion Date 7. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included / / in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 8. Special landscape features are required along East Avenue. /~__/ 9. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / /~ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the __/ / design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. On projects which abut the 1-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the /___/ freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with Caltrans and City Standards through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation are not complete at that time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way. F. Environmental 1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the / / issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of __/__/__ implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of ail mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. G, Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location __/ /__ of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H, General Requirements 1. Submit four complete sets of plans including the following: __/ ./ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; so.8.oo C, F- %,- ComDletion Date c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground, diagrams water and waste d agram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g.Planning Division Project Number (i.e., TT #, CUP #, DR #, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. ~ / Amhitect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. __/__/__ 4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to / / the City prior to permit issuance. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be / / marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to / / existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tractJpamel map recordation and / /__ prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday / / through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. J. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering __/__/__ use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). / / 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. /___/__ K, Grading 1. Grading of the subject proper~y shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / / Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. SC-8-00 5 Projsct No.: 'Ir 16105 & DR 00-34 Comoletion Date 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to /_ / pedorm such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the /.__/ time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. /. / 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for /. / existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets / / community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets {measured from street centerline): 4~4 total feet on East Avenue. / / 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. / / 4. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for / / approved openings: East Avenue. 5. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests __/ / necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: Temporary emerqency access and storm drain. M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped __ / / areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. SC-8-00 6 Project No.: ~ 16105 & DR 00-34 Completion Date 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / / Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail East Avenue x x x x x (e)(f) Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) Access ramps. (f) Perimeter theme wall. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights /.__/__ on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction / / permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and /.~/ interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction / project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: (1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2)Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with /___ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be __/____ installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / / 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / /__ accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with __/__/__ adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. Pro,}(~'t No.: 3-1' 16105 & DR 00-34 Completion Date 6. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Interstate __./ / 15 freeway. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall / / be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: East Avenue. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas 4(~%) of mortared cobbie or /~/ other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting /. / Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the __/ / developer until accepted by the City. 5. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective /___/ Beautification Master Plan: East Avenue Beautification Concept. O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map __/ / approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. P, Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, __/ / electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. /__/__ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the ~ / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage __/__/__ Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all __/__/__ new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. SC-8-00 8 Project No.: '~' 16105 & DR 00-34 Comoletion Date 3. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed __/ /___ beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roes Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. The developer ~ / shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be: __/__/__ a. 1,500 gallons per minute, Per '97 UFC Appendix Ill-A, 3, (b) (Increase). b. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. c. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, /.~/ if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be __/ __ submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final /__ inspection. 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: a. Other: To mitigate access if second access cannot be provided. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: / / a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 32. 9. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. __/__/ 10. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. __/ / sc.,.0o 9 Project No.: TT 16105 & DR OO-34 Completion Date 11. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear / / of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 12. Fire District fee(s), plus a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga / / Fire Protection District as follows: a. $132 for CCWD Water Plan review/underground water supply. b. $132 for Single Family Residential Tract (per phase). **Note: Separate plan check fees for Tenant Improvement work, fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S, Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. / / 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within .~/ / 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. _~/ / T. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted __/ ./ from frame or track in any manner. U. Building Numbering 1.Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. TH E CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: September 27, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02A- LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue - APN: 227-351-65. Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider Community Plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area - APN: 227-351-65. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. · ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for · approximately .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. ITEMS G, H, I, d PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 - CITY OF RC September 27, 2000 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-03- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider community plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and General Plan Amendment 00-02C. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Route 30 freeway South - Single-family housing; Low Residential in the Victoria Community Plan East - Single-family housing; Low Residential in the Victoria Community Plan West - Vacant; Village Commercial in the Victoria Community Plan B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) North - Freeway and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) beyond South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Neighborhood Commercial C. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and has recently been subject to grading operations for the Route 30 Freeway and Highland Avenue realignment construction work. ANALYSIS: A. General: The sites under consideration for land use change are remnant parcels which were divided off from the recent Route 30 Freeway and Highland Avenue realignment construction. The General Plan has always shown utility corridors and residential land uses east of the Day Creek Boulevard and south of the future freeway. With the realignment of Highland Avenue southerly of the new freeway, small pieces of land remain. Lewis Retail Centers has acquired a 1.244 acre site between the Highland Avenue realignment and the freeway on-ramp from Day Creek Boulevard. Also, a smaller piece owned by Cai Trans (.25 acres) borders the Lewis site on the east and has development potential. On August 9, 2000, the Planning Commission authorized staff to initiate General Plan Amendment 00-02C and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03 to consider the small land use changes for the smaller site as is being proposed for the Lewis site. The Planning Commission should view the issues as the same for all the applications. Preliminary development plans shown to staff call for a gasoline station and car wash on the site. B. Appropriateness of Existinq Land Use Desiqnations: With a total area of only about 1 1/2 acres (1.244 plus .24 acres) and sandwiched in between the Highland Avenue and the future freeway, the site will be impacted from future traffic and noise. This feature alone makes the site inappropriate for any residential use. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 - CITY OF RC September 27, 2000 Page 3 C. Appropriateness of Proposed Desiqnation: Generally, land located near major roads offer logical sites for retail commercial activities. Village Commercial land is already designated for the southwest and northwest corners of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Changing the northeast comer to the same designation would simply be extending a land use pattern already planned for in the General Plan and in the Victoria Planned Community. One important aspect of commercialization of this area is that of the community plan's intended scope and character of the future uses. The Victoria Community Plan states that the intent of the Village Commercial in this area is to serve the commercial needs of the residents of the nearby Windrows neighborhood. In this light, staff believes that this intent should be strengthened in the Community Plan text to clearly show that commercial land expansion is not being considered solely for freeway related businesses. Staff believes it is important to reinforce the original intent of the Village Commercial designation in this area with the following Victoda Community Plan text amendments (new text in bold): "Local commercial needs in the Windrows will be served by a Village Commercial Center at Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. Its location on two major arterial roads is convenient to village residents as they enter or leave the community by automobile, and is also accessible to bicycles and pedestrians via the community trail system. Any potential expansion of the Village Commercial land use area should be clearly intended to primarily serve the nearby residents. Expansion of the Village Commercial designation in this area should not be established to promote 'freeway dependent' commercial activities. The architectural theme that is used for the Village Commercial Center should draw upon the character of the older Victorian homes of the Etiwanda area for inspiration. Village Commercial development should focus on enhancing, and not detracting from the rural Etiwanda character. In this regard, commercial development should be visually non-intrusive to the nearby residential neighborhoods." D. Environmental Assessment: Parts I and II of the Initial Study have been completed. Staff has determined that no significant impacts would result from changing the land use designations as requested in the application. Environmental issues will need to be analyzed when formal development proposals are applied for in the future for the neighborhood commercial center. When specific development projects are proposed, existing environmental review requirements will be initiated to ensure adequate analysis of impacts. Any significant impacts noted will be mitigated through the City's development review process. E. Neighborhood Meetinq: The applicant held a Neighborhood Meeting on September 19, 2000 at the Windrows Elementary School auditorium inviting all those property owners from the expanded public hearing notification list. Four people attended and the introductory presentation by the applicant. The following opinions/questions were offered by the attendees: 1. The wall along Highland Avenue is continually subject to graffiti tagging. The addition of a gas station/convenience store will only bring more taggers to the area. 2, The parking lot lighting will spray unwanted glare into the neighboring residential properties. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 - CITY OF RC September 27, 2000 Page 4 3. Trash and debds will increase from potential convenience store/fast food operations and be blown into their yards. 4. The potential of beer and wine sales from a convenience store is not an acceptable adjacent activity. 5. The additional traffic generated by a gas station/convenience store will add to an already unacceptable noise levels caused by the realignment of Highland Avenue. 6. If a commercial development were to be developed, would the applicant be required to raise the perimeter track wall to mitigate the noise and glare? 7. The community does not need additional commercial development in the area. 8. If a commercial development was built with numerous conditions prohibiting certain activities, hours of operation, etc., it would be difficult for the City's Code Enforcement staff to constantly monitor the situation in order to make the operation acceptable to neighboring residents. 9. The residents suggested the site could better be used for the following uses: day care/nursery school site, open space landscape area, church, or a public facility. 10. The construction of a pole sign for any user trying to get freeway travelers for their business was a serious concern. It was stated that the site would be frequented by freeway travelers more than local residents. Planning staff responded to questions about the potential uses that could be permitted in the Village Commercial district and on how the Design Review process would address site development concerns. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius and expanded area of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoda Community Plan Amendment 00-03 by the adoption of the attached Resolutions. All the items, with Planning Commission recommendations, will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buffer City Planner BB:AW:mlg J ,-/ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 - CITY OF RC September 27, 2000 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit "B" - Victoria Community Plan Map Exhibit "C" - Applicant's Letter of Justification Exhibit "D" - Initial Study Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment 00~02A Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment 00-02C Resolution Recommending Approval of Victoda Community Plan Amendment 00-02 Resolution Recommending Approval of Victoda Community Plan Amendment 00-03 &,kl, l, 2- 5 GPA 00-02A & -02C Existing General Plan Land Use Route 30 Fwy. -- hland Ave. ~ Application Site GP Land Use Designations ~ FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR ~ LOW ~ LOW MEDIUM ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ~ OFFICE ~ OPEN SPACE ~ VERY LOW no scale ~ VCPA 00-02 & -03 Existing Zoni g Designations VCPA 00-02 & -03 Route 30 Fwy. future village commercial site -- hland Ave. ~ Application Site Zoning Designations ~ FLOOD CONTROL I UTILITY CORRIDOR ~LOW LOW MEDIUM ~ VIILLAGE COMMERCIAL Windrows ~ ~ REGIONAL RELATED single-family ~ ~ OPEN SPACE neighborhood ~ VERY LOW no scale JUSTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED BY LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS July 15, 2000 Revised August 17, 2000 Project Description Lewis Retail Centers, project applicant, is requesting approval of a Gcneralplan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment for a 1.244 acre site located at the northeast comer of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard in thc City of Rancho Cucamonga. This application is for land use entitlement only; appropriate applications to permit development of a specific project on the site will bc submitted pursuant to the approval by thc City of the General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment. Lewis Retail Centers currently owns the 1.244 acre site proposed for development described as Site A on the attached Site Plan Map. Thc proposed development project will include the use of an adjacent .235 acre property, currently owned by CalTrans and described as Site B on the attached Site Plan Map, which Lewis intends to acquire and make a part of the overall project. The application submitted by Lewis Retail Centers is intended for processing concurrently with a City initiated application to amend the General Plan and Community Plan land use designation for the adjacent CalTrans property. Thc CalTrans property was originally acquired for construction of the Route 30 Freeway. Based upon the final design of thc Route 30 Freeway, CalTrans determined that the site is no longer needed for freeway right of way purposes. Lewis Retail Centers proposes to acquire the CalTrans property as part of the overall commercial development project proposed on the adjacent property addressed by this application. The projoct site owned by Lewis Retail Centers has a General Plan land use designation of Low/Medium Residential and is located within the Victoria Community~ Plan, which designates thc site for Low Density Residential development. Due to thc size and irregular configuration of the project site resulting from the final alignment of the Route 30 freeway, development of thc site for residential purposes is physically and economically infeasible. Development of a small commercial center to include convenience retail and/or automotive service station uses is a viable usc of thc site. The applicant is requesting approval ora General Plan Amendment changing the General Plan land use designation for the site from Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and a Community Plan Amendment changing the land usc plan and zoning for the site from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial. While a definitive development program and user for the site have not yet been identified, the applicant anticipates that development of an automotive service station with a convenience retail canter and car wash is a viable usc for thc site. Thc attached conceptual site plan was prepared in order to evaluate thc potential for development of an automotive service station with a convenience store and car wash. The final development program potentially could include a drive-through restaurant in addition to the convenience retail and service station uses. If the City approves thc proposed General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment, development of the project site with the commercial uses described above will require approval of "c" .7- a conditional use permit and design review. Pursuant to obtaining approval of the General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment, the applicant will identify a specific development program and submit a detailed site plan and architectural drawings in conformance with the adopted development standards for each proposed use as part of an application for a conditional use prt~ifit and design review. The applicant has met with the City's Engineering Division to review the conceptual site plan to identify any potential access issues to be addressed as part of an application for development of the site. The City's Engineering Division identified the need to re-stripe Highland Avenue in order to provide for adequate vehicular ingress and egress to the project site. A striping plan for Highland Avenue will be submitted for the City's review as part of an application for a conditional use permit and design review. Development of the project will require approval of the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment The project will require an amendment to the City's General Plan changing the land use designation fi.om Low/Medium Residential Density to Neighborhood Commercial. Amendment to the Victoria Community Plan The applicant is proposing a Community Plan Amendment to the Victoria Community Plan to change the zoning designation fi.om Low Density Residential to Village Commercial. Conditional Use Permit/Design Review Approval of a conditional use permit and design review will be required for development of an automotive service station, ear wash, convenience store, and/or fast food restaurant. Pursuant to approval by the City of the application for a General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment, the applicant will submit appropriate applications to the City for a conditional use permit and design review. SITE PLAN MAP : '~ VACANT VACANT !2 ~ '---- I'--- ----- / UNDER J /'~ CONSTR JCTION / '~ .ou'm 30 ~ ........ .~ -~ _~- ~ ~/ \ (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) , / ' , ~ ,, , VACANT I ', ~ __/('VILLAGE SFD '~COMMERCIAL) UNDE - \ LEWIS RETAIL COMMUI~tTY PLAN AMENDIVlENT -- ZONE BOUNDARY 71~51oo l~g¥. $117100 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) Planning Dh4S~On (909) 477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City=s Rule~ and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff witl not be available to pedonw work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: General plan Amendment O0~02~and Victoria Communi'~y Plan Amendment 00-02 Name & Address of pmje~ owneff~: Lewis Retail Centers 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91785 Name& Addressofdeveloperorpmject sponso~ Lewfs Retafl Centers 1156 N. Mountai'n Avenue Upland, CA 91785-0670 Gary Bauer, Director Contact Pe~on & Address: Commerctal Constructi'on & Project Management 1156 N. Mountai~n Avenue Upland, CA 91785-0670 tI, I , I I h~PLANNING~FINAL~FORMS~COUNTERUNITSTD1.WPD 3/00 Page I Name & Address of pe~on pmpadng th~ ~n'n ~ diffemnt from abo~): Debby Linn L.D. King, Inc. ~[5! Convention Center Way, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91764-4464 Telephone [909) 937-0200 Numbe£ Infom~ation indicated by asterisk (*) is not requited of non-construction CUP-s unless otherwfse requested by staff. '1) Provide a full scale (8-1,~2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundatfes. £ _ 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show reprasentative ~4ews into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the prfmary access points which serve the site; and mprosentative views of significant features from the site. Include a map shovvfng Ioca#on of each photograph. 3) Project Location (desclfbe): N/E Corner of Day Creek Blvd· and Highland Avenue in the Ci'ty of Rancho Cucamonga: 4) Assessor.~s Parcel Numbe~ (attach additional sheet if 227- 351- 65 nece ssa q/) : 1. 244 Acres '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): .~. 244 Acres ~Descdbeanyproposedgene~lplan amendmentorzonechangewhichwould affecttheproject site(attachad~Uonalsheet ifnecessa~: See Attac~ed i:~LANNING~FINAL~FORMS\COUNTER~INITSTD1 .VVPD 3/00 Page 2 .8) Include a desc~fption of all permits which wfll be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemrnenta! agencies in order to fully implement the project: · General Plan Amendment, Cor~ni'ty Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review. See attached for further information ~Descdbe ~e phy~cal ~e~ng of the site as it ex~ be~m the project including ~fonnatk~l on tqcxx~mph~ soil stability. ~ants and animal, mature trees, t~ and toads, d~age coupes, and scen~ aspens. Desctfbe any ex~Ung structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the statures. Affach photog~phs of ~g~if~cant ~a~ms desctfbed. ~ additfo~, site all sources of ~rrnation ~.e., geolog~al and/or hydrologic stud, s, b~t~ and a~heolog~al surveys, t~ffic studie~: , The project s~te i;s a gently-sloping s. ite, sloping from north to south. The site is currently utJ'lfzed fly Caltrans as a construction staging area and contains stockp~qes of sand, gravel, and othe~ construction materials used for the construct' tion of the Route 30.free~ay. The sfte contains no existing trees or other plant m~te~ials ~*tb tee exceptj'on of weedlike p~ants. Highland Avenue, servi'ng t~e project site, i's improved to the ultimate right of way. The inte~sectJ'on of Day Cree~ Blvd, and ~ighland Ave, is signalized. Day Creek Blvd. serving tee p~oJect si*re w~ql be completed north of Highland Ave. to the ultimate ~gh.t of ~y ~t t~e t~me of completion of Route 30. 1 ~ Descdbe ~e known cuituml and/or histodc~ aspects ~ the site. S~e all souses of ~forma5on (books, punished mpo~s and o~1 h~ry): No ~now~ ~ceolo~i~al ~eseurces exist ~n the site. A cultural resources report was pFe~red as pa~t ef tee Environmental I~pact Report certified by the City in support of Gene?~l plan Amendments g6JO3B and g7~01 and Victoria Con~nunity Plan.amendments 96~0_l ~nd E7~[11, ~di.~ ~clude t§e project si'te. i:~PLANNING~FINAL~FORMS~COUNTER~INITSTD1 .WPD 3/00 Page 3 'Il)Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aimraft. roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: The project site is currently affected by traffic noise generated from traffic along Highland Avenue, W'ith the completion a~duse o%~)Route 30 and Day Creek Blvd. the site will be further affected by traffic noise. Ttiese existing and future noise sources will not affect the use oi~ the site for commercial purposes. 12)Describe the pn~posed project in detail: This should provide an adequate descdplfon of the site in terms of ulSrnate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate ff them am proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: See Attached 13)Desc~fbe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, his~o~cal, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, comrnemlel, etc.), intensily of land use (one-family. apartment houses, shops, depa[tment stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, mar yard, etc.): The si'te i's bounded §y si'ngle famiiy resi'dent~, uses on lfle sbuth and southeast, future single family uses on tee south, future Route 30 freeway on the north, and future commerci'al uses en the west. 14) VV~II the proposed proje~ change the pa~em, scale or character of the surroun~ng general ama of the pn~ject ? The proposed project i~ compati'~le w~th the pattern, scale and character of the surrounding area ~s estaEli~Eed i'n the ¥i'ctori'a Con~unity Plan. /¥ 15PLANNING~FINAL~FORMS~COUNTER~INITSTD1 .WPD 3/00 Page 4 1 ~ Indicate the t~oe of sho~erm and I~g-term noise te be generated, ~duding source and amount. How will these noise ~vels affect adjacent pmpert~s and on-site uses. What me~ods of sound proo§ng am p~oosed? A future commercial development on the site will generate traffic noise; however, noise levels should not exceed those generated from traffic along Highland Ave., Day Creek Blvd,, ahd Route 30, Short t~rm and long term noise levels will be · evaluated as part of the review of a Condttiohal Use' Permit for the development of the project, '1 ~ ~dicate p~posed remova~ and/or replacements of mature or scen~ trees: There are no mature or scenfc trees on the project site, 1~ In.cate any bodies of water (including domes~c water supplie~ ~ wh~h the site dre~s: Storm water from the si're drains into existing drain connections to Day Creek Channel, ~dicate expected amount of water usage, (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gaYday) Peak use (gaYDay) b. Commercial~Ind. (gal~day~ac) ~ee Attached Peak use (gal~mid~ac). 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests, ff discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage genereJf~: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987. 2591. a. Residential (gaYday) b. CommerciaJ/Ind. (gal~day~ac) See AttacEed RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: h~PL,a, NNING~FINAL~FORMS~COUNTER~INITSTD1 .WPD 3/00 Page 5 Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated ~ange of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Ptfce(s) $_, to $ Rent (per month) S to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit tyl~: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 24)Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the approp~fate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementaqt: b. Junior High: c. Senior High ~OMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional See Attached 26) Total floor area of commercial, indust~fal, or institutional uses by type: See Attached ~PLANNING~FINAL~FORMS~COUNTERUNITSTD1 ,WPD 3/00 Page 6 27) Indicate hours of operation: See Attached 28) Number of Total: employees: See Attached Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): See Attached 30) Estimation of the number of worker~ to be hired that currently reside in the City: See Attached For commercial and indust~al uses only, indicate the aoume, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be ve~flled through the South Coast Air Quallty Management District, at (818) 572-6283): See Attached ALL PROJECTS 32)Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to pravfde adequate service to the praposed pmject? ff so, please indicate their msponse. See Attached I:~PLANNING~FINAL~CORMS~COUNTER~INITSTD1.VVPD 3/00 Page 7 ~3 In the known history of this prepen'y, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic mate~fals? ) Examples of hazardous end/or toxic mate~fals include, but are not limited to PCB-s; radioac~ve substances; pesticides and hedoicldes; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and desc~fbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the prope~'ty, as well as the dates of use, ff known. There is no known history of use of the site for storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxi'c materi'als. )n .the event Caltrans has stored or discharged hazardous and/or to×i'c ~u§stances on the site, the site conditions will be remediated by Caltrans i'n accordance with local and state requirements prior to transfer of ti'tle to't~e applicant '. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, slo~age or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic rnate~fals, including but not limiled to those examples listed above? ff yes, provide an inventory of all such mate~fals 1o be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses. along vAth the sto~age and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. The proposed applicateion for land use entitlement ~or the project site does not involve the temporary of long term use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and informalicn mquirod for adequate evaluabon of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented am tree and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief~ I fullher unde~tand that additional infon'nation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: ~Jl~' '"~ 7'~ Signature: ~Title: t:~PLANNiNG~FINAL~FORMS~COUNTER~JNITSTD1 .WPD 3/00 Page 8 ATTACHMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I-Initial Study) Response to Questions 7 and 12 Lewis Retail Centers, project applicant, is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment for a 1.244 acre site located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This application is for land use entitlement only; appropriate applications to pen'nit development ora specific project on the site will be submitted pursuant to the approval by the City of the General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment. Lewis Retail Centers currently owns the 1.244 acre site proposed for development described as Site A on the attached Site Plan Map. The proposed development project will include the use of an adjacent .235 acre property, currently owned by CalTrans and described as Site B on the attached Site Plan Map, which Lewis intends to acquire and make a part of the overall project. The application submitted by Lewis Retail Centers is intended for processing concurrently with a City initiated application to amend the General Plan and Community Plan land use designation for the adjacent CalTrans property. The CalTrans property was originally acquired for construction of the Route 30 Freeway. Based upon the final design of the Route 30 Freeway, CalTrans determined that the site is no longer needed for freeway right of way purposes. Lewis Retail Centers proposes to acquire the CalTrans property as part of the overall commercial development project proposed for the adjacent property addressed by this application. The project site owned by Lewis Retail Centers has a General Plan land use designation of Low/Medium Residential and is located within the Victoria Community Plan, which designates the site for Low Density Residential development. Due to the size and irregular configuration of the project site resulting from the final alignment of the Route 30 freeway, development of the site for residential purposes is physically and economically infeasible. Development of a small commercial center to include convenience retail and/or automotive service station uses is a viable use of the site. The applicant is requesting approval ora General Plan Amendment changing the General Plan land use designation for the site from Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and a Community Plan Amendment changing the land use plan and zoning for the site from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial. While a definitive development program and user for the site have not yet been identified, the applicant anticipates that development of an automotive service station with a convenience retail center and car wash is a viable use for the site. The attached conceptual site plan was prepared in order to evaluate the potential for development of an automotive service station with a convenience store and car wash. The final development program potentially could include a drive-through restaurant in addition to the convenience retail and service station uses. If the City approves the proposed General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment, development of the project site with the commercial uses described above will require approval of a conditional use permit and design review. Pursuant to obtaining approval of the General Plan Amendment and Community Plan Amendment, the applicant will identify a specific development program and submit a detailed site plan and architectural drawings in conformance with the adopted development standards for each proposed use as part of an application for a conditional use permit and design review. Attachment to Environmental Information Form Page 2 of 2 The applicant has met with the City's Engineering Division to review the conceptual site plan to identify any potential access issues to be addressed with the submittal of a development plan application. The City's Engineering Division identified the need to re-stripe Highland Avenue in order to provide for adequate vehicular ingress and egress to the project site. A striping plan for Highland Avenue will be submitted for City review as part of an application for a conditional use permit and design review. Response to Question 18 Expected amount of water usage will be identified pursuant to identification ora specific development project for the site at a later date. This information will be included in future applications for development permits including the initial study to be completed as part of a conditional use permit application. Response to Question 19 Any future development project proposed for the project site will include the use of sewer as the method of sewage disposal. Information regarding daily sewage generation for the proposed project will be provided as part of future applications for development permits including the initial study prepared in support of a conditional use permit application. Response to Questions 25 through 30 At the time that a specific development program and a user are identified for the project site, an application for a conditional use perrmt and design review will be submitted to the City. This application will include information on the type of use and major functions of the commercial use, the hours of operation, number and shifts of employees, a breakdown of anticipated job classifications, and an estimate oftbe number of workers to be hired that will reside in the City. Response to Question 31 At the time that a specific development program has been identified for the project site, an application for a conditional use permit will be submitted to the City accompanied by the City's Environmental Information Form. As part of this application, information on the source, type, and amount o fair pollution emissions will be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District per each use proposed for the site and included In the application to the city. Response to Question 32 The enclosed application is for land use entitlements. Approval if this application will require the submittal of an application for a conditional use perrmt in order to develop a project on the site. A specific development program has not yet been identified, and for this reason, agencies providing water, sewer, fire, and flood con~-ol to the project site have not yet been contacted to deternUne their ability to provide adequate service to the site. Once uses and square footages for each use proposed for development have been identified, these agencies will be contacted and their response included in a conditional use permit application for development of the proposed project. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoda Community Plan Amendment 00-02, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02A - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commemial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue - APN: 227-351-65. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commemial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875), located at the northeast comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider Community Plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area - APN: 227-351-65. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for approximately .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-03- CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider community plan text changes to better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area. 4, Project Sponsors' Name and Address: Lewis Retail Centem City of Rancho Cucamonga 1156 N. Mountain Avenue 10500 Civic Center Drive Upland, CA 91785-0670 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Victoria Community Plan, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north is the new Route 30 Freeway, to the east is the continuation of Highland Avenue and the single family neighborhood of Victoria Windrows, to the south is newly developed single family neighborhood, and to the west is new single family development and a vacant Village Commercial site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 2 8. Lead Agency Name end Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Alan Warren (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (x) Land Use and Planning (x) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources (x) Air Quality (x) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: Alan Warren Associate Planner August 23, 2000 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 3 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Comments: a-d) The project is a request to change the land use designation for the site from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commemial. The area in question is a remnant pamel left over from the construction of the Route 30 Freeway and the realignment of Highland Avenue along the freeway's south side. Use of the small site, surrounded on all sides by significant vehicle traffic, for residential purposes would expose residents to high levels of traffic noise. This fact alone does not make the site compatible with the noise policies of the General Plan. The site is near an already commercially designated site on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard. The change of the subject site to commercial would be compatible with the existing commercial land to the west. The General Plan Amendment and Victoda Community Plan Amendment are the prescribed procedures for requesting land use changes. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal'. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local · population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 4 Comments: a) The use of the site for commemial purposes would not allow residential units and therefore not increase the population of the area. b) The project will result in residential growth potential in the immediate area. This growth is part of the expansion of the approved planned community. c) The removal of the site from the residential land inventory would only lower the anticipated housing count by no more that 5 or 6 units 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudfiows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-c) No known faults pass through the site, it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 1 mile northwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 3 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto Fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes, is 7 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas Fault, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 12.5 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Liquefaction could occur at the site if a strong earthquake coincided with an extended period of heavy rains raising the local water table. Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga- Soboda gravelly loam. These soils are relatively stable but may be subject to liquefaction when the water table is relatively shallow. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a large body of water. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Pa~e 5 e) The site is relatively flat, and it is not near any slopes vulnerable to mass-wasting events. f-h) The site is relatively flat, so grading will be minimal. Grading will even out the site and create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage and avoid erosion. Soil type on-site and in the vicinity is Tujunga gravelly loam. This soil is excessively drained, level to moderately sloping soil formed on alluvial fans. It is relatively stable but subject to liquefaction when the water table is shallow, prior to issuance of building permits, the Building and Safety Division will require a soils report. New structures are required to meet current earthquake standards as required by the Uniform Building Code. The impact is not considered significant. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?. ( ) ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality?. ( ) ( ) (x) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 6 Comments: a) Development with impervious surfaces will affect the rate and amount of surface water runoff. This land use amendment should not significantly affect the amount of change anticipated in previous environmental analysis of the existing land use plans. b) The site is located within the 100-year flood plain of Day Creek; however, the Day Creek Channel system is complete and provides adequate flood protection. c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. Storm-water runoff will be conveyed to the existing public storm drain system as approved bythe City Engineer. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area because the site is not used for groundwater recharging. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-b) Development will affect the amount of air pollution in the general area. Because of the small size of the site, this land use amendment should not significantly affect the amount of change anticipated in previous environmental analysis of the existing land use plans. c-d) After the land use amendment is approved, it is the applicant's intent to propose a project to construct a vehicle fueling washing facility. This will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors due to the development needing to comply with Air Quality District regulations. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA O0-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Pa~e 7 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ) (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ) (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) As a result of development, additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic will occur because the site is presently vacant. Similar increases would also occur if the property were to develop under the existing land use categories. No significant increase in traffic is anticipated from development under the amended land use categories. The proposed development that will be allowed under the amended land use will benefit from the already significant traffic from the freeway off ramps. No significant traffic, beyond what is already anticipated from the freeway, is expected as a result of the development. b-f) The future commercial development proposal will be required to meet the City's existing street development policies and no significant impacts are anticipated. g) No rail impacts ara anticipated. The site is not adjacent to any rail line. ~mpa~ ~,:oq~ora~ed ~rr~ ~mpa~ 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( (x) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 8 Incor~3ratad ~ ~ d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) The site is has recently been altered due to the Route 30 Freeway construction. As a result, no sensitive habitat is on-site, nor are any endangered species expected to be evident due to the high level of construction work. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss cf availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-b) The project will not conflict with any energy conservation plans nor be wasteful. c) The project site is located near the Day Creek alluvial fan, an area classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-2). An MRZ-2 zone contains deposits of known value and marketability. However, the State Geologist has determined that the area is not a Designated Area of available resources due to urbanization. ~mpac~ ~nco~r=~ ..pact ~ 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 9 ~mpac~ Po~emi~y Imp~c~ ~mpac~ b) Possible inte~erence with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health haza~s? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas wi~h flammable b~sh, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a, c-d) The site has been thoroughly re-graded as a result of the freeway construction. There is no evidence of prior commemial or industrial uses. No evidence of discarded drums, containem, hazardous wastes, or discolored soils have been obsewed. There was no indication of underground storage tanks or illegal dumping of refuse on-site. b) Any future development will be required to be designed to a~mmodate emergency vehicles and is be accessible from ~o access points. e) The site is not located in a fire hazard area. 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Comments: a) The site is presently vacant and generates no noise levels. After development with a vehicle fueling station, noises associated with vehicle traffic is expected. This level is expected to be less than significant due to the surrounding area's ambient noise levels generated primarily from the freeway. b) Any future commercial project will be affected by the traffic noise from the freeway. Because the freeway is elevated adjacent to the site, the levels should not be significantly severe or higher that other similarly zoned property nearby, Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 10 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) The project site is in an area originally zoned Low Density residential. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan for services was based on the assumption this parcel would have 2-4 dwellings per acre. The project site has since been incorporated into the Victoria Community Plan and rezoned to Village Commercial residential. At this category and small size of the site, no significant services impacts area anticipated. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project. No mitigation is required. Fire and Police protection - Additional protection will be required for the new commercial activity. However, as the project requires fewer resources than are accommodated within the General Plan, the impact is less than significant. Schools - The change to commercial uses from the existing residential designation will eliminate the anticipated student generation from the site. Parks - The proposed project will not increase the need for park and recreation services through the potential for increased population growth since the site will not now be developed with residential structures. Public facilities -The proposed project will incrementally increase traffic on adjacent streets. Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council, the developer will pay all appropriate development impact fees. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas?//~ ~/, ,_~"~' 0 ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 11 b) Communication systems? ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments.: a-g) The commemial development anticipated to be built after the land use change will include a vehicle fueling and washing facility. The proposed development will extend, as necessary, existing systems and utilities available in the immediate area. The proposed project will not require major modifications or alterations to the existing utility systems. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-b) The site is immediately adjacent to the above-grade freeway surface. The new freeway is not designated as a scenic highway. Also, the site is immediately adjacent to the above-grade freeway surface, which is around 27 feet above the site. Any development on the site should not affect any views to the north. c) Any future project will create new light and glare as the site is currently vacant. Any development will be required to conform to the City's parking lot lighting and sign ordinance which requires non-obtrusive lighting. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, G PA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Page 12 Significant 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resoumes? ( ) ( ) ( (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which Would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) The site, while on an alluvial fan, was recently disturbed due to freeway construction; therefore, the likelihood of finding historical or cultural resources is minimal and impacts are not considered significant. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) .Comments: a) Any proposed commercial project should not increase the need for park and recreation services through population growth. The developer of any project will pay the appropriate fees in accordance with Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. b) There is no impact to existing recreational opportunities as the site and property surrounding the project area is designated for additional commercial development. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, GPA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Parle 13 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?. ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) .Comments: a) The project site, recently disturbed due to freeway construction, does not contain Natural Resources as identified on Figure V-3 of the General Plan. Additionally, the site does not contain any Coastal Sage Scrub, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, or Delhi-Sands flowering-loving fly habitat. No sensitive species were detected on- site and it is unlikely any will move onto the site due to the lack of natural habitat and on-going freeway construction. b) During construction of any future development, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be emitted from grading the site and dust emissions could be sufficient to warrant the use of water or other dust palliatives at this site. Sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of constructic., vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed sudaces. NOx and PMm levels may be exceeded dudng this phase. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02A, VCPA 00-02, G PA 00-02C, VCPA 00-03 Page 14 Existing dust reduction requirements enforced by the City Building & Safety Division will reduce impacts to less than significant. c) The developer of any commercial project will be required to pay development impact fees established bythe City Council, the rates of which have been set to mitigate the potential impacts to fire protection service, police protection services, and other governmental services to less than significant. To the extent that a project may impact utility resources provided by private utility companies, potential impacts upon such services will be mitigated by payment of rates and fees set by each utility agency. d) Any proposed commercial project on 1.244 acres would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (x)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Victoria Planned Community EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: General Plan Amendment 00-02A and Victoda Community Plan Amendment 00-02 - Lewis Retail Centers General Plan Amendment 00-02C and Victoda Community Plan Amendment 00-03 - City Of Rancho Cucamonga Public Review Period Closes: September 27, 2000 Project Applicant: Lewis Retail Centers/City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue- APN: 227-351-~5 and immediately east of that parcel, currently within t~e Call~ans ~ight of way. Project Description: A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial in the General Plan and Village Commercial in the Victoria Community Plan for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract 15875) and apprexJmately .24 acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or m~gate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. September 27, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02A, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR 1.244 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND HIGHLAND AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-351-65. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Retail Centem filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 00-02A as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 27, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 1.244 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, located on the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and is presently vacant. Said properly is currently designated as Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) on the General Plan Land Use Map; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is being developed with the new Route 30 freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Residential and is developed with a single family residential neighborhood. The preperty to the west is designated Neighborhood Commercial and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Low Residential and is developed with a single family residential neighborhood; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 00-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area by satisfying the minimum parcel size requirement for the land use designation and continuing the planned Neighborhood Commemial development pattem along this portion of Day Creek Boulevard; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions listed in the Initial Study Parts I and 11; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by providing a land use pattern that is complementary with nearby parcels of land. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 00-02A by designating the subject site as Neighborhood Commercial. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 0".,1"t, 1,0"5'7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 00-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GPA 00-02A &-02C General Plan Land Use Map ~ Route 30 Fwy. '- hland Ave. ~ Application Site GP Land Use Designations ~ FLOOD CONTROL I UTILITY CORRIDOR LOW ~ LOW MEDIUM ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE OPEN SPACE ~[~1 VERY LOW no scale RESOLUTION NO. a RESOLUTION Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL FOR 1.244 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 765 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-351-65. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Retail Centem filed an application for Victoda Community Plan Amendment No. 00-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the an associated application and issued Resolution No. * , recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 00-02A be approved. 3. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on September 27, 2000, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 1.244 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, located on the northeast comer of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Low Residential 2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Victoria Community Plan; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is being developed with a new State freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Residential and is developed with a single- family residential neighborhood. The property to the west is designated Village Commercial and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Low Residential and is developed with a single family residential neighborhood; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 2 c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development through the land use review process of this application; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element by providing additional convenience commercial opportunities for the nearby residents and by deleting the potential of residential development from an area of increasing vehicle traffic and noise; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would'not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidence by the findings of the environmental assessment. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area by exceeding the minimum lot width of 150 feet for Commercial sites of the Victoria Community Plan and by being adjacent to existing Village Commercial designated land; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions listed in the Initial Study Parts I and II; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by providing a land use pattern that is complementary with nearby existing Village Commercial pamels. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. C.-,/-/,/, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 00-02 to change the land use designation to Village Commemial as shown in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and to amend the description of the Village Commemial Center on the first and second paragraphs on pages 67-68 of the Victoria Community Plan to read as follows: "Local commemial needs in the Windrows will be served by a Village Commemial Center at Highland and Day Creek Boulevard. Its location on two major arterial roads is convenient to village residents as they enter or leave the community by automobile, and is also accessible to bicycles and pedestrians via the community trail system. Any potential expansion of the Village Commercial land use area should be clearly intended to primarily serve the nearby residents. Expansion of the Village Commercial in this area should not be established to promote 'freeway dependent' commercial activities. The amhitectural theme that is used for the Village Commemial Center should draw upon the character of the older Victorian homes of the Etiwanda area for inspiration. Village Commercial development should focus on enhancing, and not detracting from the rural Etiwanda character. In this regard, commercial development should be visually non-intrusive to the nearby residential neighborhoods." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATI'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: rn ~ VCPA 00-02 & -03 Zoning Designations Map VCPA00-02 &-03 '":::::::::::::::: Change to Route 30 Fwy. Village Commercial ..q% ^ye. ~ Application Site Zoning Designations ~ FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR ~ LOW ~ LOW MEDIUM ~ VIlLI-AGE COMMERCIAL Windrows ~]~]] REGIONAL RELATEO single-family ~ OPEN SPACE neighborhood ~l~ VI~RY LOW no scale RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02C, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR .24 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND HIGHLAND AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 00-02C as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the associated application and issued Resolution No. and recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment 00-02A. 3. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 27, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately .24 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, located on the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) on the General Plan Land Use Map; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is being developed with the new Route 30 freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Residential is developed with a single-family residential neighborhood. The property to the west is designated Neighborhood Commercial and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Low Residential is developed with a single-family residential neighborhood; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 00-02C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 2 c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area by satisfying the minimum pamel size requirement for the land use designation and continuing the single family residential development pattern along the north side of Base Line Road; and b. That the proposed amendment would have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions listed in the Initial Study Parts I and II; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by providing a land use pattern that is complementary with nearby parcels of land. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b.. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 00-02C - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 00-02C by designating the subject site Neighborhood Commercial. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman AT]'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GPA 00-02A & -02C General Plan Land Use Map Route 30 Fwy. hland Ave. m Application Site GP Land Use Designations ~ FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR ~ LOW ~ LOW MEDIUM []NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE ~r~ OPEN SPACE VERY LOW no scale RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-03, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL FOR .24 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND HIGHLAND AVENUE, AND MAKING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application, Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 00-02, for Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 00-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the associated application and issued Resolution Nos. and __ recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment Nos. 00-02A and 00-02C be approved. 3. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the an associated application and issued Resolution No .... recommending to the City Council that the associated Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 00-02 be approved. 3. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on September 27, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately .24 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, located on the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Low Residential within the Victoria Community Plan; and ;- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 00-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is being developed with the new Route 30 freeway. The property to the east is designated Low Residential and is developed with a single- family residential neighborhood. The property to the west is vacant. The property to the south is developed with a single-family residential neighborhood; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development through the land use review process of this application; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element by providing additional Convenience Commercial opportunities for the nearby residents and by deleting the potential of residential development from an area of increasing vehicle traffic and noise; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidence by the findings of the environmental assessment. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct when combined with the parcel immediately adjacent to the site, in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area by the combined site exceeding the minimum lot width of 150 feet for Commercial sites of the Victoda Community Plan and by being adjacent to existing Village Commercial designated land; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions listed in the Initial Study Parts I and II; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by providing a land use pattern that is complementary with nearby existing Village Commercial parcels. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations, which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will 3ccur. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 00-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 3 c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 00-02 to change the land use designation to Village Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and to amend the description of the Village Commercial Center in the first and second paragraphs on pages 67-68 of the Victoria Community Plan (bold print additions) to read as follows: "Local commercial needs in the Windrows will be served by a Village Commercial Center at Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. Its location on two major arterial roads is convenient to village residents as they enter or leave the community by automobile, and is also accessible to bicycles and pedestrians via the community trail system. Any potential expansion of the Village Commercial land use area should be clearly intended to primarily serve the nearby residents. Expansion of the Village Commercial in this area should not be established to promote 'freeway dependent' commercial activities. The architectural theme that is used for the Village Commemial Center should draw upon the character of the older Victorian homes of the Etiwanda area for inspiration. Village Commercial development should focus on enhancing, and not detracting from the rural Etiwanda character. In this regard, commercial development should be visually non-intrusive to the nearby residential neighborhoods." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VCPA 00~03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 4 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: m ~ VCPA 00-02 & -03 Zoning Designations Map VCPA 00-02 & -03 Change to Route 30 Fwy. Village Commercial bland Ave. ~ APplication Site Zoning Designations J:~ FLOOD CONTROL I UTILITY CORRIDOR ~LOW LOW MEDIUM ~ VilLLAGE COMMERCIAL Windrows ~ ~ REGIONAL RELATED single-family ~ OPEN SPACE [] VERY LOW neighborhood no scale September 27, 2000 Southern California Housing Development Corporation ITEMS K, L, M 1. SoCal Housing Corporate information package 2. Copies of 5 letters in support of proposed senior apartments September 21, 2000 Chairman of the Planning Commission c/o Southern California Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Chairman: I am a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, living at 7305 Klusman Avenue, next to the Villa Pacifica Senior Apartments. Traies Roe from Southern California Housing Development Corporation has asked for my comments about living next to an affordable senior apartment community. Our house is located at the corner of Baseline Road and Klusman Avenue, right next to Villa Pacifica's driveway. We have lived here since before Villa Pacifica was built. Villa Pacifica has not had any effect on our home at all. Though we might have expected some traffic problems, especially with older drivers, there really hasn't been any problem. From our position right next to the driveway, we do not have any complaints about traffic. I hope that our comments will help answer any questions from the future neighbors of any new senior apartments. Sincerely yours, 7305 Klusman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga September 21,2000 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission cio Southern California Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: We live at 7355 Klusman Avenue, right next to the Villa Pacifica Senior Apartments. Traies Roe from SoCal Housing visited me recently to ask about living next to an affordable senior apartment community. I understand that SoCal Housing is planning to build another senior apartment near the Cucamonga Elementary School. We love having the seniors for neighbors! We have lived in this house for years and we were very involved in the approval process for the Villa Pacifica apartments. We had problems in the past with the earlier owners of the property, so when it was proposed for development, we went to every public meeting. Though the construction wasn't any fun, the finished project is beautiful. There is hardly any noise from the apartments. When I sit in my backyard, all I hear is quiet. We have a real need for affordable apartments for senior citizens in Rancho Cucamonga. It's wonderful to have an opportunity for an elderly relative to live so close to adult children. In fact, I wanted to move my grandmother into Villa Pacifica so that she would be closer to me, but circumstances did not permit that to happen. For older people on fixed incomes, it's important to have apartments that are affordable to rent and are also beautiful facilities to live in. We and our neighbors on Klusman Avenue love having the senior apartments next door. The neighbors of the new senior apartments should come look at Villa Pacifica and they will realize that there is nothing to fear from a senior apartment next door. Si,.ncerely, Cindy G~'osland 7355 Klusman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga September 21, 2000 Chairman of the Planning Commission c/o Southern California Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Chairman: I live at 7325 Klusman Avenue, next to the Villa Pacifica Senior Apartments. Traies Roe from SoCal Housing visited me recently and asked about living next to an affordable senior apartment community. My back yard backs up to Villa Pacifica's parking lot, with a block wall between the two properties. We have had no problem living next to Villa Pacifica. The people there are quiet, nice and friendly. I have school aged kids who often ride their bikes around the neighborhood and the Villa Pacifica parking lot. The only traffic problem we see is that sometimes people, both young and old, try to cross Baseline on foot, without using the crosswalk at Archibald, and that can be dangerous. Overall we don't see any increase in car traffic related to the senior apartments. I would like to tell other people in Rancho Cucamonga that seniors are good, quiet neighbors and that there isn't any reason to fear a senior apartment near your neighborhood. Paula Warwick 7325 Klusman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga September 25, 2000 Chairman of the Planning Commission C/o Southern California Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Traies Haydon Roe Chairman of the Planning Commission I have been a neighbor of the Villa Pacifica Senior Community for two years. My back property line joins the Villa Pacifica property line. I am also the administrator for Villa Pacifica. The project has three beautiful buildings. The grounds are attractive and beautifully kept. The grounds and buildings are well lighted, so there are no problems with trespassing or vagrants. There is a high retaining wall, provided by Villa Pacifica, between Klusman Avenue residents and Villa Pacifica Senior Community. As a property owner, I benefited from the retaining wall in several ways. The wall offers more privacy, and it cuts down on noise and dust from Base Line Road. The seniors enter and leave the property through Base Line Road. During certain hours, Base Line can be very congested, but the residents of Villa Pacifica have not seemed to cause any additional traffic problems. When an ambulance comes to the property, the siren is turned offat the entrance, and that keeps the noise down. Villa Pacifica is a very nice quiet place. I do not feel that my property value has been damaged. I think that an attractive, affordable, senior property near a nice neighborhood adds to the community and the value of the property. As the administrator, I receive many calls from area residents wanting to arrange for their parents to move into Villa Pacifica. They want their parents to be close, so they can visit them and take care of their needs. I enjoy living near and managing Villa Pacifica Senior Community. We have a waiting list, three to six months long which tells me the community of Rancho Cucamonga would benefit from additional Senior housing. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call me at (909) 483-1534~ Ida Perkins Home Owner/Administrator g677 Archibald Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 (909) 9g0-1315 September 25, 2000 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Chairman of the Planning Commission: We understand that Southern California Housing Development Corporation proposes to rezone the property immediately noith of the Cucamonga Elementary School for development as a 49- unit senior apartment building. The apartment building will abut part of our parking lot and the basketball courts on the school grounds. We ~iii~e proposed apartments as a neighbor to the school. We believe that the senior citizens ~ttme[~ts will be a better ne ghbor than wou d an office bud ng or reta center ether of whi~i~i~:~ermitted by right under the ex st ng zon ng The parce s current y an ,~i~ ~i~{~i~:~i: In the past we have had prob ems with trane ents mak ng camp n th s area ii iiiiiiili?:i~iii~:~i~!~i~ii~isight from the road, the school offices and from the neighboring Assistance iiiii::iii~ii~i::~l~b new deve opment w great y mprove the appearance of the area and w ~' i:=~ring:~:i~i~i~Jii~ on the street" day and nght to d scourage o terers around the schoo Historica!i~i~::i~has been a walkway across the vacant property to allow students access from Sal[na~i~::the Cucamonga School grounds Although t wou d be easier for us to ma nta n se~::i!~::~:{~e school if there were no such rear access, we recognize that the families living behind the school have become accustomed to this shortcut. We will work with Southern California Housing Development Corporation to design and maintain safe access across their property, so that students do not have to walk around the block on Amhibald. We support the General Plan Amendment and zoning requests to allow this pamel to be developed for senior housing. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Edward J. Del Cas'~, Principal Cucamonga Elementary School Thc ~ment Corporation Rebuilding Hope A Resident erviees Technician Department Making Big Strides in 2000 The first Resident Services Technician Department Retreat, dedicated and named after James Krueger. One day. when we look back at SoCal Housing history, surely the year 2000 will be rec- ognized as the Year of the RST Department. Although we know our Resident Service Techs have always pulled together and have often pulled off miracles, this year. they have been a vivid example of how to "raise the bar." Stanley Thomas, newly promoted Director of Resident Services. had a vision for the department. He saw a void in senior management and lobbied for that void to be filled. His commitment was rewarded when Stan was offered the newly created senior staff position. Director of Resident Services. His voice was heard, and with it the voices of approximately 50 RSTs. The department recently implemented a new uniform policy. The uniforms are an out- ward expression of the RST team's level of professionalism. An in-house training pro- '~,, ,~,,,~?/;,,,.,~,,-e.,,,~ ,:,, gram is being developed with input from all the RST Supervisors. Training goals include ,,, ,,/,,.~/,,,,. ,,,, ,,/,/,,,,.,, ~,, increasing employee job knowledge, specialized skills, and reducing costs by cutting the ,~ .......... z..,,:~ ,,/,,,,/,,. .....use of many outside vendors. On May 25-26. the RST Department held its first retreat. /~,~,,,~/~,-,,o,~,~4~;,-,,~o,~,,, The retreat was dedicated to SoCal Housing's first Regional RST, the late James - ~,,,x.,,,~, ~/, ..... Krueger. A Message from Our CEO T NT$ In our last issue of The Vision, my message dealt with the challenge of change, growth, and the importance of each of f us to "raise the bar" in our ¢ performance. In this issue, you will see specific examples of our team and its members meeting those higher expec- tations as we aggressively pursue our Mission and fur- Senator John Seymour ther our commitment to our Guiding Principles. I have been privileged, over the last 5 1/2 years to watch SoCal Housing grow from 12 employees to 142 employ- ees, from 144 apartment units to more than 3,300 apart- ment units. Remarkably, this dramatic growth has been accomplished while at the same time we have deepened and increased our commitment to our Guiding Principles and service to the improvement of the quality of life of our residents. Hope Through Housing, our sister non-profit foundation is the delivery vehicle for our resident services programs. ~ ~u'~eCliegtO~ltO ,,.... Just last month, Hope Through Housing touched 5,302 of our residents with at least one of our resident services programs. Our programs are as diverse as our resident ~-o-p~lat~oh ...qnclud~ng career ed0c~atf0n~-~-d jo--6~Iace- _A Iot~o~_positiv~_obar~ges_baYe ment, ESL classes, after school tutoring, GED classes, taken place in recent years in Computer Labs, Summer Camp, Health Programs and our department. I'm excited Lunch Programs. and am looking forward to Indeed, each of you can be justly proud of what we are the future. However accomplishing as a team. Whether you are a Resident before we take one mcr( Services Technician, a Staff Accountant, Leasing Agent, or Chief Financial Officer, none of those 5,302 residents step in that direction, last month for whom we made life a little bit better, would want to pause and take have received the program benefits if you had not suc- moment to thank you all and cessfully performed your duties for SoCal Housing. Clean, safe and affordable housing is just the beginning of bestow recognition where it .is our Mission. deserved. The exciting news is that we truly have just begun. I am truly fortunate to work with such a dedicated and Currently, new construction and rehabilitation projects located in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San hardworking group. I can't express enough the pleas- Diego counties, totaling 872 multi*family units, are either ure to be able to have this level of confidence in the just getting underway or nearing completion. Additionally team I am a part of. I owe each of you a lot for the we have another 1,200 units currently in our "pipeline" that we hope will be negotiated successfully and brought personal achievements I've obtained this year. None into our portfolio over the next 18 months, of it would have been possible if not for your continu- Yes, working together, with each of us "raising the bar" on lng sacrifice of delivering 110% 100-percent of the our performance, we can accomplish great things while time. And what makes that quality so incredible is receiving the tremendous fulfillment of helping others. ... , . ~ that you continually do this with a positive attitude. Congratulations Let s keep growing. / I truly believe that your work is the backbone to our Mission. Continue doi~ng-sugl? superb job. There is no '~one. better team than thi~ ! Family Additions & The First Annual James Krueger RST i Celebrations Retreat was held May 25-26 at Lake Perris. ' Anniversaries, Promotions & New Hi?es ', SoCal Housing is growing! If you still have any doubts just look around at The two-day camping trip consisted of activi- i all the new faces/ ties and speakers such as unvieling the new 6 Years New Hires RST Operations Manual and Uniforms, and Teresa Williams Temps team-building excercises by Dr. Joe. Other April Thrift activities included fishing, boating, cookouts, 5 Years Accounting C/ark Corporate Donna Gutzke Mark Trabing and campfires. Stan Thomas Project Manager Corporate The picture on the left shows Director of Rick Wittingham Verdie Miles Property Management Jim Aliberti, Regional Karen Wilds Receptionist Manager Donna Gutzke, and Asst. Director of Paul Grahm PM Susie Powers attempting to Eitch'~h~i~ 4 Years Robert Casaya RST II, Renaissance Vt/iago - ._ tent. Jim Bigler Jorge Verastegui Ryan Abels Jesus Delgado Leasing Agent, Sycamore 401K Prob.'am Randy Street Springs Lionel Martinez 3 Years RS? iV, Monterey Vi#age Human Resources announced a little less Perry Covington Martha Linares than a month ago some significant Dick Karlinger RST/, La(~uinta changes in the 401Kpro-~.l~,~,~,"~to/o~ Julia Normand gram. Effective July Edward Garduno Cecilia Javier Teri Hoerntlein Leasing Agent, Promenade 1st the first Kevin Davis Terri Valdespino .... ~ - of all Manager, Pasco de/So/ . '~ employee deferals 2 Years will be matched 200%! This Perry Covington Miguel Acevedo RST /, Jeffrey Lynne is something virtually unheard of Dick Karlinger in any industry. The next 2% and 3% of Julia Normand Denise Garcia employee deferals will be matched 100% and the rest Edward Garduno Leasing Agent, JeffreyLynne will be matched at 50% up to 5% of the employee's Teri Hoerntlein Teri Hunter salary. In addition, new employees only have to wait Kevin Davis Assistant Manager, Crossings six months, versus 1-year, before being able to par- 1 Year Christal Sterling ticipate in the program. Cynthia Avendano LeasingAgenL Mountainside Since implementing these exciting changes, partici- Natasha King Gilbert Huerta pation in the 401K program jumped from 57%, of all Jamie Minotti RSTI, AutumnRkYge property employees, to 72%. Overall, employee par- Kerri Wilkerson Anna Vera ticipation is up 17%! It seems the efforts of an exten- Ronald Miller Leas/bg, Corona delRey siva campaign to promote enrollment-in the enhanced Carlos Valdivia ,, .¢' ,, Gilbert Munoz 401K program is really pay~qg off. ~ Danielle Briggs ~ Fernando Ramirez RST/, Promenade Alexis Alvarado We've Moved! Promotions RST,,Corona de/ Rey Stan Thomas National Housing Development Corporation moved Director of Resident Laura Gonzalez into their new offices. You can now find Jeff, Services RST /, Corona del Rey MaryAnn and Kelly at: Teresa Williams Julia Mungai Comp/iance Officer Project Manager, Corporate 10621 Civic Center Drive Teri Hoerntlien 1 st Floor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Addition of Crossings Cynthia Rios (909) 291-1400 Assistant Manager had only a single property to track. The upgrade to Yardi ~'~ ~ .c~._~ '~ ~ (~ '~' ~' ~ Enterprise will allow us to efficiently track our now more than 20 properties and give us the much-needed flexibility in reporting. InformationTechnologies Manager, Michael New features include a construction module that can track a Hernandez, talks about the old days with construction project from development to the time it's handed SoCal Housing with a mixture of humor and over to property management. A new maintenance module will horror. Our computer network was made up keep better control of work orders and inventory. of a hodgepodge of personal hand-me- Michael was hired essentially as an in-house field technician-- downs and Best Buy specials. The inconsis- someone to call when we had a computer problem. However tency of systems created a need for frequent SoCal Housing has grown at an incredible rate. Michael foresaw service calls and accompanying charges, that growth and because of his ambition and initiative, we were When Michael was hired as the Systems well prepared to handle it. Effective August 1st, Michael was Administrator in 1998 he immediately began promoted from Systems Administrator to Information Technologies Manager. His department has grown this year from a systematic plan of standardization. When a one-person department to three. Lisa Gonzalez was hired as an old computer finally went kaput, he replaced it with a system our in-house Computer Trainer and we are currently seeking a compatible with what SoCal Housing's needs would be. He ana- Field Technician. The addition of this staff will allow Michael lyzed those needs by listening to the, "If only we could do this, that more time for research and development of theory related to would really make this easier," and "As we get more properties, we new technologies and overseeing of our entire network. really need to be able to do this." Meanwhile, one by one, he built a network of computers with standard hardware and software lea- Although Michael is pleased with the accomplishments imple- tures. This dramatically reduced the frequency and severity of tech- mented at SoCal, he is not ready to stop now. Michael is already nical support needs and it also set the foundation for growth, expan- thinking and research ng ways to use the Internet to further and a computer network that could support it all! develop one of the most essential business tools SoCal Housing sion, On July 10th, the IT Department implemented the new Yardi utilizes. He says his goal is to create a standard for the industry that affordable housing has never before seen. No doubt his Enterprise software. SoCal Housing was previously using the Yardi ~ ~ . relentless passe, on will continue to "raise the bar" at SoCal Advantage software, the same program that was installed when we ~ , Hous~n~g! I NONPROFIT (888) 91-SOCAL www.schdc.org e SOUthern California Housing velopment Corporation ~ ,4 Non-Profit Housing Corporation 1 Trates Haydon Roe 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 19091 483-2444. Ext. 120 email: trae@schdc.org Fax [909) 483-2448 Southern California Housing Corporation Southern California Housing Development Corporation Southern California Housing Development Corporation, a non-profit housing development corporation, develops and manages affordable housing for very Iow, Iow and moderate income residents and promotes neighborhood revitalization and stabilization throughout the region. As part of its ongoing mission, So Cai Housing is committed to: Working with titles, counties and community organizations throughout the region to create affordable housing, primarily through cost-effident acquisition and rehabilitation of existing rental housing; Providing leadership and advocacy in support of affordable housing development. So Cai seeks to build the capacity of other community-based organizations involved in the preservation and production of affordable housing; Working in coordination with social service, public safety, public works and recreation agencies to stabilize residential neighborhoods which have suffered long-term neglect; Promoting resident self-reliance through a broad array of social services, including after-school tutorial programs, day camps and other children's activities; parenting classes; programs and activities designed for seniors; job counseling and personal financial planning. Providing high-quality property management sensitive to the needs of all residents of our properties. So Cai Housing is dedicated to the long-term quality and affordability of our housing and to the dignity of our residents. Southern California Housing Development Corporation F~tS at a OFFICES: CORPORA TE 8265 Aspen street, Suite 100 RanChO Cucamonga, California 91730 (909) 483-2444 (909) 483-2448 (fax) SAN DIEGO DlVlSlOIV 4322 Piedmont Drive, Suite A San Diego, California 92107 (619) 223-9222 (619) 223-9220 (fax) PURPOSE: SCHDC is a regional non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation providing affordable housing throughout the Southern California area. Working closely with city and county government agencies, SCHDC offers creative strategies for the financing, development, preservation and ongoing management of decent, affordable housing for very-iow, Iow and moderate income families. PORTFOLIO: SCHDC currently owns and manages affordable apartment communities located in all areas of Southern California, representing approximately 3,000 housing units. The organization plans to expand its portfolio by acquiring a minimum of 1,000 additional units per year. MANAGEMENT: Andrew B. Wright, Chairman of the Board John Seymour, Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey S. Burum, Executive Director James Aliberti, Senior Director, Property Management/ social Programs & Human Resources James Bancroft, Senior Director of Project Development Richard Whittingham,, Senior Director of Finance/Operations Mary Ann Jackson, Director of Operations Olen Jones, Director of Community Resources Dick Karlinger, Director of Construction D. Anthony Mize, Director of Business Development John Seymour III, Director, San Diego Division $o.~hern Ca,lfornla Houslng BOrdo/Di Development Corporation ~ ~m~C ~0 ~f~N JOHN F. SEYMOUR Chief Executive Officer Prior to joining SCHDC in 1996~ Mr. Seymour was Executive Director of the California Housing Finance Agency, which provides billions of dollars in vital capital to affordable housing projects statewide. From 1991 to 1993, he served California as a U.S. Senator, succeeding Gov. Pete Wilson's term in office. Prior to his time in Washington, he built a distinguished legislative career, including two terms in the California State Senate, where he was named Legislator of the Year by the California School Boards Association in 1988. He began his political career in Anaheim, serving first on the Planning Commission, then the City Council and one term as Mayor from 1978 to 1982. Previously, he operated a family-owned real estate business, and was also a loan officer with United California Bank. Mr. Seymour was elected President of the California Association of Realtors in 1980, where he led the fight for affordable housing and private property rights. He is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and earned a Bachelor's Degree in Business and Finance from UCLA. ANDREW B. WRIGHT Chairman of the Board & Co. Founder Andrew B. Wright's career in the home building and real estate development industry spans more than a quarter-century. In addition to his duties as Chairman of the Board of SCHDC, he also serves as President of Diversified Pacific Homes Ltd., a for-profit home builder. Prior to co-founding SCHDC in 1992, Mr. Wright was President of the Inland Empire division of Kaufman and Broad Home Corp~, one of the nation's leading home builders. Before ioining Kaufmao and Broad, he owned his own home building company, Andrew Wright Homes, and was responsible for constructing more than 1,200 homes in the Tucson, Ariz. area from 1975 to 1987. From 1972 to 1975, he served as President of the Arizona division of Tektron Corp., overseeing the development of some 1,000 homes, again primarily in the Tucson area. Mr. Wright served several terms as President of the Southern Arizona Home Builders' Assn., and was named its Builder of the Year in 1979. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Bowling Green University in 1960. JEFFREY S. BURUM Board Member & Co-Founder Before co-founding SCHDC in 1992, Mr. Burum served in a variety of capacities in the home building industry. His leadership and experience at SCHDC inspired the decision to form a national nonprofit organization, United National Preservation Trust, whose mission is to preserve America's at-risk affordable housing stock. Mr. Burum is now the CEO of that national organization. Southern Cailfornia Housing BoardofDirectors Development Corporation LESLIE APPLETON-YOUNG Board Member Ms. Appleton-Young is Vice President of Research and Economics with the California Association of Realtors, the statewide organization serving more than 100,000 members dedicated to the advancement of professionalism in real estate. In her current position, she is responsible for analyzing housing market trends as well as state and federal legislative and regulatory issues. SUSAN M. GEORGINO Board Member Currently the Director of Redevelopment Services for the City of Brea, Ms. Georgino has more than 10 years experience in the redevelopment, real estate and property management industries. She currently monitors all of the city's real estate transactions, oversees the commercial and industrial economic strategy and is responsible for Brea's affordable housing programs. Ms. Georgino also is the President Elect of the Board of Directors for the California Redevelopment Association. L, GAlL GORDON Board Member Ms. Gordon is a partner with the law firm of Pillsbury Madison & Sutro, specializing in real estate law. Prior to entering private practice, she was a Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney, responsible for advising city departments on land use, planning, entitlements, CECA compliance and other areas. She is active in numerous professional and civic endeavors, and is a frequent speaker on land use issues. IRA GRIBIN Board Member Mr. Gribin is a Iongtime figure in the real estate profession in Southern California, owning his own firm, Gribin Von Dyl Realtors, for 36 years. He is a past President of both the National Assn. of Realtors and the California Assn. of Realtors. From 1990 to 1992 he served on the Fannie Mae Advisory Council. Mr. Gribin is also a co-founder of Encino Savings & Loan and Lincoln Title Corporation. SAMMI L. REEVES Board Member Currently Mr. Reeves owns and is the Director of Marketing for Kennard Development Group, a real estate development, construction and consulting firm. A graduate of Weber State University in Utah, Mr. Reeves also formed Parity Contract Interiors where his leadership earned the company the National Minority Business of the Year Award, which was given by NMSOC. Mr. Reeves' professional experience includes two years as Senior Marketing Representative for Xerox Corporation. SEBASTIANO "SEB" STERPA Board Member Mr. Sterpa owned and operated his own firm, Sterpa Realty Inc., from 1962 to 1985, and today he serves as Chairman of The Sterpa Group, a real estate investment and management firm. Sterpa is a former President of the California Assn. of Realtors, past Chairman of the California Housing Finance Agency, and former President of the National Council of State Housing Finance Agencies. ROCKY A. TARANTELLO Board Member Dr. Tarantello is Clinical Associate Professor of Real Estate and Land Economics at the University of Southern California, where he received his Ph.D. in Business Administration and has taught since 1974. He has extensive experience in development, finance, market research, appraisal and real estate consulting throughout the U.S. He is also President of Tarantello & Associates, his own consulting firm. REGINALD YATES Board Member The Honorable Judge Yates has more than 30 years experience in the legal profession and is currently an acting Municipal Court Judge in the Los Angeles County Pomona Judicial District. A graduate of Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, Judge Yates served in the United States Army and is active in the community with affiliations with the Claremont Sunrise Rotary, Pomona Valley YMCA, Greater Pomona Volunteer Agency and Foothill AIDS Project. Development Corporation SO Boar LELAND S. BURNS, Ph.D. UCL4 graduafe School of Ar~hifecture and UrlJan Planning Dr. Burns has been a f~culty member at UCLA since 1961, and currently teaches courses In research methodology, urban policy and housing, emphasizing strategies and analysis for Iow-income populations both in the U.S. and abroad. He has written more that 80 books and articles, most dealing with housing Issues. In 1986 his work was honored with his election as a Fellow Of the World Academy of Art and Science. Dr. Burns has also served as a consultant on behalf of government agencies and private-sector entities around the world. JERRY EAVES Chairman, San Bernardino Courtly Board of Super~sors In addition to his duties representing the County's Fi~th Supervlsorial District, Mr. Eaves also serves as Co-Chair of the Inland Valley Department Agency, as Chairman of the Agua Mansa Industrial Growth Assn., and as Treasurer of the California State Assn. of Counties. He is also a Director of the National Assn. of Counties and the San Bernardlno Airport Authority. He IS a former Mayor of the City of Rialto and served eight years in the California State Assembly. LESTER GOODMAN Pres/dent, Goodman/Hix$on and Comp~tny Mr. Goodman has been active In the housing industry for more than 30 years, and has been responsible for the marketing and sales of some 80,000 housing units throughout the U.S. as well as canada, Mexico, Sweden, Britain and Australia. He helped launch the nation's first sales and marketing council in 1962, and Is a founding board member and past President of the NAHB's Institute of Residential Marketing. He currently serves as a principal of his own full service marketing and sales management firm, located in Irvine. BARBARA C. RIORDAN Former Supervisor, San Bereardina County MS. Rlordan served as Supervisor for the Third DIstrict from 1983 to 1996 and as Board Chair from 1988 to 1991. Her extensive record Of civic involvement also includes serving on the Redlands City Council; the Southern California Assn. of Governments; the Local Agency Formation Commission; Chair, State Seismic Safety Commission, the San Bernardino county Air Pollution Control District Board; the Countywide Homeless Coalition; and on the Board of the Corporate Fund for Housing. JOHN F. TAVAGLIONE Supere~sor, Fli~erside County Mr. Tavaglione was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1994. Previously, he was a member of the Riverside city Council and also acted as Mayor Pro-Tern. He was Vice chair, Board of Public Utilities, and Is currently a member of both the Advisory Council to the Graduate School of Management and the Chancellor's Advisory Committee at UC Riverside. Prior to entering public fife, Mr. Tavagllone was a successful real estate consultant and broker, having served as President of Lee and Associates Commercial Real Estate, and as Vice President and Manager with Coldwell Banker Cornmercial Real Estate. H. LAWRENCE WEBB Presidnn~, .John Laing Hnmes Mr. Webb Is a veteran of the Southern California home building industry. Prior to assuming his current post, he was President of A-M Greystone Homes from 1991 to 1996, and before that he served as a DIvision President with Kaufman and Broad Home Corp., one of the nation's largest home builders, and as Director of Marketing for the Colorado division of the Mission Viejo Company. His civic involvement includes serving as Commissioner of the Orange County HOUSIng Authority. He Is also on the Executive Board of the Orange County Building Industry Association. Southern California Housing Development Corporation Corporate Overview Promoting a vision of a better quality of life for hard-working, Iow- income families and seniors -- as well as a blueprint for the revitalization of dilapidated neighborhoods -- Southern California Housing Development Corporation seeks to deliver on that promise by providing creative, workable solutions to the region's severe affordable housing shortage. FOunded in 1992, SCHDC is now the largest non-profit affordable housing provider in Southern California, with nearly $135 million in assets and approximately 130 employees. The company currently owns and manages a portfolio of more than 3,000 units of both multifamlly and senior housing, and is committed to acquiring 1,000 additional units per year. In addition to its base in the Inland Empire, the firm is also active in Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego counties, with a regional office in San Diego County. SCHDC is a vertically integrated company with its own construction, property management, accounting and social programs departments. This in-house approach to its business -- unusual among housing non- profits -- enables SCHDC tO maintain strict quality control and cost savings throughout all aspects of the development process. SCI~DC works closely with city and county agencies throughout the region to help assess their affordable housing needs and develop responsive programs, primarily through the acquisition and renovation of existing multifamily properties or through development and construction of new housing. SCHDC continues to own and manage all of its properties in perpetuity, thus ensuring long-term affordability as well as the maintenance of decent, safe living conditions at each community. In evaluating sites and projects for possible acquisition, SCHDC gives priority to those serving Iow and very-low income families, as well as seniors and other special-needs residents. The company's housing experts work closely with local officials to locate sites, perform feasibility studies and financial analysis, determine affordability thresholds, develop management plans and obtain necessarY entitlements. The organization is responsible for project design, construction management, tenant/ homeowner screening and community relations. SCHDC staff are also experienced in foreclosure properties, Community Reinvestment Act transactions, Mortgage Revenue Bond and Low Income HOusing Tax Credit p roj ects. (continued on Reverse) Southern California Housing Development Corporation In situations where existing units are being acquired, SCHDC works to obtain loans and grants necessary to fund the acquisition, and develops financial vehicles which ensure both the long-term maintenance of affordable rents and the servicing of permanent loans. Both publiC and private sources of capital are utilized, often matched with local housing set-aside funds to create the optimum financing structure for each project. AS part of its efforts, SCHDC is also open to joint venture agreements with other local non-profi~ housing developers, for-profit builders and landowners whenever appropriate opportunities arise to provide affordable housing. The main goal at all times is to identify projects which are politically, socially and economically viable. In addition to its acquisition, development and property management programs, SCHDC has served as Technical Assistance Advisor to both the Resolution Trust Corporat!on and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for their multifamily housing disposition programs in California. In this capacity, SCHDC h,as assisted city and county housing authorities and other public agencies throughout the state in acquiring real estate assets to be utilized for affordable housing. In a housing environment dominated by rapid change, SCHDC has also emerged at the forefront in designing new strategies for re- engineering the nation's large portfol!o of HUD Section 8 "expiring use" properties. Permanent solutions to maintaining the affordability of these communities will help preserve thousands of critically needed housing units. Recognizing that the creation and preservation of affordable housing is only a beginning, SCHDC also strives to improve residents' self- sufficiency -- as well as their quality of life-- by planning and providing a variety of on-site social service programs. These include such activities as health fairs, employment counseling, after-school tutorial programs, day camps and other children's activities; employment counseling; parenting classes; and a number of activities designed especially for senior residents. With the shortage of affordable housing expected to continue not only in Southern California but across the nation -- at a time when government resources are strained to the limit -- SCHDC iS establishing a new paradigm for public and private sector cooperation. The result of this new relationship will be more aff.ordable hOusing being developed in the most cost-efficient manner possible, offering new hope tO troubled communities and a fresh start for thousands of our neighbors who cannot afford the high cost of hOuSing. ,o..thernCa, i,ornia.ou,in~ Community Locations Development Corporation ~ Summerwood Sycamore Sp~ngs ~ Rancho Verde ~ ~i~ Monterey LOS ~ The Colony CHINO Pa/ms Reprinted from MULTI HOUSINGNEWS I May, 1999 SoCal Housing Wins Two Pillars of tbe Industry Awards in 1999 Real Page Property Manager Most Creative Financing of a of the Year Multifamily Development Teri L. Hoemtlein Southern California Housing Southern California Housing Development Corporation Development Corporation Cathedral Palms T eri L. Hoerntlein has been the Community W hen Southern Manager for the Renaissance Village at the Housing Develop- Southern California Housing Develop- ment Corp. had ment Corp. only since 1997, but her outstanding trouble getting funds from achievements in such a short period of time have Cathedral City's Redevelop- shown why she has been chosen to receive the Real ment Agency to assist the cor- Page Property Manager of the Year award, poratinn with the Cathedral Hoerntlein has been described as an outstanding, Palms Apartments project, the dedicated individual who genuinely cares about her residents, the company proposed a creative company's non-profit corporation and the community at large, financing structure. The Between October 1997 and the present day, she has created, organized, agency first pledged its future 20 percent tax increment to Union Bank financed and implemented four educational programs, six residential of California for a $3.6 million loan to pay for a portion of the acquisi- social events, five community interaction events and numerous other tion and rehabilitation of the project. The repayment schedule that activities for the community. Union Bank worked out allowed the agency to finish the downtown The Rialto Police Department recruited her to become their revitalization plan. A first mortgage of $800,000 tax exempt, 30-year expert speaker on multifamily residency for their Crime Free semi- loan with a fixed rate of 6.5 percent was then originated, serviced and nars, and Hoerntlein speaks an average of once per quarter on held by Helmet Federal Savings Bank to pay the remainder of the behalf of her program to other property management professionals, acquisition. A $200,000 second mortgage was then provided to pay for D.J. Brazier, an officer at the Rialto PoIice Department says that the soft cost of this project. Then, a grant of $535,000 was awarded by Hoerntlein is a resource that he has grown to depend upon in his the Federal Home Loan bank Affordable Housing Program to pay the commitment to create a "Crime Free" environment within the corn- remainder of the rehabilitation costs. munity complexes throughout the city. He also says that she is a With the assistance of public and private financial sources, the cor- positive influence in the development of the program implemented poration acquired and rehabilitated the 232-unit property with an at her community complex, extremely low, per-unit total project cost of $21,444. This 30-year old Hoerntlein also pitches in wherever she is needed. She has offered community needed substantial rehabilitation due to the deferred her assistance on various properties when needed due to staff short- maintenance. Funding was very limited, but the corporation still made ages, and has contributed her insight and skills to create an applica- many improvements and repairs. Among them, cabinets, floor cover- tion approval criteria form tailored to each property, to ensure that ings and light £~ures were replaced with new ones, energy efficient fair housing rules are being enforced, windows, air conditioners/heaters replaced swamp coolers. Since Hoerntlein's arrival at the company, delinquencies have decreased from a high $19,483 in September 1997 to only $525 in August 1998. Net cash flow has also improved greatly during the same stretch of time, from a debit of $34,000 to a positive $11,000. The improvement is a direct result of Hoerntlein's ability to enforce rules, train and motivate her staff making her and her team a suc- cess story. ~- ~Southern California Housing ~T~evelopment Corporation Reprinted with permission from MULTI-HOUSING NEWS, May, 1999 MULTI.HOUSING /$ NEIGHBORHOOD REBIRTH BEST MULTIFAMILY REHABILITATION L ocated in Rialto, Calif., a city about 60 mi]es east of Los SCHDC spent in excess of $20,000 per unit on new flooring, elecUi- Angeles, Renaissance Village is the result of a successful cai work, plumbing, roofing, fixtures, apphances and paint; the com- pubhc/private parmership that has reclaimed a neigh-pany also added new landscaping, enW gates, a swimrahg pool and a borhood formerly crippled by drugs and crime. The children's play area. two-year, $7.5-mili]on rehabilitation project, undertaken by nonprofit New apartments here are set aside for families earning 60 percent or Southern Cahfornia Housing Development Corporation (SCHDC) in less of the county's median income (currently $43,300 for a family of cooperation with the Rialto Redevelopment four). Rents nmge fi'om $345 to $595. Agency, has resulted in the rehab of 144 units, including 90 threa-bedroom apariments for an under -served population of fame]les. When SCHDC looked into the project, the block of three- and four-plexes were all owned by separate entities, and absentee management had been a contributing factor in the neighborhood's dec~e. The company negotiated each acquisi- tion separately, convincing lenders that had taken back the properties to write down their notes and participate in this community revitaliza- tion "event." Once the acquisitions were complete, SCHDC confronted the task of renovation. Ail the properties were scarred by graft]ti, broken win- dows, accumulated trash and debris and, in some cases, severe fire damage from arson fires. None of the 144 units was occupied. Renaissance Village, before (topi and after (shown here] ~ California Housing .... Southern .... mt Corporation A Non-Profit Housing Corpor~lion Reprinted with permission from MULTI-HOUSING NEWS, May/June 1997 © 1997 MILLER FREEMAN INC. All Rights Reserved. Revi~oliza~ion Rip, Ilo, CaliJ~rnia Villa Serena Gets A Maheover A Chapter of NATIONAL ASSISTANCE LEAGUE~ Post Office Box 927 · Upland. California 91785 ° (909) 987-2813 2oeo2m. September 27, 2000 BOARD DIRECTDHS P,e=ident TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION vic,~,.id.,tl SUBJECTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ChairmanMembership GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02B BACHAELFUEBTE Southern California Housing Development Corporation T[RRIPOLhff ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-03 .Armc~ATr" .... JDB.X~. Southern California Housing Development Corporafion BAC. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND Ch,~,, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 CARD'~ GEDEO" Southern California Housing Development Corporation Chai .... ASSISTANCE LEAGUE® of Upland is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation of over 300 volunteers dedicated to providing new school clOthing, dental care, and other s0.cl,l~,,.,, services to local families in need. F~.~,~,~ Our chapter house has been located in this area for nearly forty years, at 8593 c~.,.,. Archibald Avenue. In 1996 we acquired the adjacent property at 8555 Archibald C.EmE~ARt~t~ Avenue. We lease parking facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center ThriD Siva, located at Arrow and Malvem. We are committed to this neighborhood and want to c~,ir.,, do everything we can to Improve conditions In this community. [ducatien We own the property at Malvem and Salina which is under consideration in the CbaJrman above-referenced matters. ",,~ngLan[IRange The property is presently zoned for commemJal use, but we would much prefer to cb,~m,, see the vacant land developed for senior housing. We look forward to welcoming ANDREA WlLLERt'. the seniors as our neighbors and as potential customers for local businesses. Ch,~ .... At present, the property is undeveloped and attracts several forms of undesirable PAThLJDDV,C, activity. Several times a year, the vacant parcels require weed abatement Buddings & G~ouad, services. There are recurring incidents of graffiti which must be painted over as S~ZA..[~'0WELL well as dumping of furniture and other refuse which must be hauled away. The area attracts a number of homeless and transients cutting through the properties. ,E~.6¥U.BE,6 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE of Upland supports the proposed use of the land, and we believe it would create a better and safer environment and improved property "' ~" values for the entire neighborhood. Esther Mort President, 2000-2001 Serving the communities of Alta Loma. Etiwanda. Fontana, Montclair. Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland Good evening. My name is James Martin. My wife, 2 daughters and I live at 6527 Mimosa Place, directly across the street from the project site under consideration tonight. I am speaking against the proposed General Plan Amendment and amendment to the Victoria Community Plan for the following masons. This action is proposed to revise the General plan and zoning designations for the parcel so as to permit outright, or with issuance of a Conditional Use permit, a project that will be entirely incompatible with the existing adjacent homes. The adjacent portion of Victoria Windrows is of the lowest density allowed by the VCP at 2-4 dwelling units/acm. While the developer says they have no project planned, it is clearly shown in the "Attachment to the Environmental Information Form" and the "Initial Study" that the they "anticipate that a development of an automotive service station with a convenience retail center and car wash is a viable use for the site." Further it states the project could also include a drive-through restaurant. These uses, along with most of the uses permitted by a CUP in the Victoria Community plan are incompatible with a quiet residential neighborhood. The Environmental Information Form, completed by the applicant is wrong, and intentionally misleading. It states the "project" is compatible with the surrounding area, yet, the application is virtually silent regarding the impacts to existing residents. It simply addresses impacts to the project property. It goes on to say futura commercial development will generate traffic noise, however, it will not exceed existing noise levels. This is inaccurate due to the added traffic drawn offthe freeway after CAL-TRANS installs their signs indicating "Food/Fuel Ahead 1/2 Mile." Likewise, the gas station will insist on, and will very likely be permitted, a pole sign visible to freeway travelers. These approvals often occur shortly after an election and we neighbors will be the ones to suffer. On the Attachment to the Environmental Information Form, the response to question 32, completely disregards the Police Department and any acknowledgement that mini-marts are high-risk crime occupancies. If you permit a zone designation to allow these kinds of uses, you may make an effort through project conditions to control public nuisances, however, this City, just like all Cities are not effective in "after the fact" code enfomement. This City's police department has a reputation of slow response times, I have been personally affected, twice. Likewise, the Code Enforcement unit is not only understaffed, but typically operate during normal business hours. The types of problems generated by these uses occur most frequently at night. The Environmental Information Form, #34, states "The proposed application for land use entitlement for the project site does not involve the temporary or long term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials." If so, perhaps when the applicant is again thirsty, they may care for a drink, of gasoline? The Environmental Checklist Form, Initial Study, Part II, has so many instances of contradiction it's comical. Item #1, Comments a-d, second paragraph clearly explains that significant vehicle traffic.., would expose residents to high levels of traffic noise, yet items a-d am identified as no, or less than significant impact. Item #3a-c with respect to seismic hazards were identified as less than significant or no impact, yet the comments for these issues clearly state the obvious as a result of the site's proximity to the many faults. Although reference to the UBC does reference structural issues for the building, fuel circulation systems not covered by this code are still vulnerable to moderate to heavy shaking. Further, an earthquake of a magnitude as referenced in this report, will produce ground shaking well above the design parameters established by engineering and code professionals when developing the code as a minimum standard of structural safety. Item #5d, Air Quality states no impact from objectionable odors. Have you ever walked by a fast food restaurant that vents kitchen odors into the atmosphere. While this may not be objectionable next to Costco, it is next to homes. Item #6b, transportation/circulation, identifies no hazards from sharp curves. This is fundamentally wrong. Every night speeders squeal their tires when rounding the new curves on Highland Ave. The access point for this pamel will create significant safety concerns from cars attempting to make the green light while others are entering or exiting this site. Item #9, hazards, although minimal, it is entirely improper to suggest no impact regarding spillage of hazardous materials, fuels, oils, etc. Item #13c, states no impact from light or glare, yet the comment states a future project will create light and glare. Let's not bury our head in the sand simply because the developer is piecemealing his overall project in order to minimize negative public sentiment. Item # 16c, Mandatory Findings of Significance, completely ignores the cumulative impacts, not just only of this application, but also of any probable future project, presumably including a car wash, fueling station, restaurant and mini-mart. Now, it is very important to raise a few other issues that this application conveniently omitted. First, for this application to suggest that a probable gas station and car wash will not impact traffic, volume, congestion and safety as it relates to the neighbors is tantamount to saying a gas station doesn't negatively impact traffic as a whole. After all, the vehicles visiting this site are not adding cars to the streets, right? If so, why does the City collect traffic impact fees from developers of gas stations. Graffiti has not been identified, yet the wall beside our homes has been tagged not less than 20-30 times in the 15 years since the tract was built. The negative impacts customary with the sale of beer and wine at mini-marts, i.e. loitering, debris, broken or thrown bottles, etc. can not be excluded. The site will become a teenage hangout as they seek places to gather. Most pre-driving teens will scale the masonry wall between our homes then jaywalk across Highland as a short cut to the mart. One of the most glaring omissions is from the lack of the obvious. The area in question is open space that has existed for 15 years right next to our homes. While a small area will remain, the realignment of Highland simply moved most of the area to Highland's north side. Victoria residents have been paying for 15 years into a landscape district for maintenance. As such, this space should rightfully remain open space. In conclusion, in the 1980's, this City expended many thousands of dollars in an effort to prevent the County's approval of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher, some 1-2 miles to the north of our homes. It seems ironic that it is now okay to consider placing a significantly more intrusive use right across the street. This application is about money only and is designed to help Lewis Homes market this site and reap an unanticipated profit from Cal Trans' generosity? Vote no, and tell Lewis to return the open space to those that paid to maintain it for 15 years. Thank You. THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: September 27, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02B- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the land use designation from Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-03 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the zoning designation from General Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Oveday Distdct for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southern California Housing Development Corporation for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project pursuant the requirements of the Senior Housing Oveday Distdct (Section 27.020.040 of the Development Code), including deviation from certain development standards, for 48 senior apartment units and one manager unit on a High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) site of 1.3 acres of land at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street. APN: 209-041-47. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: The request proposes to change a 1.31-acre parcel that is presently designated Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre). The intent of the applicant is to develop the property as a Senior Housing Project in conformance with the senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) standards. Under existing standards, the site, because of its size, would be limited to 24 units per acre. Because of the provisions of the SHOD, the applicant can request a unit density of up to 37.5 units per acre. This allowance will result in a senior apartment complex totaling 49 units. ITEMS K, L, M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 27, 2000 Page 2 B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Parking lot and neighborhood commercial center; General Commercial South - Cucamonga Elementary School; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Senior Center, single-family houses; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Office building, retail store; General Commercial C. General Plan Desi.qnations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Civic Community and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Commercial D. Site Characteristics: The site is level with a slight grade to the south and is vacant of any development or uses. A few mature trees are located along the site boundaries and there is a paved walkway between Salina Street and Cucamonga Elementary School near the east property line. No unique physical characteristics are evident on the site. ANALYSIS: A. General: As stated above, the proposed use of the prcperbj is for an apartment complex, restricted by Development Agreement, for seniors that are 55 years and older. The base High Residential zoning density would allow up to 31 units. With the proposed development agreement the total unit count would result in 49 units if approved by the City Council. B. Appropriateness of Existin.q Land Use Desiqnations: The Commercial land use designation for the subject site is simply an extension of the planned commercial uses for the Archibald Avenue frontage properties. The General Plan Land Use Map indicates that the Commercial area at the southeast comer of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route should extend to the Senior Center on Malvem Avenue and to the elementary school to the south. When the zoning was established, the commercial designations included the entire parcel along the west side of Malvem Avenue and extended to its eastern portion along Salina Street. As an extension of the commercial properties, the site would be appropriate support of commercial activities if they were an integral part of the commercial development (storage, parking, loading, etc.) along Archibald Avenue. If the properties along Archibald Avenue were to redevelop with this site, the expanded commercial acreage would definitely benefit the overall development's potential and viability. Presently, however, the commercial related development along Archibald Avenue does not extend to this area. As a result, this commercial area will most likely be developed separate from any relationship with the major commercial frontage off Archibald Avenue. In such a scenario, the viability of commercial activity on the subject site is questionable. The development would be not be easily visible form Archibald Avenue or Arrow Route, and vehicle traffic would have to take access offthe smaller Malvem Avenue (rather than Archibald Avenue) tucked behind the Archibald Avenue frontage. This would also increase Malvem PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 27, 2000 Page 3 Avenue's traffic to commercial levels. The senior housing proposal would not present such difficulties, as high visibility from major streets and easy access, are not critical aspects for senior developments. C. Appropriateness of Proposed Desiqnation: The site satisfies some of the Iocational cdteda established for Senior Housing projects. It is close to commercial development (along Arrow Route) that provides products and services used by seniors, and public transit is available along Arrow Route (Omintrans Route 68). Future office potential exists at the vacant northwest comer of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route, which when developed, could provide needed professional and medical needs for the seniors. Being tucked away from major commercial roads, the site presents a potentially less congested location than other existing senior projects. The relationship between the elementary school along the south boundary is not expected to be a significant issue for the seniors. The issue of school noise impacting the project should be easily handled by a concerted effort to mitigate its affects in the design of the building. Traffic generated by the senior housing complex is expected to be significantly less than what would be expected from most commercial activities that would presently be allowed as a matter of dght at the site. One aspect which is important to the appropriateness of the land use is that of development intensity as it relates to the site and neighborhood. In striving to attain 49 units, the applicant has stated that a three-story structure is being designed for the City's consideration. While the Development Code allows for this, in both the requested zoning and the existing commercial designation, there are net any multi-story buildings on the bordering properties. Preliminary drawings of the proposed building call for an "L" shaped building, with three story walls along all elevations. At forty plus feet, the project could visually dominate the immediate area. Land use decisions typically don't involve design issues, but the Commission should take into account the anticipated massing of a three story building and determine the appropriateness of that scale development with the surrounding area. Staff believes that creative applications of varying amhitectural techniques (such as stepping the walls, spreading the foot print, etc.) could visually "reduce" the influence of a multi-story building and which can be considered in the City's design review process. D. Senior Housinq Overlay Distdct and Development Aqreement: It is the applicant's intent to fully develop the properly with a 100% senior housing project. The Development Agreement has been drafted to satisfy minimum income levels of 90% of the median annual income. The request for a Senior Housing Oveday Distdct (SHOD) has included reduced standards that are appropriate for senior housing projects. At 49 total units, the project is within the SHOD's bonus limit. Staff is recommending between .7 parking spaces per senior unit and one space for the manager's unit. Reductions in open space, setbacks from drive aisles, etc. are in keeping with previous SHOD agreements, as well as providing for retention of the affordable housing features. Refer to the Development Agreement Resolution and its attachments to review the specifics of the agreement. Because staff's favorable view of the land use change is driven by the anticipated senior housing project, the agreement has wording that states the City would consider changing the zoning back to commercial if the project applicant ceases its interest in the propertT. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 27, 2000 Page 4 E. Environmental Assessment: Parts I and II of the Initial Study have been completed. Staff has determined that no significant impacts would result from changing the land use designations as requested in the application. Environmental issues will need to be analyzed when formal development proposals are applied for in the future for the senior housing project. When specific development projects are proposed, existing environmental review requirements will be initiated to ensure adequate analysis of impacts. Any significant impacts noted will be mitigated through the City's development review process. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant held a Neighborhood Meeting on September 5, 2000 at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. All those property owners from the expanded public headng notification list were invited. Approximately 12 people attended the introductory presentation by the applicant and project architect. The following opinions/questions were offered by the attendees: 1. The meeting notice should have also been pdnted in Spanish. 2. A few attendees thought that the site is not large enough for an apartment project of the size requested. They felt that the potential three-story structure is out of scale with the surrounding developments (all single story). 3. The size of the complex will result in significant traffic impacts on the two streets and into the neighboring single-family areas. 4. Will a traffic signal be installed at Malvem Avenue and Amhibald Avenue to help with the traffic problem? 5. The construction activities will disrupt the neighborhood and cause field animals and insects to move into the residential neighborhood. 6. Low cost apartment housing brings undesirable people into an area and can negatively affect property values. 7. The elementary school students will disturb the project residents dudng play activities and therefore the site is not compatible with the use of the site for senior housing. This may make the housing project undesirable and seniors may not want to live there. Will the apartments then be rented to non-seniors or left vacant? 8. It was requested that the existing shortcut across the eastem portion of the parcel to the elementary school be preserved in some manner. The applicant's representative responded to each question with an explanation on how the project design, management, or the City's design review process would address each issue. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 27, 2000 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of General Plan Amendment, Development Distdct Amendment and Development Agreement by the adoption of the attached Resolutions. All the items, with Planning Commission recommendations, will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit "B" - Development District Map Exhibit "C" - Applicant's Letter of Justification Exhibit "D" - Initial Study Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment 00-02B Resolution Recommending Approval of Development District Amendment 00-03 Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement 00-02 GPA 00-02B - Existing General Plan Land Use Arrow Hwy. ~ Application site.shp ~-~::~~ GP Land Use Designations ~ LOW ~_~.~ ::: ~LOWMEDIUM i::i ~ MEDIUM :::::: ~ MEDIUM HIGH ::: ~ HIGH :::::: ~ OFFICE ['~ COMMERCIAL ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL OJ ~ CiViC / COMMUNITY ,~. :::::: ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL m DDA 00-03 - Existing Development District Map Arrow Hwy. Senior Center ~_.~ ~///~/.~////f/////J////~ ............... ~ Application Site ~ I ~ Development Districts ~?/'~ industrial V//////////~ DDA 00-03 ~ LOW .~~ future Senior ~ LOW MEDIUM Housing Site ~ MEDIUM ~ MEDIUM HIGH ~ HIGH cu~monga Elementa~ School , no scale '~ ~-~ Southern California Housing 8265 Aspen Street, Suite ]00 Rancho Cucamonga, CA g! 730 (909) 483-2444 Fax (909) 4,8,3-2.4..48..~w~v~ .schcic.org JUly 3[, zuuu Alan Warren, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Land Use Submittals for Proposed Affordable Senior Project Apartments Southern California Housing Development Corporation (SCHDC) is submitting the following documents in order to develop the proposed affordable senior housing apartments. Enclosed for the City's consideration are applications for: 1. General Plan Amendment (from "Commercial" to "High Density Residential") 2. Development District Amendment (from "General Commercial" to "High Density Residential") 3. Incentives requested for the Senior Housing Overlay District Designation (SHOD) Development Agreement between the City and SCHDC SCHDC has been an active affordable housing developer in Rancho Cucamonga since 1990. SCHDC owns and manages four mixed income family apartments in the City. The proposed site for this senior project (which we are tentatively calling the "Malvern Senior Housing), is ideally located next to the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, located on the corner of Arrow Route and Malvern Street. The 1.3-acre parcel is located near many of the shops and services utilized by seniors. These services and project amenities are described in the attachment (Written Justification) to the General Plan and Development District Amendment. SCHDC's financial partner is the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency. SCHDC has a Pledge Agreement (using the RDA's Housing Funds) with the RDA, which will provide a substantial funds necessary to develop this project. Rancho Cucamonga architect, Peter J. Pitassi is the architect. SCHDC is requesting amending the General Plan and Development District in order to develop affordable housing at this location. A SHOD is required in order Exhibit "C" "Our Commitments Make A Difference" L to achieve the highest density possible, in order to make it possible to have reduced rents affordable lower income seniors. The benefits of this project to the City include: 1. Providing affordable housing is required in the RDA's Consent Decree, and the City/RDA's three five-year housing plans - General Plan Housing Element, HUD Consolidated Plan and RDAs AB 1290 Housing Plan. Affordable senior housing is typically considered a popular way of fulfilling these requirements. 2. The project would benefit the senior center and visa-versa. Many seniors would like the convenience of having such an amenity next door. If the General Plan and the Development District are changed from commercial to high density residential, the proposed project will meet all of the requirements of the SHOD contained in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.20.040 Should you have any questions, please contact me at 483-2444, ext. 130, or e- mail me at mtrabing@schdc.org. If I am not available, contact Traies Roe, Development Officer, at ext. 120. Sincerely, Mark Trabing Housing Project Manager cc. Cathy Wahlstrom, Redevelopment Analyst Traies Roe, Development Officer '. W.) $. B. B. ~ M. RanchU Cucamon~,.'% Tax code ~ea ~ ~ .... .. . ~ - ~JJrT~O~c INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) (909) 477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Name & Address of developer or project sponso~ t · ~ ~ ~ ~ Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): INITSTD1 .WPD - 4~96 Page I Information indicated by asterisk (') is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. °1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) ~/hich includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which ahow representative views int~o the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and frem the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 4) Assessods Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): ;~ 0 ~ '- ~' J ' ~'~"7 '5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): .~' ~ oo~..~' '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary: 8) Include a description of all permits which wilt be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in o~der to fully implement the project: 5 INITSTD1.WPD - 4~96 Page 2 Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees; trails a~nd roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all souroes of infon'nation (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): 1 O) Descdbe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): 11) Descdbe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: L: 10119 INITSTD1 .WPD - 4/96 Page 3 12) Descr~be the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate descfiption of the site in terms of ultimate use which ' wi/~resu~tfr~mtheprosed~~r~ject~!ndicateifthereareprep~sedphasesf~rdeve~~pment~theextent~fdeve~~pmentt~~ccur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: 13) Descrfbethesun-~undingpr~perties~inc~udinginf~rrnati~n~np~antsandanima~sandanycu~tura~~hist~dca~~~r$cenicaspects~ Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): 14) Will the proposed project change the pa~em, scale or character of the aun'ounding genera/area of the project? INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 Page 4 5? Indicate the type of short-term and Iong-tenm noise to be generated, including souree and amounL How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties'and on-.site uses. What rnethods of sound pmofing are proposed? '16) Indicate proposed removals ancl/or replacements of mature or acenic trees: 17) ~ndicate any b~dies ~f water (inc~uding ~mestic water supp~ies) int~ which the site drains: 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Disttfct at 987.2591. a. Residential (gal/day) ~. ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac). 0 Peak use (gal/mtn/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. __ Septic Tank ~[~ Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach pereolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) / 0,, ~ C~ 0 b. Commercia~nd. (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Numberofresidenlialunits: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: ~' ~ INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 Page 5 Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated iange of sale pdces and./or rents: Sale Pdce(s) Rent (per month) $ 22) Specify numberofbedrooms by unit type: 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: J - ~Z. ~0.~. v' ~, ~ ; ~ 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the pmjech Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: (~ b. Junior High: 0 c. Senior High 0 CDMMERCIAL~ INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Descdbefype~fuse(s)andmaj~rfuncti~n($)~fc~mmercia~~industda~~rinstituti~na~use$: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: INITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 Page 6 Indicate hours of operation;. ~/ ~ 28) Number of employees: Total: ~,~ Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Pr~vide breakd~wn ~f anticipated j~b c~assi~cati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as we~~ a$ an indicati~n ~f the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, ~/pe and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their responae. tNITSTD1.WPD - 4/96 Page 7 33) In the known history of this properly, has there been any use, storege, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic matertals? ' Examples of hazardous arid~or tox. ic rnatedals include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils. solvents, and other ttammable liquids and gases. Also note underground Storage of any of the above. Please list the re. ate#als and descdbe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. 34) W1~~ the prop~sed pr~ject inv~~ve the temp~rary ~r ~~ng-term use~ st~rege ~r discharge ~f hazard~us and/~r t~xic matedals, including but not limited to those examples listed above ? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. I hereby cerb*fy that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further unde~tand that additional infon'nation may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. INITSTDI.WPD - 4/96 Page 8 ATTACHMENT C (Initial Study) PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Malvern Senior Apartments # 9 - Physical Description The majority of the "L" shaped site is currently a vacant lot. Based on a 1996 Soils Report and a Phase I Report prepared for the Upland Assistance League when they purchased the site, the soil condition appears to be stable. A topographical survey performed by our engineer shows that the natural drainage course is to the south and west. The site is covered with Iow vegetation. The extreme northern end (the top of the "L") is a paved, fenced and is a gated parking lot that is leased to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for use as overflow parking for the Senior Center. Though the parking lot is currently part of the subject parcel, it will remain in its current use and will not be a part of the Senior Apartment development. This portion of the subject parcel as well as a narrow finger of vacant land that extends to Archibald Avenue will be deeded to the Upland Assistance League. The League currently owns the two developed parcels to the west. There is a six- foot chain link fence to the south at the border of the Rancho Cucamonga Elementary School with a pedestrian gate. There is a concrete walkway that originates at the gate and bisects the subject property. There is an existing residential development to the east on Salina St.. The property fronts on Malvern Ave. and Salina St. and the frontage includes city curb and gutter.. #11 Noise sources The main source of noise directly adjacent to the site is the Rancho Cucamonga Elementary School. Other peripheral sources include Archibald Ave. and Arrow Highway, however there are office and commercial buildings between these major streets and the subject site. #12 Detailed project description The project is located on the knuckle of Malvern Ave. and Salinas St on 1.31 acres. There will be (2) three-story double loaded wood frame and stucco buildings with interior corridors. The buildings will be connected by a central lobby, which will contain an elevator. The common area of the interior of the property will include a Community Room with a kitchenette and a Leasing Office. There will be a combination of one and two bedroom apartments. Onsite parking is accessed via Malvern Ave. as well as from Salina St. The site will include park like grounds and meandering walks. #13 Description of surrounding properties West of the subject property are two single story masonry buildings surrounded by paved parking. One building houses a thrift store and the other, the offices of The Upland Assistance League. Both properties are owned by the Upland Assistance League. To the north are a wood and stucco strip retail center and a fast food restaurant, both facing Arrow Hwy. To the east are The Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center with adjacent parking (across Malvern) and a Single Family Residential Development (down Salina St.). To the south of the subject property is Rancho Cucamonga Elementary. The area of the school that abuts the property is predominantly playground and parking. #14 Project impact to the surroundinq area The impact of the proposed senior apartment project to the adjacent area will be moderate. The traffic impact will be minimal as the residents of this type of property drive only out of necessity. Though the buildings will be three stories the visual impact of the project will be moderated by interesting architectural treatments and extensive softening with landscaping. Any noise impact will be slight, as senior apartments tend to be very quiet. The project will have a positive impact on the directly adjacent Senior Center through resident participation in the activities offered by the center. Overall, the project will be a net benefit to the community both visually and practically. #32 Water, Sewer, Fire, and Flood Control initial contact Domestic Sewer - (Per Cucamonga County Water District Eng. Dept.) There is no sewer in Malvern Ave. The sewer in Salina St. ends short of the eastern property line of the subject property. Extension of the existing sewer line would provide sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Domestic water - (Per Cucamonga County Water District Eng. Dept.) There is an 8" water line that extends south +/- 65 feet from Arrow Hwy. There is a 6" water 15, c, m line that extends from the residential subdivision west +/- 100 feet from the east property line of the subject property. Looping of these two waterlines would provide sufficient domestic water capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Fire - Fire can provide both fire protection from stations # 4 and #2 and medical services Flood control - (Per the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Dept.) The on site storm drain for the subject property would discharge predominantly on Archibald Ave. via an easement. The Engineering Department is confident that if we are able to put in place the easement, there will be no problem discharging the on-site area drainage onto Archibald. Though Archibald Ave. caries a flood zone area it appears that the subject property falls outside of that flood zone. City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 Page 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B, Development District Amendment 00-03, Development Agreement 00-02 2, Related Files: 3. Description of Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02B - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the land use designation from Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-03- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the zoning designation from General Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southern California Housing Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project pursuant the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay Distdct (Section 27.020.040 of the Development Code), including deviation from certain development standards, for 48 senior apartment units and one manager unit on a High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) site of 1.3 acres of land at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street. APN: 209-041-47. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Southern California Housing Development Corp. 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Commercial 6. Zoning: General Commercial 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is vacant and is surrounded by existing developments. To the east there is a single family neighborhood; to the south is an elementary school; to the west there are office structures, and to the north is a small neighborhood shopping center and the City's Senior Recreation Center. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 Pa~e 2 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Alan Warren (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (x) Land Use and Planning (x) Transportation/Cimulation ( ) Public Services (x) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resoumes ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (x) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resoumes ( )Aesthetics (x) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resoumes (x) Air Quality (x) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signed: _ -~.,/ ~ Alan Warren Associate Planner April 27, 2000 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( i ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-d) The application is requesting land use changes for a 1.3 acre parcel that is presently designated Commercial. The General Plan (GPA) and Development District Amendments (DDA) will change the land use designation to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Oveday District. The applicant's intent is to develop 100 percent of the site as a senior housing project with 48 senior units and one manager unit. The GPA and DDA ara the prescribed procedures for requesting land use changes. The site is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood and the future senior housing project should complement the area. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) (x) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) (x) ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-b) No construction approval will result from this application. The application has been made in anticipation of the owner's submitting a senior housing project. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. The proposed project will result in 48 senior housing units and one manager unit in the Medium-High Density Residential District (14-24 du/ac). The proposed project expands the potential residential use of the site from the current non-residential commercial zoning. Through the GPA process and the residential nature of the Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Parle 4 nearby area, this project will not result in a significant increase in population not otherwise planned by the City in its forecasts. c) The site is currently void of any structures. No existing housing is located onsite 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) (x) ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (x) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (x) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-c) No known faults pass through the site, it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault. The Red Hill Fault, or Etiwanda Avenue Fault, passes within 2 miles east of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 5 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0 - 7.0 earthquakes, respectively. Also, the San Jacinto Fault, capable of producing up to Mw7.5 earthquakes, is 8 miles northeast of the site and the San Andreas Fault, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 15 miles northeast of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. d) The site is not located near a large body of water. e) The site is flat, and it is not near any slopes vulnerable to mass-wasting events. f-h) The site is relatively flat so grading will be minimal. Grading will even out the site and create the necessary slope gradient to allow proper site drainage and avoid erosion. The Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of building permits will require a soils report. New structures are required to meet current earthquake standards as required by the Uniform Building Code. The impact is not considered significant. i) The site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Parle 5 Significant 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (x) ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) (x) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) (x) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (x) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception cf an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss cf groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) i) Su~)stantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) Development with impervious surfaces will affect the rate and amount of surface water runoff. This land use amendment should not significantly affect the amount of change anticipated in previous environmental analysis of the existing land use plans. b) Archibald Avenue is within the 100-year flood plain area according to the most recent FEMA maps. The flood plain extends approximately 150 feet east of the street's centerline. The limits of the proposes housing project are about 330 feet from Archibald's centerline. Therefore, the site is not located within any 100-year flood plain. c-e) The project site is not located near a body of water. Storm-water runoff will be conveyed to the existing public storm drain system as approved bythe City Engineer. f-i) The project will not interfere with groundwater management practices in the area because the site is not used for groundwater recharging. h, L., Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 6 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposak a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-b) Development will affect the amount of air pollution in the general area. This land use amendment should not significantly affect the amount of change anticipated in previous environmental analysis of the existing land use plans. c-d) After the land use amendment is approved, it is the applicant's intent to propose a project to construct 48 senior residences and one manager unit on 1.31 acres. This will not generate emissions that could cause climatic changes or objectionable odors. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (x) ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (x) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (x) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (x) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Parle 7 Comments: a) As a result of development, additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic will occur because the site is presently vacant. Similar increases would also occur if the property were to develop under the existing land use categories. No significant increase in traffic is anticipated from development under the amended land use category. Greater increases would be anticipated if the property were to develop under the existing commercial category. Since vehicle traffic is generally less for a senior housing project, the new traffic levels should actually be less than under any commercial development authorized under the present land use category. b-f) The future senior housing development proposal will be required to meet the City's existing street development policies and no significant impacts are anticipated. g) No reil impacts are anticipated as the site is not adjacent to any rail line. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, dpadan, and vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The site is not identified on the City's special habitat areas map for special environmental analysis. b-c) The site is vacant with a few (10+) mature trees along the west and south boundaries. During the Design Review process for the proposed senior housing project, the health of the trees should be investigated and efforts should be made to retain them within the ultimate project design d) There is no riparian or wetland habitat on-site. e) The project site is cut off from healthy, undisturbed native habitats and bands of non- native vegetation. It is not in a migration corridor. Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Parle 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) plans? b) Use non-renewable resoumes in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resoume that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-b) The project will not conflict with any energy conservation plans nor be wasteful. c) The project site is not located near any known mineral resource. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a, c-d) A Phase I Soils Report was prepared for the site in 1996 and the soil condition was determined to be stable. No known hazardous operations are known to have been located on the site since 1996. b) Any future development will be required to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 e) The site is not located in a fire hazard area. 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The site is presently vacant and generates no noise levels. After development with a housing project, noises associated with multiple family housing projects is expected. This level is expected to be less than significant to the surrounding area's ambient noise levels b) The highest noise levels affecting the site would appear to be from vehicle traffic on Archibald Avenue to the west. Noise from school activities will also be generated by the neighboring elementary school to the south. Neither of these noise levels is expected to be severe. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Police protection? ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Schools? ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Other governmental services? ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) The project site is in an area originally zoned Commercial, and, if changed as proposed, will result in 100 percent of the site as a 49-unit senior housing project that should not significantly affect public service needs. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project. No mitigation is required. Fire and Police protection - Additional protection will be required for the increased population and number of homes. However, as the project requires fewer resources than are accommodated within the General Plan, the impact is less than significant. Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Parle 10 Schools - Most any multiple family projects will generate additional students. The number of students generated by a senior project of 49 total units, however, should be significantly less (if not zero) than the amount generated by a multiple family development under the existing land use categories. The eventual senior housing project will incrementally decrease the need for schools while still providing for increased population growth. Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fees established by the school district, the developer will pay all appropriate development impact fees. Parks - The proposed project will incrementally increase the need for park and recreation services for increased senior population. Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council, the developer will pay all appropriate development impact fees. Public facilities -The proposed project will incrementally increase traffic on adjacent streets. Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council, the developer will pay all appropriate development impact fees. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) (x) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) (x) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) (x) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) (x) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) (x) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-g) The residential development anticipated to be built after the land use change will include the construction of total 49 units. The proposed development will extend, as necessary, existing systems and utilities available in the immediate area. The proposed project will not require major modifications or alterations to the existing utility systems. Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Parle 11 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Create light or glare? ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-b) The surrounding area is developed and includes other residential neighborhoods. Any future housing development will blend with existing surroundings. a) Any future project will create new light and glare, as the site is currently vacant. Low pressure sodium vapor lights should be used to minimize excess glare while creating safe lighting conditions. Landscaping will be in accordance with City landscaping requirements for residential neighborhoods and will buffer the site. The impact is not considered significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-e) · No previous information has been generated identifying the site with any known cultural resources. As the site is relatively small and vacant and is surrounded by development, the likelihood of affecting historical or cultural resources is minimal and impacts are not considered significant. Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Pacje 12 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) Any proposed residential project will incrementally increase the need for park and recreation services through population growth. The developer of any residential project will pay the appropriate fees in accordance with Development Impact Fee Schedules adopted by the City Council. b) There is no impact to existing recreational opportunities, as the site and property surrounding the project area is designated for residential development. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ~1LI ~/~ '~ © () () (x) Initial Study for GPA 00-02B, DDA 00-03, DA 00-02 City of Rancho Cucamonga Parle 13 d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project site does not contain Natural Resoumes as identified on Figure V-3 of the General Plan. Additionally, the site does not contain any Coastal Sage Scrub, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, or Delhi-Sands flowering-loving fly habitat. No sensitive species were detected on-site and it is unlikely any will move onto the site due to the lack of natural habitat. b) Dudng construction of any future development, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be emitted from grading the site and dust emissions could be sufficient to warrant the use of water or other dust palliatives at this site. Sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces. NOx and PM~o levels may be exceeded dudng this phase. Possible mitigation measures will be investigated during the environmental review of the Development Review process. c) The developer of any residential project will be required to pay development impact fees established by the City Council, the rates of which have been set to mitigate the potential impacts to fire protection service, police protection services, parks and recreational facilities, and other governmental services to less than significant. To the extent that a project may impact utility resources provided by private utility companies, potential impacts upon such services will be mitigated by payment of rates and fees set by each utility agency. The project will also pay transportation impact fees to mitigate incremental impacts to the traffic system. d) Any proposed multiple family project on the 1.31 acres would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pumuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981 ) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: General Pian Amendment 00-02B, Development District Amendment 00-03, and Development Agreement 0002 Public Review Period Closes: September 27, 2000 Project Applicant: Southem California Housing Development Corporation Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. Project Description: A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) and the Development Distdct zoning from General Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District and to establish a Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southern California Housing Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project pursuant the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Se~on 27.020.040 of the Development Code), including deviation from certain development standards, for 48 senior apartment units and one manager unit on 1.3 acres. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. September 27, 2000 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02B, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO HIGH RESIDENTIAL (24-30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 1.31 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF MALVERN AVENUE AND SALINA STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 209-041-47. A. Recitals. 1. The Southern California Housing Development Corporation filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 00-02B as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on September 27, 2000, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 1.31 acres of land, basically an "L" shaped configuration, located south of the intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street, which is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Commercial; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Commercial and is developed with a parking lot for use by the City's Senior Center and beyond there is a neighborhood shopping center. The properties to the west are designated Commercial and are developed with office structures. The property to the east, on the east side of Malvem Avenue, is designated Civic/Community and is developed with the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, and further east the properties are designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and are developed with single family houses. The property to the south is within the Public Facilities category and is developed with the Cucamonga Elementary School; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development through the land use review process of this application; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 00-02B - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 2 d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element by designating appropriate land use designations for senior housing on the subject site; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions listed in the Initial Study Parts I and II. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, satisfying the location requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area as evidenced by its close proximity to a senior recreation center; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions listed in the Initial Study Parts I and II; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan by locating senior housing in a complementary land use pattern near an existing residential area. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 00-02B to establish a High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) designation for the site identified in this Resolution and as shown in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. GPA 00-02B - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A']-I'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: rn > GPA00-02B General Plan Land Use Map Arrow Hwy. Senior Center ~ Application site.shp GP Land Use Designations ~ LOW industrial ::: ~ LOW MEDIUM ~ MEDIUM - ~ MEDIUM HIGH ~ HIGH Salena St. :::~;~ ~ OFFICE i :: :: :: :: :: ~ COMMERCIAL · iiii: ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ~ :::::::: i ~ CiViC / COMMUNITY ~. !!!!i ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL N RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH RESIDENTIAL (24-30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR 1.31 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF MALVERN AVENUE AND SAUNA STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN 2O9-041-47. A. Recitals. 1. The Southern California Housing Development Corporation filed an application for Development Distdct Amendment No. 00-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Distdct Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the an associated application and issued Resolution No. * , recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 00-02B be approved. 3. On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public hearing on September 27, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 1.31 acres of land, basically an "L" shaped configuration, located south of the intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street, which is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as General Commercial; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated General Commercial and is developed with a parking lot for use by the City's Senior Center and beyond there is a neighborhood shopping center. The properties to the west are designated General Commercialand are developed with office structures. The property to the east, on the east side of Malvem Avenue, is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, and further east the land is developed with single family houses. The property to the south is within the Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) designation and is developed with the Cucamonga Elementary School; and; c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development through the land use review process of this application; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 00-03 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 2 d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element by designating appropriate land use designations for senior housing on the subject site; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings of the environmental analysis. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct in terms of access, satisfying the location requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area as evidenced by its close proximify to a senior recreation center; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions listed in the Initial Study Parts I and II; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and with the Development Code by the consideration of a Development Agreement which contains provisions for the Senior Housing Overlay District designation. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations, which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Distdct Amendment No. 00-03 to establish an High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) District and accompanying Senior h,L,m ql PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DDA 00-03 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 3 Housing Overlay Distdct at the site described in this Resolution and shown in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day.of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: m >.: DDA 00-03 - Development Districts Map Arrow Hwy. Senior Center ::: / Application site ~- ::::::::::::::::::::Development Districts industrial ::: ~ LOW ::: ~ LOW MEDIUM ::: ~ MEDIUM ::: / MEDIUM HIGH ::: ~ HIOH (.~ ::: [[[~ OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ::: ~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ::: ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL OJ ::: ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-02, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 48 SENIOR APARTMENTS AND ONE MANAGER UNIT IN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (24-30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF MALVERN AVENUE AND SALINA STREET, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 65864 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 209-041-47. A. Recitals. 1. The Southern California Housing Development Corporation filed an application for Development Agreement No.00-02, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Agreement is referred to as "the application." 2. On 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public headng on an associated General Plan Amendment application and recommended to the City Council the adoption of General Plan Amendment 00-02B. 3. On 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public headng on an associated Development District Amendment application and recommended to the City Council the adoption of Development District Amendment 00-03. 4. On 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 5. The subject property of the Development Agreement is legally described herein. 6. A true and correct copy of the proposed Development Agreement is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. 7. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the associated Environmental Assessment prepared for said project. 8. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. This Commission hereby specifically finds that the Development Agreement and each and every term and provision contained herein conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. h, L, m PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DA 00-02 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the 'proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. This Commission hereby recommends approval of the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: lL, m q6 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DA 00-02 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-02, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT (SHOD), INCLUDING DEVIATING FROM CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 48 SENIOR APARTMENT UNITS AND ONE MANAGER UNIT LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF MALVERN AVENUE AND SALINA STREET, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 65864 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN 209-041-47 A. Recitals. (i) California Government Code Section 65864 now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The Legislature finds and declares that: a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other developments to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." (ii) California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Any city...may enter into a Development Agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property as provided in this article..." (iii) California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows: "A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the Agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density of intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density of intensity of development set forth in the Agreement..." CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 2 (iv) "Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this raference is proposed Development Agreement 00-02, concerning that property located at the southwest comer of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street, and as legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development Agreement." (v) On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed hearing concerning associated land use and zoning applications and concluded said hearings on that date and recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 00-02B and Development Distdct Amendment 00-03 through adoption of its Resolutions. (vi) On September 27, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed hearing concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date and recommended approval through adoption of its Resolution. (vii) On ,2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held duly noticed hearing concerning associated land use and zoning applications and concluded said hearings on that date and approved General Plan Amendment 00-02B and Development Distdct Amendment 00-03 through adoption of its Resolution and Ordinance. (viii) On ,2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement. (ix) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, this Council has reviewed the Initial Study, Pads I and II, and the Development Agreement, and certified the Negative Declaration, in ceompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. SECTION 3: Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above-reference public hearings on September 27 and ,2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a) The location, design, and proposes uses set forth in this Development Agreement are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity. b) The Development Agreement conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ~.~ ~) /-{6 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. September 27, 2000 Page 3 SECTION 4: It is expressly found that the public necessity, general welfare, and good zoning practice require the approval of the Development Agreement. SECTION 5: This Council hereby approves Development Agreement 00-02, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published with 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-02 SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the "Effective Date" set forth herein by and between SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California NON PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ("Developer") and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"). WITNESSETH: A. Recitals. 1. California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. Authorizes cities to enter into Binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property. 2. California Government Code Section 65915 provides that a City may, by agreement with a developer, grant a density bonus over that allowed by the maximum density established in the Development Code and Land Use Element of the General Plan when a developer agrees to construct housing for Iow income senior households. 3. The Developer has requested City to consider the approval of a development agreement, with a density bonus, pertaining to that real property located entirely within City, the common and legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The site is now zoned High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District, as enacted by Development District Amendment 00-03, pursuant to the provisions of City's Development Code, as amended to date hereof. Developer and City desire to provide through this Development Agreement more specific development controls on the site which, will provide for maximum efficient utilization of the site in accordance with sound planning principles. 5. The Developer proposes to construct a senior housing residential project, including Iow- income units, within the City. Said project contemplated by Developer will require an increase in the maximum density as currently provided in the High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) District with a Senior Housing Overlay District. 6. It is the desire of City to encourage developments designed to provide affordable rental units for senior residents of the City. In furtherance of that desire, the City is hereby willing to grant a density bonus, in addition to the Development District Amendment 00-02B designation of High Density (24-30 dwelling units per acre), to Developer as provided by the terms of this Agreement. The City reserves the right to change the land use designation of the real property from High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) to the previous land use designation, General Commercial, if the City has evidence before construction has commenced that the Developer no longer has legal or equitable interests rights with the real property. 7. That any housing project developed pursuant to this agreement, and any subsequent land use approvals required by City ordinances, shall comply with all appropriate provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 8. On ,2000, City adopted its Ordinance No. , thereby approving this Development Agreement with Developer and said action was effective on ,2000. B. Aqreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meaning: a. "City" is the City of Rancho Cucamonga, b. "Project" is the development approved by City comprised of approximately forty-eight (48) senior apartment units, one manager unit, recreational and common area facilities, parking spaces, and other amenities on the Site. c. "Qualified Project Period" means the first day on which the residential units in the development are first available for occupancy by Qualified Tenants and continuing for thirty years, except that the limitation that all tenants, occupants, and residents by Qualified Tenants shall continue in perpetuity, except for any resident employee occupying the manager's unit. d. "Qualified Tenants" shall mean persons or households who are at least fifty-five years or older and are senior citizens as defined in Section 51.3 of the Califomia Civil Code as amended from time to time. (i) "Very Low Income Qualified Tenants" shall mean Qualified Tenants who possess an income equal to or less than the amounts as specified in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105, as amended. (ii) "Ninety Percent Income Qualified Tenants" means a household whose annual income does not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the Area Median Income. (iii) "Area Median Income" as may be used in determining income status or rent rate herein, shall mean that determined median for the County of San Bernardino, as set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 50093, as amended. e. "Affordable Rents" shall mean the total charges for rent, and utilities, to a Very Low Income Qualified Tenant shall not exceed one-twelfth of thirty percent (30%) of Very Low Income, adjusted for household size. The total charges for rent, and utilities to a Ninety Percent Income Qualified Tenant shall not exceed one-bNelfth of thirty percent (30%) of ninety percent (90%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size. Initial rents for each unit shall be set by the Developer at the time of initial occupancy of the Development. Rents may be adjusted annually bythe same percentage that income has increased, if any, for a Very Low Income Qualified Tenant or a Ninety Percent Income Qualified Tenant, based on changes in the Area Median Income. At least sixty calendar days prior to increasing rents on any unit restricted by this Agreement, the Developer shall submit to the City the Developer's calculation of such increase. Tenants occupying units restricted by this Agreement shall be given at least thirty days written notice prior to any rent increase. f. "Effective Date" shall mean the 31st calendar day following adoption of the ordinance approving this Agree.ment by City's City Council. 2. Recitals. The recitals are part of the agreement between the parties and shall be enforced and enforceable as any other prevision of this Agreement. 3. Interest of Property Owner. Developer warrants and represents that it has entered into an escrow or an agreement by which it is to acquire full legal title to the real preperty of the site and that it has full legal right to enter into this Agreement. 4. Binding Effect of Aqreement. The Developer hereby subjects the development and the land described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. The City and the Developer hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Developer's successors and ' assigns in title or interest to the Development. Each and every contract, deed, Regulatory Agreements with the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the development or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument. City and Developer hereby declare their underStanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that the Developer's legal interest in the development is rendered less valuable thereby. The City and Developer hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment end use of the Development by Qualified Tenants, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Agreement is adopted. Further, the parties hereto agree that such covenants, reservations and restrictions benefit all other real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that Developer is an independent party and is not the agent of City for any purpose whatsoever and shall not be considered to be the agent of City for any purpose whatsoever. 6. Requlatory Aqreement: In addition to the requirements of this Agreement, the Developer shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the Regulatory Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. 7. Term of Aqreement. The term of the Agreement shall commence on the effective date and shall expire thirty years after the commencement of the Qualified Project Period, so long as Developer remains in material compliance with this Agreement, as from time to time amended. This Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated automatically if Developer does not obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the entirety of the Project within three (3) years of the effective date. 8. Restrictions on Rental Units. During the term of this Agreement, all tenants, occupants and residents shall be Qualified Tenants except for one resident manager. However, it is expressly understood by the parties hereto that the Project has been specifically designed to meet the unique needs of senior tenants. Accordingly, even after the expiration of the term, the limitation that all tenants, oCCupants, and residents of apartment units in the Project shall be Qualified Tenants shall remain in perpetuity, unless the Project is made to conform with all then applicable Development Code provisions pertaining to multi-family dwellings. Said apartment units shall not be rented, occupied, leased or subleased to occupants who are not Qualified Tenants except as provided as follows: a. A person or persons who is not a Qualified Tenant, but is a "Qualified Permanent Resident as defined in Civil Code Section 51.3; b. A person or persons under fifty-five years of age may occupy apartment units as temporary tenants for a period of time not to exceed three months during any calendar year. 9. Rental Requirements. During the Qualified Project Period at least twenty percent (20%) of the units in the Project, shall be rented, leased or held available for Very Low Income Qualified Tenants at affordable rents. All remaining units shall be rented, leased or held available for Ninety Percent Income Qualified Tenants at affordable rents. 10. Maintenance of Apartments as Rentals. During the term hereof, all apartment units in the Project shall remain rental units. No apartment unit in the Project shall be eligible for conversion from rental units to condominiums, townhomes or any other common interest subdivision without consent of the City Council. 11. On-site Manager. A full-time resident manager shall be provided on the Project site. 12. Tenant Committee. Residents shall have the right to establish a committee composed of tenants for the purpose of organizing social activities and providing comments and suggestions to the Developer regarding the operation and facilities of the Project. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to restrict the rights of individuals to organize activities and provide comments to the Developer. 13. Submission of Materials and Annual Review. Prior to occupancy, the Developer shall submit to City tenant selection procedures which shall detail the methods which Developer shall use to advertise the availability of apartments in the Project and screening mechanisms which Developer intends to use to limit the occupancy of the apartments to Qualified Tenants and Low Income Qualified Tenants. On or before March 15 of each year following the commencement of the Qualified Project Period, the Developer, or its representative, shall file a certificate of continuing program compliance with the City. Each such report shall contain such information as City may require including, but not limited to, the following: a. Rent schedules then in effect, including utility charges (if any); b. A project occupancy profile; c. A description of the physical condition and maintenance procedures for the Project, including apartment units, landscaping, walkways, and recreational areas. The report may be combined with, or form a part of, the Annual Report required by the Redevelopment Agency's Regulatory Agreement as long as it contains the above listed items. City shall be allowed to conduct physical inspections of the Project as it shall deem necessary, provided that said inspections do not unreasonably interfere with the normal operations of the Project and reasonable notice is provided. The City shall further be allowed to conduct an annual survey of residents in the Project in order to assess senior needs. 14. Tenant Selection, Contracts and Rules and Re.qulations On receipt of an application for Iow- income occupancy, Developer shall determine the eligibility of the occupancy under the terms of this Development Agreement. Verification of tenant eligibilityshall include one or more of the following factors: a. Obtain an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services, if the applicant receives income from either or both agencies; b. Obtain an income tax return for the most recent tax year; c. Conduct a TRW or similar financial search; d. Obtain an income verification from all current employers; and e. If the applicant is unemployed and has no tax return, obtain another form of independent verification. Developer shall be entitled to rely on the information contained in the application sworn to by the applicant. PJI agreements for rental of all apartment units in the Project shall be in writing. The form of proposed rent or lease agreement shall be reviewed and approved by City prior to the commencarnent of the Qualified Project Period. Such agreement shall include all rules and regulations governing tenancy within the Project. The rules and regulations shall include regulations which specifically authorize the keeping of small pets within all apartment units. 15. Termination and Eviction of Tenants. A tenancy may be terminated without the termination being deemed an eviction under the following circumstances; a. The death of the sole tenant of the unit; b. By the tenant at the expiration of the term of occupancy or other wise upon thirty days' written notice; c. By abandonment of the premises by the tenant; or d. By failure of a tenant to execute or renew a lease. e. Tenant income increases above qualified amount. Any termination of a tenancy other than those listed above in this paragraph 14 shall constitute an eviction. Developer shall only evict in compliance with the provision of California law. 16. Local Residency. Residency preference shall be given where possible and to the extent permitted by law to applicants to the Project who have been residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. However, that factor shall not be given priority over the other elements of Qualified Tenant selection as stated herein. 17. Hazard Insurance. Developer shall keep the Project and all improvements thereon insured at all times against loss or damage endorsement and such other risks, perils or coverage as Developer may determine. During the term hereof, the Project shall be insured as provided in the Regulatory Agreement of the City's Redevelopment Agency, 18. Maintenance Guarantee. Developer shall comply with all City maintenance standards enacted from time to time. 19. Standards and Restriction Pertaininq to Development of the Real Property. The following specific restrictions shall apply to the use of the Site pursuant to this Development Agreement: a. Only residential uses of the real property, including provisions of services needed or desired by the residents, shall be permitted in the Project; and b. The final Site Plan and development design shall be subject to a City approved development review procedure, to be applied for by the owner; and c. Notwithstanding the minimum lot sizes set forth in Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code, the development of the project shall be permitted at the high end of the density range, at 30 dwelling units per acre, plus a 25% bonus density as provided under the Senior Housing Overlay District, for a maximum density of 37.5 dwelling units per acre; and d. The maximum height for the highest proposed building in the Project shall be forty- two (42) feet, and its location with respect to adjacent single family houses shall be subject to a City approved development review application; and e. The maximum size for all the buildings and the proposed square foo[age for each of the apartment types located in the Project shall be as set forth in a City approved development review application; and f. The provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be established through the development review process. g. The maximum number of required off-street parking spaces shall be subject to the Development Review process, but shall be no less than .7 parking space per unit and no less that 1 space for the manager's unit, and h. The minimum private open space requirement for ground floor units shall be subject to the Development Review process, and i. The minimum private open space requirement for upper floor units shall be subject to the Development Review process; and j. The minimum number of washer/dryer facilities shall be modified from the Development Code and subject to the Development Review process, but not less than one washer/dryer for every 14 units; and k. The minimum building setback from the drive aisle shall be reduced to an amount not less than 9 feet; and I. Recreational amenities may be duplicated in order to fulfill the total number of recreational amenities required for the project; and m. A perimeter wall, if any, shall be subject to the Development Review process; and. n. The existing temporary easement for students' access along the eastern portion of the parcel from Salina Street to the neighboring elementary school, may be retained, or modified, through an agreement between the Developer and the Cucamonga School District and subject to City Staff approval. 20. Proiect Desiqn Amenities for Senior Citizens. The Project open space, buildings and individual apartments shall be designed with physical amenities catering to the needs and desires of the senior citizen residents. In addition to those conditions set forth in the development review process, following physical amenities shall be substantially included in the Project, but may be modified by the City during the Development Review process: a. Elevator service shall be provided to all upper story apartments; b. Units shall be designed to comply with the State requirements for disabled access for multiple family housing; c. All units shall possess secured entryways off a common enclosed hallway. d. Handrails shall be provided in all hallways; e. Building space shal~ be devoted for tenant group meetings; and f. Recreational amenities shall be oriented towards senior needs and may include, but not limited to, lawn bowling, gazebos, and barbecue areas and be subject to the Development Review process. 21. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold City and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for proper'ty damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of its contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on its behalf which relate to the Project. Developer agrees to indemnify and shall defend City and it s elected officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer's activities in connection with the Project with a counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. This indemnification provision applies to all damages and claims the operations referred to in this Development Agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this provision shall not apply to any such claims which arise out of, or by reason of, the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its elected officials, agents and employees. 22. Non-Liability of Aqency Officials, Employees, and Aqents No member, official, employee, or agent of the City shall be personally liable to the Developer or any permitted successor-in- interest of the Developer in the event of default or breach by the City or the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency under this agreement or for any amount which may become due to the Developer, its successors or under any obligation under the terms of this Agreement. 23. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code Section 65868 et seq. 24. Federal, State Preemption: As provided in State Government Code Section 65869.5, where state or federal laws or regulations enacted after this Development Agreement has been entered into prevent or preclude compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement, such previsions shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or federal laws or regulations. 25. Administrative Modifications: Minor conflicts resulting from the strict interpretation of this Agreement with the application of the City's development regulations may be modified administratively by the City Planner. 26. Enforcement. In the event of a default under the previsions of this Agreement by Developer, City shall give written notice to Developer (or its successor) at the address of the Project, and by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this Agreement, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within thirty days after such notice is given, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within thirty days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within said thirty days and must thereafter be diligently pursued by Developer), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under this Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, City may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Developer growing out of the operation of this Development Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Developer of any provision of this Agreement or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate. After completion of the Project pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, any default may alternatively be enforced as any normal violation of the standards and provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Accordingly, the following penalty is specifically included as part of this Agreement: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Agreement. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Agreement by failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Agreement is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be punishable therefore as herein." 27. Event of Default. Developer is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: a. If a material warranty, representation or statement is made or furnished by Developer to City and is false or proved to have been knowingly false in any material respect when it was made; b. If a finding and determination is made by City following an annual review pursuant to paragraph 13 herein above, upon the basis of substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with any material terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as described in paragraph 34 herein above; or c. A breach by Developer of any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in paragraph 34 herein above. 28. No Waiver of Remedies. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Developer if on periodic review City does not enforce or terminate this Agreement. Nonperformance by Developer shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult or expensive or because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than City. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing development agreements are available to the parties to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. 29. Rights of Lenders Under this A,qreement. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary ("Lender") of said encumbrance or lien, including, but not limited to, mortgages, shall have the right at any time during the term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to: a. Do any act or thing required of Developer under this Agreement, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender shall be as effective as if done by Developer itself; b. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (hereinafter referred to as "the trust deed"); c. Transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and d. Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed. The City agrees that the terms of this Agreement are subordinate to any such financing instrument and shall execute from time to time any and all documentation reasonably requested by Developer or Lender to effect such subordination. 30. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender and afford Lender the opportunity after service of the notice to: a. Cure the breach or default within sixty days after service of said notice, where the default can be cured by the payment of money; b. Cure the breach or default within sixty days after service of said notice, where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or c. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be performed within sixty days after said notice, provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a sixty day period after service of said notice of default on Lender by City and are thereafter diligently continued by Lender. 31. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a breach or default under the terms of this Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Project. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or breach by Developer unless: a. They are commenced within sixty days after service on Lender of the notice described herein above; They are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion; and c. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction or payment. 32. Rent Control. In consideration for the limitations herein provided, City agrees that it shall not, during the term of this Agreement, take any action, the effect of which will be to control, determine or affect the rents for those Iow income rental units located in the Project, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 33. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties hereto. Developer: Southern California Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 34. Attomey's Fees. In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and its reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during the proceeding as may be fixed within the discretion of the court. 35. Bindinq Effect. This agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits. 36. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and govemed by the laws of the State of California. 37. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 38. Recordation. This Agreement shall, at the expense of Developer, be recorded in the Official Records of the County Recorder of the County of San Bemardino. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be effective on the effective date set forth herein above, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: By William J. Alexander, Mayor SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. Dated: By. T HE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: September 27,2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-38 MODIFICATION - CLUB MATRIXX - A request to expand the hours of operation for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery Plaza, in the Specialty Commercial Distdct of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard-APN: 208-101-23. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 97-04 MODIFICATION - CLUB MATRIXX-A request to modify the conditions of approval regarding hours of operation, entertainment uses, and ages of patrons for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery Plaza, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-101-23. BACKGROUND: On August 22, 2000, the applicant submitted a request to modify his Entertainment, Conditional Use, permits as described above. On September 5, 2000, staff received Police responses raising concerns with the additional entertainment uses, the increase in hours of operation and the allowing of patrons under 21 years of age in the nightclub. The police cited that in the last two months, they have responded twelve times for issues ranging from vehicle burglaries, vehicles being shot at with firearms, fights, vandalism, and loitering by juveniles, etc. The applicant has been contacted regarding the public safety concerns. He is wiling to meet with Police staff in discussing and coming up with management and secudty programs that will be acceptable to them. Therefore, staff is requesting a two-week continuance so that the applicant can work with the police in resolving the public safety issues. The applicant stated he agreed to the continuance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the above two items to the October 11, 2000 meeting. Resp. e.~ully submitted.~_. City Planner BB:NF\Is Attachment: Exhibit"A"- Summary of Police Report ITEMS N & 0 INT,EROFFICE MEMO DATE September5,2000 ~ /_ PHONE 477-2880 NancyRanchOFong Cucamonga ~, ~[ [~ , TO City Planning ~~ ' SUBJECT Club Matri~ The ownership of the Club Matrixx has made application to amend their original Entertainment Permit. Prior to approving their request for the proposed changes, please note the concerns we have as the responding law enforcement agency. They are requesting an amendment to the permit, which would allow the following: · Karaoke, Dance Contests, Hard Body Contests, Hot Legs Contests, Costume Contests, and" Other Contests "that might be "in fashion" · Extend hours of operation until 4:00 am on Friday's and Saturday's. · Change the appearance and the requirements of their on-site security personnel. * Significant changes to allow under age patrons on the premises during times when alcoholic beverages are being purchased and consumed. (Please refer to the attached application for the New Entertainment Permit for specifics on the above changes). It appears that with the current entertainment allowed the Matrixx Bar is utilizing an inappropriate amount of police resoumes. The Police Department has responded to (12) calls for service over the last two- (2) months alone. These calls range in severity from vehicle burglaries to bomb threats and vehicles being shot at with firearms. If the new permit is approved it would be much more lenient then the current permit, mixing under age patrons with alcoholic beverages. Historically businesses that allow a~er hour's activity with under age patrons have a high incidence of disturbances, vandalism, and a wide variety of other problems. I feel that the Mathxx Bar should adhere to the same standards set forth by the city for all businesses of this nature. It is my opinion in regard to changes in the hours of operation, type of activities allowed, and the age of the patrons, that the city not approve the new Entertainment Permit in it's current configuration. We would be more than willing to meet with the plarming department and the owner of the Matrixx to voice our concerns, and to work on possible solutions to the current and future operation of this establishment. INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE Sept. 8, 2000 PHONE 477-2880 FROM Rodney Hoops, Captain Rancho Cucamonga TO Nancy Fong, City planning SUBJECT Follow-up Information on the Matrixx Nancy, The following is a list of the calls, and a short description of what took place, at the Matrixx since January of this year: 01/24/00 Responded to a call for assistance in reference to a female that had passed out in the restroom. One female was arrested for drunk in public. 02/27/00 Responded to a call for a woman that had fallen down. Female was found to have been very intoxicated and Fire personnel handled the call. Female was ultimately taken home by friends. 03/31/00 Responded to a call of a physical fight at the location with several subjects involved. Upon arrival we were advised the subjects had already left the location. 05/14/00 Responded to a call of a physical fight. Upon arrival the suspect involved in the fight was gone, but the victim was still there. Paramedics treated victim and a report for a battery was taken. 05/14/00 During the response to the call of a battery an unrelated subject was contacted and arrested for possession of dangerous drugs. 05/21/00 Responded to a call for assistance reft a female having an astluna attack. 06/18/00 Received a 911 call fi.om a coin phone stating there was a bomb going to go off at the Matrixx. The owner was advised of the threat and an area check was done with negative results for a bomb. 06/18/00 T-Stop done in the Matrixx parking lot for VC violations. Driver was cited and released, and the vehicle was towed. 07/01/00 Ped-Check done in the Matrixx parking lot, with one subject being arrested for "Drunk in public". 07/02/00 Vehicle Burglary reported fi.om the Matrixx parking lot. ! 07/02/00 Report of a Physical fight in the area of the Matrixx. Two different groups were fighting; both were dispersed prior to units arriving. 07/03/00 Vehicle Burglary reported from the Matrixx parking lot. 07/07/00 Report of two "Crews" fighting in the parking lot at the Matrixx. Security guard at the Matrixx reported at least one shot was fired. Units arrived and after an investigation one subject was taken into custody for shooting at a vehicle. One handgun was also recovered. No injuries to anyone involved. 08/09/00 Report of approx. (10) subjects hanging around the rear of the Matrixx. Subjects were contacted and one arrest was made for "Drunk in Public". 08/13/00 Report of a subject dancing around and talking to himself. Contact was made with the subject and he was arrested for "Drunk in Public". 08/24/00 Report ora vandalism where a subject knocked a security camera off the wall at the Matrixx. Owners advised they did not want to file a complaint, and the subject was escorted offthe property. 08/27/00 Report of a fight at the Matrixx. One of the subjects was injured during the scuffle. Found to be a mutual combat, report taken but no one was arrested. 08/29/00 Report of several juveniles hanging out at the location. Juveniles were contacted and asked to leave the location. The subjects complied and left the location. 08/30/00 Report of several juveniles loitering in the area. Area checked negative for anyone. 09/05/00 Report of 15-20 subjects loitering in the area. Subjects were contacted and asked to leave and they complied. THE CITY OF I~ANCH 0 C~JCAMONGA DATE: September 27, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bred Buller, City Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL- WHITE - An appeal of the City Planner's denial of a building permit to re-roof with standing seam metal on a house located at 6875 Pecan Avenue - APN: 227-254-02. BACKGROUND: The house was built around 1960 as part of a subdivision across the street from Etiwanda Intermediate School. According to the property owner, the odginal roof material was rock. The owner also indicated that the roof has been replaced twice and the proposed metal roofing will be the third re-roofing of his home. Prior to the City's incorporation, the roof was replaced with tile. No record of a building permit was found in the County or the City for the first or second re-roofing. The weight of the tile roof caused the structure to sag. The tile roof was removed, the structure was reinforced, and a 40-year asphalt shingle roof was installed. The asphalt single roof began to deteriorate after 15 years. The property owner desired to install a roof that would last; hence, selected a standing seam metal roof material with a Kynar 500 green patina finish that resembles weathered copper. Approximately one third of the standing seam metal roof was installed before the contractor contacted the City to obtain a building permit on August 16, 2000. To date, no building permits were issued for the re-roofing or the structural reinfomements. The City Planner denied the building permit on September 11,2000, following the Design Review Committee meeting. POLICY: The Planning Commission has had a policy requiring tile roofs on new construction since the mid-1980s. Re-roofs to replace other roof materials (i.e., wood shake, asphalt shingle, etc.) were deemed exempt from the tile policy. The Planning Commission policy was to allow re-roofs using the same material that was being replaced. This exemption was an acknowledgement of the fact that tile roof materials can be heavier, which could require expensive structural upgrades to existing buildings. ANALYSIS: The issue is one of aesthetics, not of quality. Metal roofing is a high quality material that is both durable and capable of withstanding high winds. This product has been tested to International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) highest standard, which is an 80 mile per hour wind (manufacturer claims it will withstand winds up to 120 mph). A wide variety of metal roof ITEM P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL - WHITE September 27, 2000 Page 2 materials are available, including the look of shake, shingle, or tile. The manufacturer provides a 50-year guarantee, and this particular product, with the underlayment, meets Class "A" roofing standards, according to the roofing contractor. The cost of standing seam metal roofing is higher than other roof materials. The question is whether a standing seam metal roof is compatible with the Etiwanda community. The property is located within the Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP). The architectural guidelines of the ESP state that projects "shall be designed in a manner that is sensitive to, and compatible with, the character of the surrounding area." Desired architectural and design elements which relate to the existing character are best described by the ESP as'. ·rural, rather than urban · informal, rather than formal · traditional, rather than contemporary · rustic, rather than polished Staff believes that a standing seam metal roof material is inconsistent with the desired character of the Etiwanda community. Although standing seam metal roof material can be found in several projects in Rancho Cucamonga, it has not been allowed for single-family tract home construction. There are no houses within the subject subdivision with metal roofing. The nearby Etiwanda Intermediate School was recently remodeled with metal "tile" roof; however, schools are exempt from local zoning regulations and exempt from the City's design review process. The City Planner indicated that metal roof material could be approved, such as shingle, shake or tile forms, which would be consistent with common home roof materials in Etiwanda. DESIGN REVIEW COMMI'I-rEE: Due to the policy implications, the City Planner referred this matter to the Committee (McNiel, Stewart, Coleman) on September 11,2000. The roofing contractor and roof material supplier presented photographs of the standing seam metal roof installed on the subject property (Exhibit" D") and manufacturers technical data (Exhibit "E"). The contractor felt that the new Sam Maloof residence at the northeast comer of Carnelian Street and Hidden Farm Road, which has a standing seam metal roof, was justification for citywide use of metal roofing. Staff indicated that the original Maloof residence, a local historic landmark, was built prior to incorporation. The new residence was only allowed to continue using standing seam metal roof for historic authenticity with the original house, which is being relocated onto the same property. The Committee recommended denial of the standing seam metal roof material. ALTERNATIVES: The Planning Commission should consider the following alternatives: 1. Replace with "tile look", "shake" or "shingle" metal roof material. The roofing supplier has offered to replace the roof material at no cost to property owner. 2. Replace with an architectural grade asphalt shingle. 3. Approve the standing seam metal roof. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL - WHITE September 27, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the appeal by upholding the decision of the City Planner; therefore, requiring replacement with suitable roof material, Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Initial Letter of Denial Dated September 11,2000 Exhibit "B" - Applicant's Response Letter Dated September 18, 2000 Exhibit "C" - Site Plan/Roof Plan Exhibit "D" - Photographs Exhibit "E" - Manufacturers Specifications T H E C I T Y 0 F NC I10 C UC A MONO A September 11,2000 Mr. Bill White 6875 Pecan Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 SUBJECT: BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO RE-ROOF HOUSE AND GARAGE Dear Mr. White: At the recommendation of the Design Review Committee, I hereby deny the Building Permit application to re-roof the house and garage located at 6875 Pecan Avenue with a standing seam metal roof. My decision is final following a ten-day appeal period which ends September 21,2000. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at (909) 477-2750. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION City Planner BB:gs cc: Rory Davis, Fanning Roofing, Inc. Mayor William J. Alexander ~C~ .~ Councilmember Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williams ~ Councilmember Bob Duflon Jack Lam, AICP, C=,ty Manager Councilmember James V. Curatalo 0500 Civic Center Drive · F~O. Box 807 * Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · [909] 477-2700 * FA)( 1909/ 477-2849 ~d www. ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us Mr. & Mrs. Bill White 6875 Pecan Ave. Etiwanda, CA 91739 (909) 899-1315 _ Received 09/18/2000 Brad Bullet City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P~ oi¥isiotl 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 (909) 477-2750 Mr. Buller In response to your letter dating 09/11/2000, your denial of my request for a Roofing Permit is very displeasing to my wife and I. I have taken many hours of my time reseamhing roofing products to fit not only my needs but the needs of a product that will perform long after I am gone. I have had a Concrete Tile roof on my house that did not work so I tried a 4o-year composition roof that only lasted little over half it's life before wearing out. When I called the City Building Department to ask for the requirements of roofing products they said over the phone it only has to be a class c roof or better for any product installed per high wind specifications. They did not in anyway tell me that looks were a matter. I believe that there is no city code prohibiting this roof to date on looks alone. Therefore, I bought and paid for a Standing Seam Metal Roof made by Custom Built Metals. I stand by my decision in proceeding with an appeal of your judgment of denial. My house is not just a house but my HOME my wife and I have lived in for 40 years. 1 also do not like your reference to my house in any way to be referred as or look like a trailer. Respectfully, ' Bill White CC: Mayor William J. Alexander, Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williams, City Manager Jack Lam, Councilmember Paul Biane, Councilmember Bob Dunon, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Tim Brown Custom Built Metals, Tony Chiovare President Custom Built Metals, John Cayer Legal Council Custom Built Metals, Michael Black VP Sales BHP Metals, Rory Davis Fanning Roofing, Jim Fanning Fanning Roofing, Daily Bulletin Mike Rappaport. C!!¥ HALL i05~0 CIVIC CENT£~' DRIVE 989-~77-~7~8 :~:.-, ~:g7 ~i i9i3 PLfiN~iH~ FEES P,'C APPEAL BiLL WHITE TOTAL DUE ~£CE~UE~ FRO~ fi6~75 PECAN STREEi kC CA CHECE: TOTAL TENDERE~ CH~GE ~UE ~.0~ city of ra monga UUILUII',,IL 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamong., CA 91730 · (909) 477-2710 PERMIT Stories Const Add~'ess ~[~ ~/~ Load ncc. Unit, No. DW. Lot Block Tract No. No. Lot SizeI File No. I APN Owaer Bedrooms Size Approved Approved J En~. Div. Iverified Health Dept. Approval A"h., E.gr., PERMIT Lic, No. E TRANSPORTATION Proposed S BEAUTIFICATION Sq'R' ~500 Haz' Mat' D°c- ~Yes By~ Sch°~mt Vedfied TOTAl Size Req'd. Pdor to ncc. ~ No Pe~it V~lida~ion Dale New ~ Add. ~ A~er. ~ Repair ~ Demolitio~ ~ No. LICENSED CONTOURS DECLARA~ON WORKERS' COMPENSA~ON DECLARA~ON ($5~).) Date: Applimnt: ~f~ion$ Code: The Con~actor$ License ~w does not apply to ~ owner of ] IS UNLAWFUL AND SHALL SUBJECT AN EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL offered for xale. 1~ howe~er the building or impmvement i~ sold within one year of PROVIDED FOR ON SCION 3706 OF THE LABOR CODE, INTEREST, AND ~d[ c~fYstatethatlawsl have read this a~icafion ~d state Ihat the above informat on s correct I agree to comply ~th all city ~d county ordinanc~ buil~ hereby authorize rep~entatives of ~is county lo enter upon the above mentioned properly Signat~e of Applique or Agcnt Date -- ~' ~ I~SPECTOR COPY _,2'gate '~ Plot n ~' ~" J[ [ BillWhite ] / 6875 Pecan Ave. Etiwanda, CA 91739 los (909) 899-1315 [ C) < ! 2' gate 45 Make the next roof you install the last roof you'll ever need. Now you can, with one of the many styles of roofing supplied by Custom-Bilt Metals, a national metal supply company doing busines for over 25 years. Each of our roofing produc belongs to our family of L.AST-TINI£® Metal Building Products. This means that each one ~ our//~$I-TIMI=® Metal Roofs is guaranteed last a lifetime. The CB-150 Titan~ Standing Seam Roof Panel is most commonly selected for the following applications: · over solid decks · light structural use · residences · in modified form, soffit panels and facades This panel features: ~' · roll-formed on the job site or in the factory I'l. ,,,~ · concealed fastener installation which allow: r 'v2- thermal movement · Kynar 500 Paint System thru 24' { · Siliconized Modified Polyester · available in 16 colors E LAgT-.'I'iME® Metal Roofing - Only available through Custom-Bilt .... Metals... for the last roof you'll ever need - Guaranteed.t .... WHOLESALE METAL SUPPL CB-150 Titan® Standing Seam Roof Panel Height 1-1/2- Width 12' thru 24 · AI!~y Grade D Rating ASTM E-1592 · Sgppi¥ Faciiities (815) 221-4272 ~-,.tlsa This product is most commonly selected for the following applications: (gte) 832-963B · over solid decks or a spaced purlin system Dallas · light structural use /~usron · in modified form, soffit panels and facades (713) 690-1113 Product Features Ph~eni:. 2517 W, McDowe]I #113, Phoenix, AZ 85009 · dual srr~enlng"" ' ribs (optional) (602) 484-7015 ® panel height is 1.5" 5 Sar~ Island Access Rd. · panel widths from 12" wide to 24" wide. The two most common widths are 12" and 16" Bldg. 928, RO. BOX 138, flonolulu, HI 96819 · panel is recommended for roof slopes as Iow as 1" in 12" (see CBM rep.) seztu~ · panel available in grade D, 26 gauge and 24 gauge material and special order 28 gauge 22211 7Bth Avenue S~., Kent, WA 98032 · Air Bag Test #ASTM-E1592 information available on this panel 23521 Connecticut St, Hayward, CA 94545 } 12" thru 24" 1510) 670-0330 Manulacturing Centers · Marketing CB-150 Allowable Unfforrn Load (Dead+-Live)-(PSF) For More Informofion contac. Washington Based on 24 gauge, 16' width · Headquarters SPAN LOAD/ 05,'30 0(! ti'ED 12'40 FAX 3o3 292 501.3 ZI3131ER)IAS' 51ETAL5 t~005 CERNY ,~ IV£y ENGINEERS, INC. 08/30/00 WED 12:40 FA~ 303 292 5013 ZI~IERIIAN ~ETALS ~003 ALLOWABL~ WIND UPLIFT LOAD (PSF) FOR: z- PANEL FoRM SS1500 PANEL PANEL ~OF PANEL SPAN (FT.) GAUGE WIDTH EQUAL SPANS 2.0I 2.5 I 3.0 I 3.5 I 4.0 4.5 I 5.0 I 5.5 22 GA 16" 2 t305 1195 1136 I 100 76 I 60 149 I 40 STEEL 3 I356 I 228 J 15, I 116 I '9 I 70 I 57 J 47 NOTES: 1. All calculations for panel properties have been made in accordance ~ith the 1986 edition of "Specification for Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual" published by American Iron and Steel Institute. 2. Values for 3 or more spans are based on % equal spans. 3. These load capacities are for the panel itself. Frames, purlins, clips, fasteners, and all supperts must be designed to resist load imposed by the panel. 4. Material: ASTM'A446 , grade "C" 5. All loads are in PSF. 6. Above capacitiu5 have been increased by 33-1/3% as per AISI sec. A4-4. 7. Minimum panel support bearing length = 3.00 in. CERNY ~ iv , NGIN£E:R$, INC. CONSULTING ENGIN~ESTIN~ LABORATORY January 22, 1997 Engineering Report 96505-4 zimmer~an Metals, I~c., SSi$0O Standing Seam Panel Uplift Test Beginning November 20, 1~96, testing of Zimmarman Metals, Inc. SSl500 Standing Seam roof panels was performed to determine their loading characteristics under uniform static uplift loads. The panels were 16 inches wide with a nominal 1 1/2 inch mechanically formed Standing Seam rib, 24 gage, steel and were tested With spans of 3 feet, 6 inches and one foot. She panels were tested in accordance with ASTM E 1592, Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Sheet Metal Roof and Siding Systems by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference." The 3-foot, 6-inch span test specimen failed at an uplift load of 72.8 PSP when a seam separated'at the clips. The 1 foot span test specimen was tested to the limit of the chamber seal (127.9 PSF) with no failure. Respectively submitted, Laboratory Technician STRUCTUP. A/. CALCULATIONS FOR: 16" WIDE SS1500 PANEL Prepared For: Zi~erman Metal~, Inc. 201 E. 5$TH Ave. Denver, Colorado 80216 Prepared Bg: Levi & Associates Consulting Engineers 9550 Forest Lane, Suite 313 Dallas, Texas 75243 08/30/00 %'/ED 12:40 FAX 303 292 5013 ALLOWABLE LIVE LOAD (PSF) POE: Z- PANEL FORR SS1500 PANEL PANEL ~OF PANEL SPAN (FT.) GAUGE WIDTH EQUAL I I I SPANS 2.0I 2.5 3.0 3,5 I 4.0 4.5 5.0I 5.5 1 } 1!8 75 I 53 I 39 I 30 23 19 I 16 26 GA 16" 2 ,t 1~0 i 115 I 80 59 I 45 *6 t ~9 24 STEEL 3 I 210 134 I 93 I 69 I53 I 41 I 34 2, 1 229 147 } 102 I 75 I57 I 45 I37 I 30 22 15" 2 255 I 16, I 113 t 83 t 54 I 50 41 I 34 GA NOTgS: 1. All calculations for panel proper=ies have been mad~ in accordance with the 1986 edition of "Specification ~or Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual" published by American Iron and Steel Institute. 2. Values ~or 3 or more spans are based on 4 equal spans. 3. Th=se load capacities are ~or the panel itself. Frames, purlins, clips, ~asteners, and all supports must he designed to resist load imposed by the panel. 4. Material: ASTM A4~.6 gra~e "C" 5. All loads are in PSF. 5. Minimum panel support bearing length = 3.00 in. 7. Loads are calculated ~or de-~luction not to excee~ 1/240 of the span. ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. 5360 WORKMAN MILL ROAD - WHI'I-rlER, CALIFORNIA 90601-2299 A subsidiary corporation of the International Conference of Building Officials EVALUATION REPORT ER 56 Copyright © 1999 ICBO Evaluation Se~ice, Inc. Reissued October 1, 1999 Filing Category: ROOF-COVERING AND ROOF DECK CONSTRUCTIOI~--Roof Covering (202) STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING In areas subject to wind-driven snow, ice build-up or wind- CUSTOM-BILT METALS driven dust or sand, two layers of Type 15 felt undedayment 9845 JOE VARGAS WAY are applied shingle fashion and are continuously cemented SOUTH EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91733 together with approved cementing material between the plies. Interply cementing is only required to extend from the 1.0 SUBJECT eave up the mofto a point 36 inchas (914 mm) insidethe exte- Standing Seam Metal Roofing. rio~' wall line of the building. Special anchor clips supplied by Custom-Bilt are then se- 2.0 DESCRIPTION cured to the deck using a minimum of two No. 10 by 3/4-inch (19.1 mm) screws per clip, s'peced a maximum of 48 inches 2ol Steel Panels: (1219 mm) on center. See Figure 2. In determining clip selec. The Custom-Bilt standing seam steel roof panels are pres- tion, placement and method of attachment, consideration sure-formed from 0.024-inch-thick (0.61 mm) (No. 24 gage), must be given tothermal movement, uplift loads and the build- 0.018 inches thick (0.46 mm) (No. 26 gage) or 0.015 inch thick lng structure. Justi~ing calculations must be submitted to the (0.38 mm) (No. 28 gage) cold-formed sheet steel. The steel building official for each installation. conforms to ASTM A 792, Grade 50A, with an aluminum-zinc Accessories such as guttem, drip angles, fascias, ridge alloy coating designation of AZ55. The profiles are formed to caps, window or gable trim, valley and hip flashings, etc., are 8-inch-, 12-inch-, 16-inch-, 20-inch or 24-inch-wide (203 mm, fabricated to suit each job condition. Suggested details are 305 mm, 406 mm, 508 mm or 610 mm) panels with 90- or shown in Figure 3. Details must be submitted to the building 180-degree, ll/2-inch-high (38 mm) seams. The panels are · official for each installation. roll formed at the jobsite to provide the standing seams be- 2.3.2 Fire Ctaeelflcation: The steel panels are conside~ tween panels, which are roll-closed over anchor clips by an Class A roof coverings when installed in the manne~ electronically driven, self-propelled seamer. See Figure 1 for scribed in Section 2.3.1, with the exception that one lay~l~' further details. 43-pound (19.4 kg) asphalt roofing felt, such as GS Commer- The No. 24 gage panels have an installed weight of approxi- cial Products All Weather/Empire, and one layer of 75-pound mately I pound per square foot (4.8 kg/m2), the No. 26 gage (33.8 kg) fiberglass asphalt sheet, such as Gafglass 875 panels have an installed weight of 0.76 pound per square foot Base Sheet, are used as undedayment in lieu of felt. (3.7 kg/m2) and the No. 28 gage panels have an installed The aluminum panels are considered Class B roof cover- weight of 0.63 pound per square foot (3.1 kg/m2), ings when installed in the manner described in Section 2.3.1, with the exception that two layers of 72-pound (32.6 kg) fiber- 2.2 Aluminum Panels: ' glasscapsheet, such as Manville Gtas Kap mineral surfaced The Custom-Bilt aluminum roof panels are similar in shape to fiberglass roofing, are used as underlayment in lieu of felt. the steel panels, and are. pressure-formed from 0.025-inch- 2.4 Identification: thick (0.64 mm) (No. 22 B. and S. gage) a~d 0.032-inch-thick The material is identitied with a label bearing the name of the (0.81 mm) (No. 20 B. and S. gage) aluminum alloy complying manufacturer, the material type, and the gage. with ASTM B 209, Alloy 5005, temper H14. The panels are coated with a titanium phosphate base coat covered with 3.0 EVIDENCE SUBMrf'FED 1 -mil-thick (0.025 mm) polyester paint. The No. 22 gage pan- Data in accordance with the ICBO ES Acceptance Cdteria for els have an installed weight of 0.5 pound per square foot (2.4 Special Roofing Systems (AC07), dated April 1999. kg/m2), and the No. 20 gage panels have an installed weight 4.9 FINDINGS of 0.6 pound per square foot (2.9 kg/m2). That the Custom-BIIt roof panels described in this report 2.3 Installation: 'comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code"', subject 2.3.1 General: The roof panels are installed over solid tot he following conditions: sheathing complying with the code. The sheathing is covered 4.1 Panels are manufactured, identified and installed with a minimum of two layers of Type 15 or one layer of Type In accordance with this report and the manufacturo 30 felt underlayment, installed in accordance with the code. er's instructions. The panels are installed on roofs having a minimum slope of 4.2 Installations arelimited to areas having a maximum 1:12, provided there are no horizontal joints in the plane of the basic wind speed of 80 miles per hour (129 kin/h) on roof. Installations on roofs having a slope greater than 3:t 2 buildings up to 40 feet (12 192 mm) in height in Ex- may have horizontal joints, posure B areas. Evaluation reports of lCBO Evaluation Service, In c., are issued solely to provide information to Class A members of lCBO, utilizing the code upon which the--'~ dation for use of the subject report. ~ V [ 0 Page lof3 ' ~ of 3 ER-4566 .3 The roofing systems are limited to a minimum and other flashing must be submitted to the build- slope of 1:12 and a maximum slope of 21:12. lng official for approval. For each installation, justifying calculations for an- chor clip placement and details for Hdge, valley, hip This report is subject to re-examination In two years. HOOK RIB OPTIOI~,L PENCIL RIBS ~TANDINGRIB ~ STATIONARY FIGURE ~---A,"NC~'IC'R CLIFS Page'3 of 3 ER-4566 RIDGE CAPS CONTINUOUS RIDGE CLIP RIOGE CAP (22 G~) NEOPRENE CLO~URE STRIP VALLEYS 'V"INHIB~SCROSSFLOWANDALLOWS FOR FLEXINGWtTHTHERMALMOVEMENT DEK~ I r ~ ' ~PE FLASHING Dektite" s a one-piece E.P.D.M. rubber cone equipped with a ribbed flange, which priorities a weathe~ seal while, allowin![~ for movement and ~ibretion It fits any pipe size, panel configuration or roof pitch. The corrosion-rasistant bonded nng at the base ~s 1-mm-thick alummum---1100-O, a flexible ;alo~ that bends to conform to panel configurations. HEADWALL FLASHING FLAT PROFILE PROVIDES TTITF Custom-Bilt Metal Roof Chosen For Better Homes And Gardens ,,.. "Blueprint 2000" Home :' How do you top a home that is designed to showcase the best home building and design ideas for the next cen- tury? For the editors who developed Better Homes And Gardens magazine's "Blueprint 2000" home, the answer was simple: a metal roof. The home, which was inspired by the responses from surveys asking sub- scribers to describe their "dream I~ome" for the 21 st century features more than 3,000 sq, fl. of standing sear'n .......... metal roofing, supplied by 'Fhi5 Chapel Hill. NC, "dream hon3e', designed by Setter HOIT~es Cuslom-Bilt Metals, a long- Gardens, feafure$ .3.000 sq. fi. of P/~etal standing sea,Ti roofing time leader in the painted supplied by Custorn-Bilt Metals. metal industry. Located in Chapel Hill, NC, "A standing seam metal attractive and long-lasting a the "Blueprint 2000" l~ome roof such as this is truly the standing seam metal roof can incorporates Ihe latest in inno- last roof a homeowner will be." vative and attainable designs, ever need to install." noted Custom-Bill Metals has home furnishings, high-tech Tony Chiovare, president of been a leading supplier in the products and materials, to Custom-Bill Metals. Tl~e roof's painted metal industry since create the ultimate I~ouse for polymer ceramic coating is 1974, and currently stocks the new century, acording to designed to endure decades more than 2,000 differenl Joan McCIoskey, Better of salt air, humidily, acid rain items in its 14 national branch Homes ..\t-~d Garder~s building and ultraviolet radiation with- locations. Custom-Bilt is a editor, out fading, chipping or peel- leading supplier of standing "Readers want the outside ing. seam metal roofing syslems of their dream house to cling The standing seam metal fabricated from steel, alu- to the traditions of the past," roof, finished in a Weathered minum or copper, as well as she noted. Yet, readers also Copper color, is both aestheti- Kynar-finished sleel tile, steel said Iow-maintenance was an cally pleasing and architec- shingles, aluminum shake important concern, so the edt- turally appropriate for the and steel or copper shingles. tars chose a standing seam home's classic exterior For more inforrnatio., circle metal roof that met both design, Chiovare added, reader service # 1 those requirements. '~rhe design is an increas- The 3,000 sq. ft. "Blueprint ing]y popular choice among 2000" home was featured in a homeowners who wani to special extended editiorial maintain the clean, classic section of the Better Homes lines of a traditional metal And Gardens November 1999 roof," he said. ~We were ver~/ issue. It was also featured in pleased to be asked to partici- a popular exhibit the maga- pate in this showcase home, zine sponsored in shopping which gives us an opportuni- malls in major cities through- ty to demonstrate to millions out the U.S. last fall. of homeowners IJ-~t how the city of Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report DATE: September 27, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 00-01 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to determine that a wedding chapel, reception hall, and banquet facility is a conditionally permitted use under the Church or Private, Non-Commercial Club and Lodge category within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Stone Mountain Chapel, has submitted an application requesting the Planning Commission determine that a wedding chapel, reception hall and banquet facility is a conditionally permitted use under the Church or Private, Non-Commercial Club and Lodge category within the Low-Medium Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant wishes to locate the proposed business at the former Buddhist Temple site at 7578 Etiwanda Avenue. Because wedding chapels/banquet facilities are not listed in the Low-Medium Residential Section of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, a Use Determination is necessary. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant's business is currently located in the City of Upland. The business provides an off-site catering service for company seminars, banquets, seasonal parties, etc. The applicant proposes to expand and relocate the business to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the previously mentioned site to include on-site services such as a Wedding Chapel, reception hall, and banquet facility. The applicant has identified that a majority of the business will occur on the weekends, with some activity to occur on weekdays. The impact of the proposed use will not be more intense than the activities associated with the former Buddhist Temple. The proposed use will be a compatible use for adjacent properties. Neither the Development Code nor the Etiwanda Specific Plan define a "Banquet Facility" or "Reception Hall." Staff believes that the nature of this use would operate in a manner similar to that of a Church or Non-Commercial Club and Lodge. ITEM Q PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 00-01 - STONE MOUNTAIN CHAPEL September 27, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Determination 00-01 determining that a wedding chapel, reception hall, and banquet facility is a conditionally permitted use under the Chumh or Private, Non-Commercial Club and Lodge category within the Low-Medium Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. City Planner BB:KC:gs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter Exhibit "B" - Location Map Charles Jose h Associates PUBUC/PRIVATE SECTOR ltt~'~GE MENT SERVICES August22,2000 Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Re: Request for Use Determination - Stone Mountain Chapel 7576 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Dear Brad: This is as a follow-up to a number of meetings and discussion with you and Planning Division staff concerning the referenced matter. As you are well aware, our firm has been retained to provide Development Liaison services to facilitate approval of a wedding chapel, reception and banquet use at the former Buddhist Temple site. We believe the uses contemplated as a component of the Stone Mountain Chapel business activity are no different than those that occurred when the site was operated as a church. In addition, we also believe the referenced location is a perfect setting and location for the desired use due to the existing location and site configuration, ~nd will serve to be a very compatible use for properties adjacent to our location. As always, you courteous and expedient assistance is most appreciated on behalf of our client. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Cc: Dick Heilman, Stone Mountain Catedng Office 909e481e1822 800e240e1822 Fax 909o481e1824 Ciw Center · 10681 Foothil] Blvd., Suite 395 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA · 91730 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION EXHIBIT "A" Use Determination 00-01 Stone Mountain Chapel 7576 Etiwanda 0~480 960 Feet Location Map' THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: September 27, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Mike Smith, Planning Technician SUBJECT: DIRECTOR'S REPORT 00-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to initiate an amendment to the Development Code to reduce the required distance between major wireless communication facilities and residential districts or residential structures from 500 feet to 300 feet, BACKGROUND: A wireless communication facility is a facility that is used for the reception and transmission of cellular personal phone services and/or data radio communications. Typically, these facilities consist of a pole, antenna array, and base transceiver equipment. The Development Code defines a major wireless communication facility as any facility that exceeds the maximum height requirement of the district in which it is located. A major wireless communication facility may not be located within 500 feet of a residential district or structure. ANALYSIS: Clear, uninterrupted wireless communication service is dependent on adequate coverage. Various factors including topography, the presence of tall structures, and the distance between facilities can affect the quality and the strength of the communication signal. Therefore, most wireless companies will locate and construct their facilities according to the need to ovemome these limitations. The Wireless Ordinance currently restricts the location of major wireless facilities to areas that are at least 500 feet from residential districts or structures. Most of the City west of Haven Avenue and north of Foothill Boulevard, and most of the Etiwanda areas, would be "off-limits" to facility siting (see Exhibit "B"). Thus, locations where the services would be needed most, such as major streets, commercial areas, and the new Foothill Freeway (SR-30) would have limited coverage. The Wireless Ordinance does allow a wireless facility to be located in residential districts if its height is below the maximum height requirement of the surrounding district. However, a greater number of shorter facilities would be necessary to achieve the equivalent coverage as a taller facility. More, shorter monopole antennas would increase the aesthetic impact upon the community. ITEM R PLANNIGN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 00-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 27, 2000 Page 2 Staff believes that the distance a major wireless communication facility must be located from a residential district or structure should be reduced from 500 feet to 300 feet. By doing so, the locations where a major facility may be located will increase to include "pockets" where their presence will not have a significant visual impact. These pockets include shopping centers and parks. In addition, the wireless companies are now able to disguise their facilities to resemble trees, further minimizing their visual presence. The minimum distance buffer of 300 feet will continue to protect the interests of the City's residents while allowing the wireless communication companies to provide adequate service. All major wireless facilities will continue to be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process and review by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the initiation to amend the Development Code to reduce the required distance between major wireless communication facilities and residential districts. Respectfully submitted, City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Wireless Ordinance excerpts Exhibit"B"-Major wireless communication facility 500-foot and 300-foot distance buffer Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.26. 030 b. On existing structures such as buildings, communication towers, or utility facilities. c. On existing signal, power, light, or similar kinds of poles. d. In industrial districts. e. In commercial districts. f. In residential districts (minor wireless communications facilities only). 5. Major. wireless commun cat on fac t es are not perm tted to 10~c~.~te within 500 feet of any '~;~'i-~ J~ti'fi i~ i~ ~;~i~'~Vii;~i~ ~y ;~si~l~i~l Ji~ r i(~t",": o~r ~V iih~ ~ ~oo'~ei of~y exisungl ie[jally established major wireless communication facility except as follows: a. When co-located on the same building, structure, or wireless facility. b. The facility replaces or modifies an existing facility for purposes of co-location. For the purposes of this Chapter, all distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures, from the nearest point of the proposed major wireless communication facility to the nearest property line of any residential land use, or to the nearest point of another major wireless communication facility. B. Development Requiremenl,s. 1. As parl of the application process, applicants for wireless communication facilities shall be required to provide written documentation demonstrating good faith efforts in locating facilities in accordance with the Site Selection Guidelines (order of preference). 2. Wireless communication facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning, or other required seals or legally required signage. 3. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of the wireless communication facility shall be located within a building, enclosure, or underground vault that complies with the development standards of the district in which the accessory equipment is located, subject to City appioval. If the equipment is permitted to be located above ground, it shall be visually compatible with the surrounding buildings and include sufficient landscaping to screen the structure from view. 4. Wireless communication facilities shall be subdued colors and non-reflective materials which blend with surrounding materials and colors. 5. All screening for building-mounted facilities shall be compatible with the existing architecture, color, texture, and/or materials of the building. 6. Monopoles and antennas shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the wireless communications 17.26-3 10199 Rancho Cttcamonga Development Code Sections 17.26.040 - 17.26.070 facility. The applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the City Planner establishing compliance with this subsection. Section 17.26.040 -Approval of Minor Wireless Communication Facilities. Minor wireless communication facilities shall be subject to approval by the City Planner pursuant to Section 17.06.020 Minor Development Review procedures of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. In considering applications for minor wireless communication facilities, the City Planner shall be guided by both the provisions of Section'17.06,020 and this Chapter. However, in the event of any inconsistency in said standards, the provisions of this Chapter shall govern. The decision of the City Planner shall be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days pursuant to Section 17.020,080 of the Ra_ncho. Cuca. mon_ga .Deyelopment Code. Section !7..!26.050. Approval of Major Wireless Communication Facilities; Major wireless communication facilities shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission. In considering applications for major wireless communications facilities, the Planning Commission shall be guided by the provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and this Chapter. However, in the event of any inconsistencies in said standards, the provisions of this Chapter shall govern. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless appealed in writing within 10 calendar days pursuant to Section 17.02.080 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Section 17.26.051 - Deployment of Temporary Facility. A temporary wireless communication facility may be deployed subject to approval by the City Planner and the following: 1. A permanent wireless communication facility has been approved for the property in question. 2. The temporary facility was approved as part of the conditional use permit or minor development review. 3. The facility is deployed for no more than 6 months, provided that two extensions may be granted by the City Planner; however, the total period shall not exceed one year. Section 1~6.060 - Height Criteria for Major Wireless Communications Facilities. No wireless communications facility shall exceed the maximum building height for the applicable district unless the facility is utilized by two or more wireless communication providers pursuant to a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission may consider approval of facilities proposed to exceed the maximum height limit subject to the review and approval of a conditional use permit application pursuant to Section 17.04.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Section 17.26.070 - Conditional Use Permit Required. Each major wireless communication facility for which an application is made during the term of this Chapter must first receive final approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 17.04.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. As a condition of issuance of a conditional use permit for a facility utilizing the public right-of-way, an applicant may be required to enter into a franchise agreement with the City. 17.26-4 Major Wireless Communication Facility EXC US Oh zones ' 00 and 300 : ! I i at 5 ' I ! HI SUMMIT BANYAN iD (SR-30) BASE LI FOOTHI I---I 500' Buffer [~/300' Buffer /~/l_M..ajor Roads/Highways ARROW ~?~.Jcity Boundary " /~ ~ ISphere of Influence Boundary '~ ....i /Residential Zones £XHIBII 'B' "' RESOLUTION 2000-01 A Resolution by the Board of Directors of Deer Canyon Little League To Fully SupPort and Approve the Development of a Little League Baseball Facility within The Rancho Etiwanda Development, Project , WHEREAS, DEER CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE, as been charted since 1987. and has provided Little League Baseball activities promoting the values of character, courage and loyalty to o~/er 4,400 youths in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; a. nd WHEREAS,, DEER CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE as faithfully and unselfishly developed and maintained the athletic facilities at Deer. CanyOn Elementary School for the last 14 years to temporarily provide.Little:League Baseball activities to the youths of Rancho .Cucamonga; and · WHEREAS, DEER CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE, in Seeking tO address the needs to its League, players, parents and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is seeking to. become a partner with the C ty and ' The SunCal Development Company in establishing a permanent lighted baseball facility for DEEP,~ CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE within the Rancho Etiwanda Development project; and WHEREAS, DEER CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE, with its baseball organization management and facil!ty experience, as well as'access to numerous Little League Baseball Incorporated resources, is w!lling to volunteer these resources in the planning and design of a baseball facility which will meet the needs of Deer Canyon Little League and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for years to come; and WHEREAS, DEER cANYON LITTLE LEAGUE, charted as .a non-profit organization within Little League Baseball Incorporated, will seek to raise monies and acquire services from League membership and through community business dona!ions and sponsorships, in order to support the establishment of additional amenities needed tq provide a quality baseball facility. ' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors'of Dee? Canyon Little League, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including Mayor Bill Alexander, City Councilman Bob Dutton and 'the entire City .Council, along with Mr. Bruce Elieff of the SunCal Development Company, be congratulated and commended for their leadership, direction a.nd guidance in the construction of a.permanent Little League baseball facility for Deer Canyon Little League t.o be enjoyed and utilized by the youths of the City of P,ancho Cucamonga for many years in the future. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5~ day of September; 2000. Joe/~stillo -,President Michele Pathe - Secretary